A comparative approach to the theistic proofs of Anselm of Canterbury’s ‘Monologion

The four theistic proofs of Monologion are based on the categories of being per se and being per aliud. This article analyses them through a comparative approach. The categories of per se and per aliud are compared with the categories of substance (ti) and function (yong) as touched on the first cha...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Hervormde teologiese studies 2022-09, Vol.78 (4), p.1-6
Main Author: Di Falco, Alberto
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Anselm
Anselm of Canterbury, Saint
Anselm of Canterbury, Saint (1033-1109)
Chinese literature
Comparative literature
Comparative philosophy
Confucianism
Literary criticism
per aliud
per se
Philosophy
Philosophy, Chinese
reciprocal illumination
Religion
Saints
substance-function
substance-function (ti-yong)
Theism
Theology
Traditions
Works
Zhang Zai
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The four theistic proofs of Monologion are based on the categories of being per se and being per aliud. This article analyses them through a comparative approach. The categories of per se and per aliud are compared with the categories of substance (ti) and function (yong) as touched on the first chapter of the Rectifying Ignorance (正蒙 Zhengmeng) of Zhang Zai (1020–1077), an exponent of neo-Confucianism. In fact, the two pairs of categories explain the relationship between an absolute, the supreme nature (summum) or the Great Void (太虚 taixu) and the sensible world. Through the comparison, this article highlights the fundamental function of being per aliud in the rational knowledge of the supreme nature that exists per se and provides new insights into the process of derivation of being per aliud from the being per se.Contribution This article, through the comparison with the Chinese philosophical tradition, intends to offer a new perspective on the understanding of the Anselmian categories of being per se and being per aliud.
ISSN:0259-9422
2072-8050
2072-8050
DOI:10.4102/hts.v78i4.7785