Wittgenstein’s Case for the Fool: Existence in the Mind Is a Mentalist Assumption in Anselm’s Epistemological Argument in Proslogion, 2

In Proslogion, Anselm claims that understanding God as “something beyond which a greater nothing can be thought” refers to God’s existence in the mind and facilitates our understanding of God existing also in reality. The argument is epistemological and not ontological since its conclusion is our understanding of God’s existence, not a proof or demonstration that God exists. However, I argue that Anselm’s notion of existence in the mind invokes mentalism, a claim that meaning is housed in the mind and semantic rules are contained within linguistic expression itself. Wittgenstein argued that mentalism is a mistaken conflation of linguistic understanding with ostensive reference to one’s private sensations. Instead, all linguistic understanding depends on the public use of rules operating within a specific semantic context. If mentalism is false, then the concept of existence in the mind alone is a shallow metaphysical idea, rendering the rest of the argument invalid.

Publication Details

Journal
PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)
Published
2025-01-01
Primary Topic
Wittgensteinian philosophy and applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Wittgenstein’s Case for the Fool: Existence in the Mind Is a Mentalist Assumption in Anselm’s Epistemological Argument in Proslogion, 2

PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)
Wittgensteinian philosophy and applications
article

Wittgenstein’s Case for the Fool: Existence in the Mind Is a Mentalist Assumption in Anselm’s Epistemological Argument in Proslogion, 2

article en

Abstract

In Proslogion, Anselm claims that understanding God as “something beyond which a greater nothing can be thought” refers to God’s existence in the mind and facilitates our understanding of God existing also in reality. The argument is epistemological and not ontological since its conclusion is our understanding of God’s existence, not a proof or demonstration that God exists. However, I argue that Anselm’s notion of existence in the mind invokes mentalism, a claim that meaning is housed in the mind and semantic rules are contained within linguistic expression itself. Wittgenstein argued that mentalism is a mistaken conflation of linguistic understanding with ostensive reference to one’s private sensations. Instead, all linguistic understanding depends on the public use of rules operating within a specific semantic context. If mentalism is false, then the concept of existence in the mind alone is a shallow metaphysical idea, rendering the rest of the argument invalid.

PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
Wittgensteinian philosophy and applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.