Proslogion / Parafrase (Mathijs Vanderhoydonks)

Proslogion / Paraphrasis

I. Latine

Probamentum

Deus (Deus possibilis / Deus eventualis) est ens (ens possibile / ens eventuale), quo ens maius cogitari non potest.

Si tale ens (possibile / eventuale), quo ens maius cogitari nequit, in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse et in re, quod maius est.

Si ergo ens, quo ens maius cogitari non potest, est in solo intellectu, tum ens, quo ens maius cogitari non potest est ens, quo ens maius cogitari potest.

2. Conclusio (emendata) duplex

'Si' est in re ens, quo ens maius cogitari non potest - 'quod demonstrandum est' - hoc ens non poterit esse in solo intellectu, sed debeat esse et in re.

Si autem ens, quo ens maius cogitari non potest, non est in re, tum hoc ens in solo intellectu est, sed non in re.

Bibliographia in fine (English, Français, Deutsch, Nederlands).

II.

Vertaling in het Nederlands zie beneden: III.

Traduction en français voir ci-dessous: IV.

Übersetzung im Deutschen siehe unten: V.

Italiano: VI.

Español: VII.

Português: VIII.

Svenska: IX.

Translations into other languages still to add.

* * *

This analysis and paraphrase, with the explaining addition of the extremely important notion "possible", was published for the first time in 2000, in the booklet (in Dutch) 'Cryptisch godsbewijs' (in particular in the paragraph f, p. 35 of Part I, chapters 2-3, p. 15-36.)

(And later on in the two other books too ['Taalmisbruik',] in particular on p. 41 [paragraph 'Een verwaarloosd onderscheid'], and in the last paragraph on p. 67; also in: 'Anselm's Linguistic Pitfall' or: Anselmus' taalkundige valstrik', in particular the 'Paraphrases' [in four languages] p. 223-249.) - See also below.

'Cryptisch godsbewijs'

(Et puis également dans les deux autres livres ('Taalmisbruik', en particulier p. 41 [le paragraph 'Een verwaarloosd onderscheid'], et p. 67, dernier alinéa; ainsi que dans: 'Anselm's Linguistic Pitfall' ou: Anselmus' taalkundige valstrik', en particulier les Paraphrases [en quatre langues] p. 223-249). Voir également ci-dessous.

'Cryptisch godsbewijs'

Paragraph f,

(Und danach auch in den zwei anderen Büchern: 'Taalmisbruik', ins besondere S. 41 [Paragraph 'Een verwaarloosd onderscheid'], und S. 67, letzter Absatz; wie auch in: 'Anselm's Linguistic Pitfall' oder: 'Anselmus' taalkundige valstrik', ins besondere die 'Paraphrasen' [in vier Sprachen] S. 223-249). Siehe auch unten.

'Cryptisch godsbewijs'

(En vervolgens eveneens in de twee andere boeken ('Taalmisbruik', in het bijzonder blz. 41 [paragraaf 'Een verwaarloosd onderscheid'], en blz. 67, laatste alinea; alsook: 'Anselm's Linguistic Pitfall' of: Anselmus' taalkundige valstrik', in het bijzonder de 'Parafrases' [in vier talen] blz. 223-249). Zie ook hieronder.

* * *

II. Translation into English

1. Argumentation

A (possible) God is a (possible) being, in comparison with which no greater being can be thought of.

If such a (possible) being, in comparison with which no greater being can be thought of, solely is in our brain, it can be thought to be in reality as well, which is greater.

Consequently, in case such a being, in comparison with which no greater being can be thought of, is solely in our brain, then that being, in comparison with which nothing greater can be thought of, is a being, in comparison with which a greater being can be thought of.

Twofold (amended) conclusion

'In the event' that in reality outside our brain there is a being, in comparison with which no greater being can be thought of - 'what has to be proved' - such a being couldn't be solely in our brain, but has to be in reality outside our brain as well.

In case however in reality outside our brain there isn't a being, in comparison with which no greater being can be thought of, then such a being is solely in our brain, but not in reality outside our brain.

* * *

This is only one of the interpretation variants - be it a very important one - of the argumentation in the chapter II of the Prologion. Those who want to know the other variants may be referred in the first place to the article (also mentioned below):

'Anselm's Megethological Argument; Translation according to the Meaning of the Text';

in the:

'Revue de Philosophie Ancienne' (2010, vol. 28, n° 2, p. 91-100; ISSN 0771-5420.)

There the reader will find a clear an extensive analysis of the amalgam or mishmash of which Anselm's much recommended text has been put together.

Several traps, ingeniously and mysteriously hidden in Anselm's famous muddle, are explicitly illustrated too in the other books, mentioned below.

(N.B.: Versions of the above article 'in French' or 'in German', see below, 'bibliographie'.)

* * *

III. Vertaling in het Nederlands

1. Bewijsvoering

Een (eventuele) God is een (eventuele) entiteit, in vergelijking waarmee er geen groter entiteit kan gedacht worden.

Indien er zo'n (eventuele) entiteit, in vergelijking waarmee er geen groter entiteit kan gedacht worden, in ons louter brein is, kan ze gedacht worden ook in werkelijkheid te bestaan, hetgeen groter is..

Indien er bijgevolg zo'n entiteit, in vergelijking waarmee er geen groter entiteit kan gedacht worden, in ons louter brein is, dan is die entiteit, in vergelijking waarmee er geen groter entiteit gedacht kan worden, een entiteit, in vergelijking waarmee er een groter entiteit kan gedacht worden.