The use of “than” in the ontological argument

[Kalkas]

Hello,

I am a little bit confused by the use of “than” in these sentences (which are from Anselm’s famous ontological argument):

1) ”A being than which nothing greater can be conceived is ….”
2) “Something exists in the understanding than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
3) ”If that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived.”

I understand that we usually use “than” when we compare things (as in “he is older than her”) or to use as the expression of preference (as in “rather than”). But here in this context, I cannot completely grasp how it is used here. I struggle with the first sentence, and it seems that the use of “than” in the first is the same as in other two sentences.

Is something compared in the 1st sentence? Could it be rewritten as follows: “A being that is such that nothing greater can be conceived than itself”? Is the use of “than” in this context unusual? The thing which confuses me is that I expect some adjective before “than” in the context of comparison (as in “older than”). But the adjective “greater” is after “than.”

Best regards,
Kalkas

 

[emsr2d2]

Does it help if I reword sentence 1, for example, as this?

We (people) cannot conceive of anything greater than ...

 

[jutfrank]

Those are all comparative uses, yes. These sentences have relative clause structures, which is apparently confusing you. Here's how I'd reword the first proposition:

It is not possible to conceive of a being greater than God.

 

[probus]

The author of the passage is St Anselm, who lived from 1033 to 1109. He could not have written in modern English. For better or for worse the person who modernized his words chose to stick with his original word order.

 

[jutfrank]

Anselm wrote the original formulation in Latin.

 

[Phaedrus]

Is something compared in the 1st sentence? Could it be rewritten as follows: “A being that is such that nothing greater can be conceived than itself”? Is the use of “than” in this context unusual? The thing which confuses me is that I expect some adjective before “than” in the context of comparison (as in “older than”). But the adjective “greater” is after “than.”

"Than" still relates to "greater," even though "greater" comes after "than." In each of your examples, "than which" begins a relative clause.

In your examples, "than which" works like "on which" in "the shelf on which I put the book."

I put the book on the shelf. That is the shelf which I put the book on. That is the shelf on which I put the book.

Nothing greater than this being can be conceived. It is a being which nothing greater than can be conceived. It is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

 

[Phaedrus]

Nothing greater than this being can be conceived. It is a being which nothing greater than can be conceived. It is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

It is interesting to ask why the second and third second and third sentences quoted above—especially the second—sound so bad.

(The third is able to slide by philosophically, we might say, by basking in the augustness of Anselm and his celebrated ontological argument.)

The explanation would seem to be that the relative pronoun ("which") is being extracted from a reduced relative clause within the matrix clause of the relative clause.

"Nothing greater than it can be conceived" means "Nothing which is greater than it can be conceived."

Thus, "a being which nothing greater than __ can be conceived" is a reduced version of "a being which nothing which is greater than __ can be conceived"!

Somehow, by making the relative clause reduced and using Pied Piping rather than Preposition Stranding, the translator is able to make the sentence sound passable.

 

[Tdol]

Those are all comparative uses, yes. These sentences have relative clause structures, which is apparently confusing you. Here's how I'd reword the first proposition:

It is not possible to conceive of a being greater than God.

Couldn't God conceive of one?

 

[jutfrank]

Couldn't God conceive of one?

This is one of those questions that keeps God awake at night.

 

[emsr2d2]

Off-topic

It is not possible to conceive of a being greater than God.

Anyone who says that has never watched Rafa Nadal on a tennis court! ;-)

 

[jutfrank]

Anyone who says that has never watched Rafa Nadal on a tennis court! ;-)

I presume you have proof that Roger Federer does not exist?