Evaluate Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument.

PARAGRAPH ONE

Anselm’s ontological argument claims that God, defined as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” must exist. He argues that a being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. Therefore, if God is the greatest possible being, He must exist in reality. Gaunilo, a monk writing at the same time as Anselm, challenged this and argued that Anselm’s reasoning does not work.

PARAGRAPH TWO

Gaunilo’s most famous criticism is the “perfect island” argument. He says that if Anselm’s logic were valid, then we could imagine a perfect island - one with every possible perfection - and then conclude that it must exist, because an island that exists is greater than one that doesn’t. This is clearly absurd. His point is that Anselm’s argument proves too much; we cannot define things into existence.

PARAGRAPH THREE

Gaunilo also argues that Anselm wrongly moves from an idea in the mind to something existing in reality. Just because we can imagine something does not mean it exists. This challenges the whole a priori nature of the ontological argument. Gaunilo thinks existence must be discovered through experience, not through logic and definitions.

PARAGRAPH FOUR

Anselm responds that Gaunilo’s island example does not work because an island is a contingent, imperfect thing. You can always add more palm trees or beaches, so there is no “greatest possible island.” God, however, is a necessary being and has maximal greatness. So the argument only works for God, not islands or objects. This is a strong reply, but some people say Anselm is simply assuming that God is a necessary being, which is exactly what the argument is supposed to prove. So his response may be circular.

PARAGRAPH FIVE

Later philosophers support Gaunilo. Kant, for example, argues that existence is not a predicate. This supports Gaunilo’s point that you cannot add “existence” to the concept of God and then treat it as if it makes God greater. If existence isn’t a real property, Anselm’s argument fails. Gaunilo’s objection is basically anticipating Kant, which makes it stronger.

PARAGRAPH SIX

However, some modern philosophers defend Anselm. Plantinga’s modal version of the ontological argument avoids Gaunilo’s island objection because islands cannot exist necessarily, but a maximally great being could. This doesn’t prove the ontological argument is true, but it shows why Gaunilo’s parody might not be a fair comparison.

CONCLUSION

Overall, Gaunilo’s criticisms are important because they show that Anselm’s argument can lead to absurd conclusions if applied too widely. His challenge exposes a possible flaw in the argument’s structure. However, Anselm’s defence - that only a necessary being can fit the argument - does weaken Gaunilo’s parody. With support from Kant, Gaunilo’s criticism becomes much stronger, but later thinkers like Plantinga show that the argument can be reformulated in ways that avoid Gaunilo’s attack. In the end, Gaunilo’s objections seriously challenge the ontological argument, but they do not completely destroy it.

---