Selected Bibliography on the History of the Ontological Argument. General Works

 

Detailed Index of the Section "Ontological Topics in the History of Philosophy"

Pages on the History of the Ontological Proof

• History of the Ontological Argument. Introductory Remarks

  • Bibliography of General and Introductory Studies

• The Medieval Period from Anselm of Canterbury to Duns Scotus

  • Bibliography on Medieval Authors

• The Modern Period from Suárez to Frege

  • Bibliography on Modern Authors

• The Contemporary Period from Barth to the Present Time

  • Bibliography on Contemporary Authors

• A Selection of Text of Primary Authors

 

GENERAL HISTORIES OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

1. Ceñal Ramon. El argumento ontologico de la existencia de Dios en la escolastica de los siglos 17 y 18. In Homenaje a Xavier Zubiri. Tomo I. Madrid: Editorial Moneda y Crédito 1970. pp. 247-325
2. Chatillon Jean. De Guillaume d'Auxerre à saint Thomas d'Aquin: l'argument de Saint Anselme chez les premiers Scolastiques du XIII siècle. In Spicilegium Beccense I. Congrés International du IX centenaire de l'arrivée d'Anselme au Bec. Paris: Vrin 1959. pp. 209-231
3. Daniels Augustinus. Quellenbeiträge und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gottesbeweise im Dreizehnten Jahrundert, mit besonderer Beruchsichtigung des Arguments im Proslogion des Hl. Anselm. Münster: Druck und verlag der Aschendorffschen Buchhandlung 1909.
   Inhaltsverzeichins. A. Texte.
   I. Anselm von Canterbury 3; II. Richard Fishacre 21; III. Wilhelm von Auxerre 25; IV. Alexander von Hales 28; V. Albert der Grosse 36; VI. Bonaventura 38; VII. Johannes Peckham 41; VIII. Matthaeus von Aquasparta 51; IX. Thomas von Aquino 64; X. Peter of Tarentaise 68; XI. Ägidius von Rom 72; XII. Heinrich von Gent 79; XIII. Nicolaus Occam 82; XIV. Richard von Middleton 84; XV. Wilhelm von Ware 89; XVI. Johannes Duns Scotus 105;
   B. Untersuchungen.
   I. Vorfragen.
   1. Die Bedeutung des Schweigens gewisser Scholastiker mit Bezug auf Anselms Argument 111; 2. Der scholastische Lehrbetrieb und das gegenwärtige Problem 115;
   II. Das Ergebnis der Texte.
   III. Die Voraussetzungen, welche für die Annahme von Anselms Argument in Frage kommen 131.
   1. Die angeborene Gottesidee bei S. Bonaventura und seiner Schule 132; 2. Das primum cognitum bei den Anhängern des Gottesbeweises des Proslogion 143; 3. Der Satz "non ens non potest esse obiectum intellectus" in seiner Beziehung zum Gottesbeweis des Proslogion 154;
   Anhang.
   1. Scholastiker des dreizehnten Jahrunderts, die den Gottesbeweis des Proslogion nicht erwähnen 157; 2. Die Abhängigkeit des Matthaeus von Aquasparta von Bonaventura 159; 3. Die Unechtheit der dom Scotus zugeschriehenen Schrift: Expositio et Quaestiones in VIII Libros Physicorum Aristotelis 162; Namenregister 165-167.
4. Dyroff Adolf. Der ontologische Gottesbeweis des hl. Anselmus in der Scholastik. In Probleme der Gotteserkenntnis. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung 1928. pp. 79-115
5. Grunwald Georg. Geschichte der Gottesbeweise im Mittelalter bis zum Ausgang der Hochscholastik nach den Quellen Dargestellt. Münster: Aschendorff 1907.
6. Harrelson Kevin J. The ontological argument from Descartes to Hegel. Amherst: Prometheus Books 2009.
   Contents: Preface 9; List of Abbreviations 11; Introduction: an episode in the history of an argument 15; Chapter One: Proof and perception: the contest of the Argumentum Cartesianum 41; Chapter Two: Refutations of atheism: ontological arguments in English philosophy, 1652-1705 79; Chapter Three: Being and intuition: Malebranche's appropriation of the Argument 101; Chapter Four: An adequate conception: the argument in Spinoza's philosophy 121; Chapter Five: Ontological Arguments in Leibniz and the German Enlightenment 141; Chapter Six: Kant's systematic critique of the Ontological Argument 167; Chapter Seven: Hegel's reconstruction of the Argument 197; Glossary of terms, arguments, and positions 231; Bibliography 235; Index 249-253.
   
   "This book provides a philosophical analysis of the several debates concerning the "ontological argument" from the middle of the seventeenth to the beginning of nineteenth century. My aim in writing it was twofold. First, I wished to provide a detailed and comprehensive account of the history of these debates, which I perceived to be lacking in the scholarly literature. Second, I wanted also to pursue a more philosophically interesting question concerning the apparent unassailability of ontological arguments. In pursuit of this latter problem, the driving question that my account addresses is "why has this argument, or kind of argument, been such a constant in otherwise diverse philosophical contexts and periods?"
   As familiar as the ontological argument is, there have been no book- length studies in English about the historical development of the arguments of Anselm, Descartes, etc. A vast collection of articles and chapter-length treatments of the history of these arguments does exist, however; and in composing this work I have benefited from the labors of numerous scholars. Particularly helpful was the work of Bernardino Bonansea, Charles Hartshorne, Asnat Avshalom, and Oded Balabon. Even more influential were the many monograph-length studies that have long appeared in other Western languages, especially in German and French. In conducting the necessary research I accrued an enormous debt to the authors of these texts. I thus owe my sincere gratitude to Wolfgang Röd, Louis Girard, and Jan Rohls. My greatest debt in this regard, however, is to Dieter Henrich. My work is little more than an extended argument with him." (From the Preface)
7. Hartshorne Charles. Anselm's discovery. A re-examination of the ontological proof for God's existence. La Salle: Open Court 1965.
8. Henrich Dieter. Der ontologische Gottesbeweis. Sein Problem und seine Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Tübingen: Mohr 1960.
   Traduzione italiana di Sonia Carboncini: La prova ontologica dell'esistenza di Dio. La sua problematica e la sua storia nell'età moderna, Napoli, Prismi, 1983.
9. Matthews Scott. Reason, Community and Religious Tradition. Anselm's Argument and the Friars. Aldershot: Ashgate 2001.
   Contents: Preface; Introduction: Arguments, texts and contexts; Anselm and tradition; Encountering God within: Anselm's argument among the early Franciscans in Paris; Other ways to God: Anselm, the early Dominicans and the friars in Oxford; Bonaventure and the Franciscan community; Thomas Aquinas and the Dominican community; Contested traditions; Conclusion; Bibliography; Index.
   
   "This book examines key questions about the relationship of rationality to its contexts by tracing the early history of the so-called 'ontological' argument. The book follows Anselm's Proslogion from its origins in the private, devotional context of an eleventh-century monastery to its reception in the public and adversarial contexts of the friars' schools in the thirteenth century. Using unpublished manuscript evidence from the Dominican and Franciscan schools at Oxford, Paris and Bologna in the thirteenth century, Matthews argues that the debate over Anselm's argument embodied the broader religious differences between the Franciscan and Dominican communities. By comparing the most famous figures of the period with their lesser-known contemporaries, Matthews argues that the Friars thought as communities and developed as traditions as they developed their arguments."
10. Piazza Giovanni. Il nome di Dio. Una storia della prova ontologica. Bologna: Edizioni dello Studio Domenicano 2000.
11. Rohls Jan. Theologie und Metaphysik. Der ontologische Gottesbeweis und seine Kritiker. Gütersloher: Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn 1987.
12. Rõd Wolfgang. Der Gott der reinen Vernunft. Die Ausenaindesetzung um den ontologischen Gottesbeweis von Anselm bis Hegel. München: Beck 1992.
    Reprinted 2009 with the title: Der Gott der reinen Vernunft. Ontologischer Gottesbeweis und rationalistische Philosophie
13. Scribano Emanuela. L'esistenza di Dio. Storia della prova ontologica da Descartes a Kant. Bari: Laterza & Co. 1994.
14. Staglianò Antonio. La mente umana alla prova di Dio: filosofia e teologia nel dibattito contemporaneo sull'argomento di Anselmo d'Aosta. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane 1996.
15. Tomatis Francesco. L'argomento ontologico: l'esistenza di Dio da Anselmo a Schelling. Roma: Città Nuova 1997.

GENERAL AND INTRODUCTORY STUDIES ON THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

1. The ontological argument from St. Anselm to contemporary philosophers. Edited by Plantinga Alvin. London: Macmillan 1965.
   Contents: Richard Taylor: Introduction VII-XVIII; Part I. The ontological argument in the history of philosophy; 1. St. Anselm 3; 2. St. Thomas Aquinas 28; 3. René Descartes 31; 4. Benedict de Spinoza 40; 5. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 54; 6. Immanuel Kant: The impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the existence of God 57; 7. Arthur Schopenhauer 65; Part II. Contemporary views of the ontological argument; 8. G. E. Moore: Is existence a predicate? 9. William P. Alston: The ontological argument revisited 86; 10. J. N. Findlay: Can God's existence be disproved? 111; 11. Charles Hartshorne; The Necessarily Existent 123; 12. Norman Malcolm: A. Malcolm's statement of Anselm's ontological argument 136; B. A reply by Alvin Plantinga: A valid ontological argument? 160; C. A reply by Paul Henle: Uses of the ontological argument 171-180.
2. The many-faced argument. Recent studies on the ontological argument for the existence of God. Edited by Hick John and McGill Arthur C. London: Macmillan 1967.
   Contents: Preface VII;
   Part I. The argument in Anselm; I. Anselm: Proslogion (Chapter II-IV) 3; Gaunilo and Anselm: Criticism and reply 9; III: Arthur C. McGill: Recent discussions of Anselm's argument 33; IV. A. Beckaert: A Platonic justification for the argument a priori (1959) 111; V. Karl Barth: A presupposition of the proof: the Name of God (1931) 119; VI. Karl Barth: Proslogion III: the special existence of God (1931) 135; VII. André Hayen: The role of the Fool in St. Anselm and the necessarily Apostolic character of true Christian reflection (1959) 162; VIII. Anselm Stolz: Anselm's theology in the Proslogion (1933) 183; Part II. The argument in recent philosophy; IX. John Hick: Introduction 209; A. Is existence a predicate?; X. Bertrand Russell: General propositions and existence (1918) 219; XI. Jerome Shaffer: Existence, predication and the ontological argument (1962) 226; B. The Hegelian use of the argument; XII. Gilbert Ryle: Mr. Collingwood and the ontological argument (1935) 246; XIII. E. E. Harris: Mr. Ryle and the ontological argument (1936) 261; XIV. Gilbert Ryle: Back to the ontological argument (1937) 269; XV. Aimé Forest: St. Anselm's argument in reflexive philosophy (1959) 275; C. The second form of the argument; XVI. Norman Malcolm: Anselm's ontological arguments (1960) 301; XVII. Charles Hartshorne: What did Anselm discover? (1962) 321; XVIII. Charles Hartshorne: The irreducibly modal structure of the argument (1962) 334; XIX. John Hick: a critique of the "Second argument" 341; Selected bibliography 357; Index of topics 371; Index of names 373.
3. L'argomento ontologico / The ontological Argument / L'argument ontologique / Der Ontologische Gottesbeweis. Edited by Olivetti Marco Maria. Padova: Cedam 1990.
4. Con Dio e contro Dio. Raccolta sistematica degli argomenti pro e contro l'esistenza di Dio. Edited by Sciacca Michele Federico. Milano: Marzorati 2009.
   Vol. I: Dai Presocratici a Kant (1972); Vol. II: Dal pensiero romantico a oggi (1972); Vol. III: Novecento teologico. Il Dio dei teologi (1995); Vol. IV: Novecento teologico: Il Dio dei filosofi e degli scienziati (1995).
5. Barnes Jonathan. The ontological argument. London: Macmillan 1972.
   "The Ontological Argument has been debated for eight centuries, and never more energetically than in the last decade. The present essay is less concerned to break new ground than to harrow land already ploughed. Thus Chapter 1 expounds, perhaps rather more particularly than is customary, some of the chief versions of the Ontological Argument; while Chapters 2-3 attempt to appraise and then to outflank the two main manoeuvres which opponents of the Argument have essayed. Finally, Chapter 4 outlines and advocates a more elementary plan of attack.
   My goal has been to state, as plainly as I can, what the Ontological Argument is, and what is and is not most wrong with it. But I have tried to keep in mind a secondary objective, and to provide some intimation of a few of the wider philosophical issues which the Argument raises. For even those philosophers who are sceptical of the merits of the Argument itself must allow that it has inspired and stimulated some considerable work in philosophical logic, and that it still offers a pointed introduction to a number of peculiarly recalcitrant problems.
   The literature on the Ontological Argument is of daunting magnitude, and it swells almost daily: I am acutely conscious of broad lacunae in my reading, especially of the more theologically inclined matter. Nevertheless, my debts to the published thoughts of others are frequent and heavy; I have tried to acknowledge the most important in the text."
6. Bourgeois-Gironde Sacha. L'argument ontologique. In Analyse et théologie. Croyances religieuses et rationalité. Edited by Bourgeois-Gironde Sacha, Gnassounou Bruno, and Pouivet Roger. Paris: Vrin 2002. pp. 31-52
7. Breton Stanislas. L'argument ontologique aujourd'hui. Problèmes et perspectives. In L'argomento ontologico / The ontological Argument / L'argument ontologique / Der Ontologische Gottesbeweis. Edited by Olivetti Marco Maria. Padova: 1990. pp. 665-678
8. Dore Clement. Theism. Dordrecht: Reidel 1984.
9. Durrant Michael. The logical status of 'God' and the function of theological sentences. London: Macmillan 1973.
10. Gale Richard. On the nature and existence of God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991.
    See Chapter 6: Ontological arguments pp. 201-237.
11. Kutschera Franz von. Vernunft und Glaube. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1990.
    See in particular: Anhang: 1) Zum ontologischen Gottesbeweis pp. 323-334
12. Leftow Brian. The ontological argument. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion. Edited by Wainwright William J. New York: Oxford University Press 2005. pp. 80-116
    "I analyze and evaluate ontological arguments and objections to them in Anselm, Gaunilo, Descartes, his immediate objectors, Leibniz, Kant and Brouwer. Anselm comes off rather better than he is often portrayed, Kant rather worse; Descartes (I argue) is as bad as you've heard."
13. Logan Ian. Reading Anselm's Proslogion: the history of Anselm's Argument and its significance today. Farnham: Ashgate 2009.
    Contents: Acknowledgements VII; List of Abbreviations IX; 1. Introduction 1; 2. The pre-text: the dialectical origins of Anselm's Argument 7; 3. The Text Proslogion 25; Pro Insipiente 59; Responsio 67; 4. Commentary on the Proslogion 85; 5. Anselm's defence and the Unum Argumentum 115; 6. The medieval reception 129; 7. The modern reception 151; 8. Anselm's Argument today 175; Conclusion: the significance of Anselm's Argument 197; Bibliography 203; Index 215.
    
    "Presenting an account of Anselm's Proslogion argument, its background and its subsequent history in later thought is more than an exercise in intellectual archaeology. Work still needs to be done to understand what Anselm was trying to achieve arid how he was trying to achieve it, Anselm's argument presents an important paradigm for the history or ideas, since it has been treated directly or indirectly by so many different thinkers in subsequent centuries, and it provides a direct challenge to the way philosophy has been done over those centuries. That Anselm has been consistently misunderstood and misrepresented is a central thesis of this book. It is only by returning to and reading Anselm's text that we can hope to establish what he was trying to say and understand how he was trying to say it. Anselm's argument has fascinated and continues to fascinate philosophers and theologians, to such an extent that it is no longer possible in a single work to review exhaustively the history of its reception. Thus, the account of the reception in this book is selective, particularly n Chapter 8 where I limit myself in the main to its reception amongst modern English speaking philosophers. It is these philosophers who have been particularly concerned with the logical form, validity and soundness of. Anselm's argument, and to whom it is necessary to respond, if one wishes to discover wether Anselm still has something of philosophical interest to say to us in the Proslogion.
    There has been a natural tendency amongst modern thinkers to adhere, wittingly or unwittingly, to a Whig view of history, to see the history of ideas as the steady progress of enlightened thought over benighted ignorance. The past is a bad or at best confused place, in which people concerned themselves 'with a lot of outdated foolishness', such as questions about the existence of God, which we now correctly consider to be irrelevant. (1) It is my hope that the study of Anselm's argument and its subsequent reception will help to counter such views, not because everything in the past was good, but because some things were, and it may just be that some of those good things are what 'we' now consider outdated and irrelevant.
    Anselm's argument is frequently identified with later ontological arguments. It is one of my tasks in this work to show how that has happened, and that Anselm's argument has to be addressed in its specificity, that 'that than which a greater cannot be thought' is the irreplaceable middle term of Anselm's argument, which for Anselm functions as the 'natural or proper word' for God. This is not simple a question of scholarship, but also of philosophy, for in my view the latter is aided by the former.
    In this book I seek to create and 'audit trail' which stretches from (I) a prehistory of the text (Chapter 2) to (ii) the manuscript tradition and a translation which seeks to remain faithful to Anselm's Latin text (Chapter 3), presenting the Latin and English texts in parallel to (iii) a commentary on the text (Chapter 4) to (iv) an exposition of the debate that immediately followed its 'publication' (Chapter 5) to (v) a review and evaluation of the historical ongoing reception of the Proslogion (Chapters 6, 7 and 8). It concludes with an assessment of the significance of Anselm's argument." (pp. 1-2)
    
    (1) See R. Rorty, 'The historiography of philosophy: four genres', in R. Rorty et al. (eds.), Philosophy in History. Essays on the historiography of philosophy, Cambridge 1984, pp. 49-75, p. 52.
14. Mackie John Leslie. The miracle of Theism. Arguments for and against the existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1982.
15. Matthews Gareth B. The ontological argument. In The Blackwell Guide to the philosophy of Religion. Edited by Mann William E. Malden: Blackwell 2004. pp.
16. Miethe Terry, "The ontological argument: a research bibliography," Modern Schoolman 54: 148-166 (1977).
    "Within the past two decades or so there has been a gradual renewal of interest in metaphysics in general and in the theistic arguments in particular. This is the most comprehensive bibliography ever done on this argument for God's existence, with over 330 items listed. The article is divided into the following categories:
    I. General histories of the argument; II. The argument in Anselm; III. The argument in the Middle Ages after Anselm; IV: The argument from Descartes to Kant; V: The Hegelian and Idealist use of the argument; VI. The argument in Continental philosophy; VII: The argument in British and American philosophy; VIII. The logic of "exists"; IX. The concept of necessary being; X: Additions as a result of additional research."
17. Oakes Robert, "A prolegomenon to future exploration of the ontological argument," Personalist 58: 344-351 (1977).
    "The objection which appears to bedevil modal "as well as" non-modal versions of the ontological argument is that no modality of 'real' (i.e., denotational) existence can be contained in any concept whatever, and, consequently, that 'God exists' cannot constitute a conceptual truth. I attempt to establish the rationality of maintaining that whether or not this is so is irrelevant to the integrity of the modal version of the ontological argument, since the falsity of the 'containment-objection' is not a necessary condition of its being a conceptual truth that God exists. In sum, I show that it is perfectly rational to believe "both" that 'God exists' constitutes a truth-of-meaning and that no modality of existence can be "contained" in the concept of God."
18. Rescher Nicholas, "The ontological proof revisited," Australasian Journal of Philosophy 37: 138-148 (1959).
    Reprinted in: N. Rescher - Issues in the philosophy of religion - Frankfurt, Ontos Verlag, 2007, pp. 13-24
19. Seifert Josef. Gott als Gottesbeweis. Eine phänomenologische Neubegründung des ontologischen Arguments. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter 2000.
    Second improved and substantially (by a new statement of the core of the ontological argument of 102 pages and a Preface for the Arabic translation of 29 pages) enlarged edition. (First edition 1996).
20. Shaffer Jerome, "Existence, predication, and the ontological argument," Mind: 307-325 (1962).
    "This is an examination of the ontological argument and its consistency with existential propositions. Clarification of the ontological argument is made in light of Hume, Kant, and Carnap with regard to its empirical, predicative, a priori, a posteriori and linguistic proofs and refutations. A further refinement of the presentation is the establishment of the intensional and extensional character of the ontological argument."
21. Sienra Adolfo García de la. The ontological argument. In The rationality of theism. Edited by Sienra Adolfo García de la. Amsterdam: Rodopi 2000. pp. 127-142
22. Steinitz Yuval, "Necessary Beings," American Philosophical Quarterly 31: 177-182 (1994).
    "Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz held that there are "necessary beings" whose existence is necessitated by the very concept; Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein denied this. Whether or not necessary beings exist cannot have a contingent answer: this is the article's elementary premise. And this, together with the law of the excluded middle, tells us that either existence or non-existence must be derivable from the concept of necessary beings; nonexistence, if the concept is self-contradictory, and existence if the concept is not self-contradictory. Also, if there is a positive ontological argument concerning necessary beings, this could be constructed by either of the following strategies: [a] by arguing that the expression, "necessary beings do not exist," is self-contradictory -- the classical strategy of Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz; or [b] by claiming the coherence of necessary beings, based on the fact that necessary beings either exist out of necessity or are absent out of necessity. This is the view of Hartshorne, Malcolm, and Plantinga, utilized in their respective attempts to prove God's existence. Steinitz argues that their ontological arguments are unsatisfactory, but that if we apply the Hartshorne-Malcolm-Plantinga basic strategy to the sheer concept of necessary beings -- rather than to more complicated concepts, such as God or a most perfect being or an unsurpassable greatness -- this helps to avoid some of the difficulties. Swinburne, van Inwagen and others argue convincingly that one can find a conclusive argument for the coherence of any concept of any kind whatsoever. Yet, replacing the concept of God with that of necessary beings can help defend the possibility of an ontological argument, resulting in an inconclusive yet reasonable justification for its coherence."
23. Tilliette Xavier. Quelques défenseurs de l'argument ontologique. In L'argomento ontologico / The ontological Argument / L'argument ontologique / Der Ontologische Gottesbeweis. Edited by Olivetti Marco Maria. Padova: CEDAM 1990. pp. 403-420
24. Van Inwagen Peter. Arguments for God's existence: ontological arguments. In Philosophy of religion. Edited by Davies Brian. Washington: Georgetown University Press 1998. pp. 54-58
    "This chapter gives a very compressed history of the ontological argument from Anselm to Kant, and discusses briefly a modern, modal version of the argument. It is argued that Anselm's and Descartes's versions of the argument are flawed, and that one cannot know the main premise of the modal argument -- 'It is possible for there to be a perfect being (a being that has all perfections essentially)' -- to be true otherwise than by knowing, on some ground independent of the modal argument, that a perfect being actually exists."
25. Van Inwagen Peter. Necessary Being: the ontological argument. In Metaphysics. Boulder: Westview Press 2002. pp. 91-114
    Second revised edition (first edition 1993).
    Reprinted in: Eleonore Stump, Michael J. Murray (eds.) - Philosophy of religion. The big questions - Malden, Blackwell, 1999 pp. 69-83.

 

 

Last modified: Wednesday, May 16, 2012