پروسلوگیون- خطابیه ای در باب اثبات وجود خدا

by Anselm of Canterbury, افسانه نجاتی (مترجم)

In the Proslogion, St. Anselm presents a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Anselm's proof, known since the time of Kant as the ontological argument for the existence of God, has played an important role in the history of philosophy and has been incorporated in various forms into the systems of Descartes, Leibniz, Hegel, and others.

Included in this edition of the Proslogion are Gaunilo's "A Reply on Behalf of the Fool" and St. Anselm's "The Author's Reply to Gaunilo." All three works are in the original Latin with English translation on facing pages. Professor Charlesworth's introduction provides a helpful discussion of the context of the Proslogion in the theological tradition and in Anselm's own thought and writing.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Religion, Nonfiction, Medieval, Christianity, Classics

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1078

About the author

Italian-born English monk, abbot, theologian, Archbishop of Canterbury and Doctor of the Church. Helped inaugurate scholasticism in the medieval period, being credited as the "father of scholasticism", and became known for what became known as the "ontological argument" for the existence of God.

He entered the Benedictine order at the abbey of Bec at the age of 27 years in 1060 and served as abbot in 1079.

Anselm of Canterbury, also known as Anselm of Aosta or Anselm of Bec, was a monk and abbot at the Benedictine abbey of Bec. He served as Archbishop of Canterbury under William II from 1093 to his death on 1109.

As a result of the investiture controversy, the most significant conflict between Church and state in Medieval Europe, Henry I again from 1105 exiled him to 1107.

A bull of Clement XI, pope, proclaimed Anselm a doctor of the Church in 1720 . We celebrate his feast day annually on 21 April.

Reviews

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anselm, you charming little monk.

I went into this work not expecting to be overly impressed. The only thing I really knew about the Proslogion was that it was the home of the famous (infamous?) ontological argument for the existence of God. I wouldn't really label myself as a religious person, but ontological arguments and the like have always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. The idea of proving the existence or nature of God through reason alone seems vaguely arrogant, and also kinda besides the point: it's always seemed to me that if you could reason God's existence out with human logic, God wouldn't be terribly God-like anyway.

But Anselm really surprised me, and I found the Proslogion to be kind of beautiful. The argument for the existence of God is certainly there, and it's elegant if not logically unassailable. Anselm's God is simply defined as "that than which nothing great can be thought" and since existence is better than non-existence, God must necessarily exist. That takes up about two pages of the work. The rest of the work is honestly far more interesting, and it is surprisingly mystical for a work known almost solely for its logical arguments. Anselm's God is explored through a series of dichotomies - He is both incorporeal and perceptive, omnipotent and unable to do all things, just and merciful, seen and unseen. There is a deluge of light/dark imagery. On the whole, the Proslogion is a tract about the process of seeking, and how it must inherently be a dialogue: a diligent search for God through all possible means will not allot the seeker a unobstructed view, but will allow him or her small pieces of understanding. It's a humble and optimistic work.

If you don't believe in God already, the Proslogion is not going to change your mind. But's that not a mark against it - Anselm wasn't aiming for that kind of undertaking. Instead, I think the Proslogion is better viewed as a prayer for further understanding, and an attempt at articulation. Anselm and his audience already believed in God and his existence. Anselm was just reaching out for further understanding, and for a better set of words to encapsulate his belief.

[Ronni Kurtz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I reread every January 1st.

[Peter Choi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wont go into detail but I am in this eternal cycle of feeling like I understand the argument, getting really excited and agreeing adamantly, then realizing I understood it wrong, doubting it, and then getting my doubts resolved again.

I will highly recommend this to myself again tomorrow, and to anyone with a thirst for truth /puzzling debate.

Plus, it's also very entertaining to see two monks have beef like this, it is heated in the most wise yet sassy way possible

[Sooho Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read Thomas Williams's translation.

This is probably one of the greatest works of theology (not philosophy) I have read. How rich are his words! They drove me to tears -- O, how good it is to meditate on God and his wondrous riches.

"Surely [I am] both darkened in itself and dazzled by you. Indeed, [I am] both obscured by its own littleness and overwhelmed by your vastness.... What purity, what simplicity, what certainty and splendor are there! Truly [you are] more than any creature can understand" (§14)

"[The eye of the soul] is dazzled by its splendor, vanquished by its fullness, overwhelmed by its vastness, perplexed by its extent." (§16)

Those who read this merely philosophically make a categorical mistake. Proslogion/um is more properly prayer, not abstract philosophy done in the confines of a research university. It is not a work of apologetics (defending or proving a belief); rather, it is an exercise of contemplative prayer -- concluding with a plea for the Beatific Vision.

"O God, I pray that I will know and love you that I might rejoice in you....
O truthful God, I ask that I may receive, that my joy may be full.
Until then, let my mind ponder on it, my tongue speak of it.
Let my heart love it and my mouth proclaim it.
Let my soul hunger for it, my flesh thirst for it, my whole being long for it, until I 'enter into the joy of my Lord,' who is God, Three in One, 'blessed for ever. Amen.'" (§26)

[Savannah Lea Morello · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philosophy’s true end is worship, and it is beautiful.


“Let me seek thee in longing and long for thee in seeking. Let me find thee in loving and love thee in finding.”

Final words: “I will receive, that my joy may be full. Meanwhile, let my mind meditate upon it; let my tongue speak of it. Let my heart love it; let my mouth talk of it. Let my soul hunger for it; let my flesh thirst for it; let my whole being desire it, until I enter into thy joy, O Lord, who art the Three and the One God, blessed for ever and ever. Amen.”

[Ethan Arias · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good read, pretty complicated. I’m going to have to read over it again sometime. Does a good job of articulating God logically.

[J. M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find Anselm’s longing for understanding ennobling, moving and poetic. He lived in a period of intellectual darkness. The Christian Church had finally succeeded in closing the western mind; the eleventh century saw the culmination of the rise of faith and the fall of reason. In his review of Charles Freeman’s The Closing of the Western Mind for The New York Times, Anthony Gottlieb writes that Freeman “is right to emphasize the colossal ignorance of the Christian West in the second half of the first millennium. By the year 1000, all branches of science, and indeed all kinds of theoretical knowledge except theology, had pretty much disintegrated. Most classical literature was largely unknown. The best-educated people (all of them monks) knew strikingly less than many Greeks 800 years earlier. And the few mathematical writings from the time were for the most part downright stupid.”
I would like to think (on the evidence of his Monologion and Proslogion) that Anselm was one of those few exceptional human beings who felt a compelling will to understand. But Western Europe had to wait another four hundred years for the discovery by Poggio Bracciolini of a unique manuscript of Lucretius’s De rerum natura in a German monastery, and a further two centuries for Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum and his use of inductive reasoning. Yet, Anselm’s thirst for knowledge was unquenchable, as evidenced by his two tracts.
There was no House of Wisdom in Medieval Europe, nor the flourishing of learning, poetry, science and philosophy that turned Córdoba into the Ornament of the World, as the German nun Hroswitha of Gandersheim called it. The Toledo School of Translators was founded in the century following Anselm's death. Had he lived in the 12th century, he might have been able to read Latin translations of Al-Khwarizmi, of Avicenna and of Aristotle, of Euclid by Adelard of Bath and of Ptolomy by Gerard of Cremona.
But Anselm was born one century too early and his longing for knowledge could only be satisfied at that time and in that place by his kind of poetic, circular (poetry likes circuitousness), tautological, platonic (as Russell points out in his History of Western Philosophy, Plato uses a kind of ontological argument to prove the objective reality of ideas), yet beautiful, poignant, mystical, deductive reasoning.
Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus sold his soul to the Devil for knowledge of the physical world (“Now would I have a book where I might see all characters and planets of the heavens, that I might know their motions and dispositions. . . let me have one book more, wherein I might see all plants, herbs, and trees, that grow upon the earth”, etc.); Anselm sold his soul to his God for a spiritual, ethereal knowledge. That is how I read “Faith seeking understanding”. Lacking the tools to reach an understanding of the world he lived in, Anselm surrendered his reason to the inscrutabilities of his God. It is tempting to assume that one thousand years ago in Western Europe no one questioned the existence of God, but if that were the case, why take the trouble to prove it? Anselm tried to escape the “dark night of the soul” (to quote a Spanish mystic) by climbing a ladder, held upright by skyhooks, that led to the clouds.

[Matthew McConnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Second review (Jan 1, 2026): This book is truly one of the most moving and beautiful works of theology I have ever read. Going forward, I plan to reread it on the 1st of every year, as a reminder to keep me grounded about the true task of the theologian. Thank you, Anselm. I look forward to that day where I can meet you face to face, thank you for your work, and where we both “will rejoice inestimably more over the blessedness of God than over either [our] own blessedness or that of all the others who are with [us].”

First review (July 2025): Theology at its finest. I wish modern theology textbooks read like this.

Also, God exists.

“[Anselm’s] Proslogion is theology as prayer.” - Eugene Peterson

[Noah R Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

9.5/10.

Came for the ontological argument for God’s existence, stayed for the pursuit of joy in "the beatific vision of redemption’s telos" (Samuel Parkison). Essentially, this book made me enjoy God more.

“Come now, insignificant man, fly for a moment from your affairs, escape for a little while from the tumult of your thoughts. Put aside now your weighty cares and leave your wearisome toils. Abandon yourself for a little to God and rest for a little in Him.”

The fact that Anselm only devotes three chapters (2-4) to the ontological argument was surprising. Despite their brevity, these chapters did not disappoint and I don’t believe I’ll ever plumb the depths of the infinite realities they portray in finite (albeit, profound) words. This philosophy is worship.

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." ~ Prov 25:2

It struck me that the famous argument seemed to be fairly ancillary to the work as a whole, nestled in the greater context of, as Dr Gavin Ortlund would say, "Anselm’s pursuit of joy." The delight the author took in knowing God was contagious, enlivening my heart to understanding the deep things of God in growing anticipation of being with Him.

"We see whence the river flows, but the spring whence it arises is not see"

The undercurrent of careful, precise articulation of the nature of God in the Trinity, specifically Divine Simplicity flowed in classic Anselmian fashion from a commitment to understand God from reason (not just the Scriptures) because He already believed that which the Scriptures declared, undergirding our true rationality!

1 My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you,
2 making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding;
3 yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding,
4 if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures,
5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God​​ ~ Prov 2:1-5

Summary: Through this work I was introduced to or learned more about the ontological argument for God’s existence, divine simplicity of the Triune God, and the beatific vision as the telos of God’s redeemed. And from these I can make amends with the fact that my thirst for knowing Him will never be slaked here in this life, for I have not yet “seen Him face to face." So, Maranatha!

"It is evident, then, that as the rational mind alone, among all created beings, is capable of rising to the investigation of this Being, so it is not the less this same rational mind alone… What is more obvious, then, than that the more earnestly the rational mind devotes itself to learning its own nature, the more effectively does it rise to the Knowledge of that Being; and the more carelessly it contemplates itself, the farther does it descend from the contemplation of that Being? We infer, then, that it was created for this end, that it might love the supreme Being eternally. But this it cannot do unless it lives forever. It was so created, then, that it lives forever, if it forever wills to do that for which it was created… that what it now sees as through a glass and in a riddle, it may then see FACE to FACE."

[Pamela Shropshire · Rating 5 out of 5]

I remember vividly one night, many years ago, after having pondered predestination and God’s foreknowledge and human free will, that I awoke with a startling (to me) thought, that God, if He truly exists, must necessarily exist outside of Time. I mentally envisioned the universe — all existence that can be observed — as being inside a box, and God being outside the box. I sort of imagined that all of history is simultaneously and eternally present before God - like playing out before Him on an infinite number of TV screens.

But I later came to see that isn’t quite right. Because as Anselm states, nothing can exist outside of God. So the above-mentioned box must be inside of God. And the more I think about God and His attributes, the more I feel like Anselm must have in his prayer at the end of the Proslogium:

I pray, O God, to know thee, to love thee, that I may rejoice in thee. And if I cannot attain to full joy in this life may I at least advance from day to day, until that joy shall come to the full. Let the knowledge of thee advance in me here, and there be made full. Let the love of thee increase, and there let it be full, that here my joy may be great in hope, and there full in truth.

Lord, through thy Son thou dost command, nay, thou dost counsel us to ask; and thou dost promise that we shall receive, that our joy may be full. I ask, O Lord, as thou dost counsel through our wonderful Counsellor. I will receive what thou dost promise by virtue of thy truth, that my joy may be full. Faithful God, I ask. I will receive, that my joy may be full.

Meanwhile, let my mind meditate upon it; let my tongue speak of it. Let my heart love it; let my mouth talk of it. Let my soul hunger for it; let my flesh thirst for it; let my whole being desire it, until I enter into thy joy, O Lord, who art the Three and the One God, blessed for ever and ever. Amen.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think my dear St. Anselm of Canterbury saved me, I can see that retrospectively.

During the darkest hour of the pandemic, I stumbled into a philosophy class on the nature of God. I had realised that the question I had been asking myself for years was the wrong question. Namely, asking whether God exists - that is a pointless question, it cannot be answered. What you mean to ask is: what is God?

Because obviously that which has been at the centre of
Human thought and culture since the very beginning cannot be said to not exist. That is foolish. And I was a fool. But the fool who persists in his folly shall become wise.

God is a matter of understanding. Of epistemological
humility and a willingness to submit yourself. Of not being arrogant in face of the only question that ultimately matters in life. Because every other decision you make will be downstream from this one. What is God?

God is that which no greater can be thought. Oh, so deceptively simple. But once understood, why debate? I was lucky to have a gestalt of understanding, a crystallisation of meaning, an immense density condensed into a moment. I saw. My mind grasped it. I bowed down and I allowed myself to be illuminated. To let the truth fall into my heart.

I seek not to understand in order to believe. I believe in order to understand.

Dear God. I was a fool but now I see.

[Noah Richards · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this for a Theology class. Really enjoyed it, but it's not really something you can wrap your head arounf

[Zack Hudson · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most beautiful little bits of theology I’ve yet read. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

[Jairo Fraga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nesta obra, Santo Anselmo de Cantuária tenta através de um único argumento, autossuficiente, provar a existência de Deus, também conhecido posteriormente como "argumento ontológico".

Inicia com uma exortação a Deus o iluminar, visto ter há muito tempo tentar resolver essa questão. O argumento se funda em: existe algo em relação ao qual nada maior pode ser pensado, tanto no intelecto como na realidade exterior. Deus é o ser que nada de maior pode ser pensado. Há dois modos de pensar em algo: no seu significado e no que efetivamente é. Lembro que é necessário ter a definição de Deus previamente, que Santo Anselmo considera o ser perfeito (e o mais perfeito de todos).

Após o argumento em si, o livro segue com diversas outras análises divinas. Deus não pode mentir/se corromper, pois isso não são potências, mas impotências. Deus enquanto espírito puro tem misericórdia das nossas misérias, e ao mesmo tempo não é afetado de compaixão pela nossa miséria. Jesus, enquanto Verbo consubstanciado, é a plenitude da compaixão divina por nossos sofrimentos, por isso devemos devoção ao Seu Sagrado Coração.

Santo Anselmo lembra que é bom punir os maus, até mesmo pra eles próprios. Só Deus é eterno e presente em todo infinito. De forma semelhante, com argumento parecido de possivelmente Santo Ambrósio, a alma humana, também está em todas as partes do corpo, que ela vivifica.

Faz uma metáfora com a luz do sol, em que só podemos enxergar não olhando diretamente para ela, mas o que enxergamos, é por ela (falando de Deus).

Achei o argumento um pouco difícil à primeira vista, mas alguns outros filósofos e estudiosos o elucidaram um pouco melhor para mim, como é o caso de Mário Ferreira dos Santos, ao falar da impossibilidade de um hipotético necessário, já que ao ser absolutamente necessário se faz necessária sua existência antes mesmo da formulação de sua hipótese. A existência do ser absolutamente necessário não é admissível pensar como hipotética, pois foi este próprio pensamento que se mostrou absurdo e se refutou a si mesmo. (resumida em artigo muito bom de Vitor Meirelles)

Tempo aproximado de leitura: 3h30.

[Davis Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

If anyone is curious to find out why the Christian outlook is so joyful, read this. The eloquence and conviction is off-the-charts poignant. This has easily become one of my most treasured pieces of writing. Fair warning though: The sentences are pretty long and convoluted and it will take you much longer to read than most any other 20-page essay, especially if you venture into Gaunilo’s objection and Anselm’s reply (though I must admit I side with Gaunilo there - I favor the teleological, not the ontological argument, at least not as Anselm presents it).

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Of course, the historical significance of this work is in Anslem's ontological argument for the existence of God. And this argument appears within the first six pages of the book. But I found the rest of the book very rewarding. Faith Seeking Understanding -- that is the driving theory of the book, and Anselm's sincerity is moving. Some of his arguments are successful, others... not so much. But throughout, it is a passionate philosophical work.

Why don't we write philosophy like this anymore?

[Maxime N. Georgel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Je n'ai jamais lu un livre comme ce livre. Rempli de prières et de méditations comme les Confessions d'Augustin, rempli d'argumentation comme les Sentences de Lombard, léger dans le style comme le Cur Deus Homo. Je ne savais pas qu'un homme pouvait écrire quelque chose comme cela. J'en recommande vivement la lecture.

Et, au détour d'une ligne, Anselme nous livre l'argument ontologique pour l'existence de Dieu qui, dans sa forme modale, consiste à montrer qu'une saine déduction logique et rationnelle conduit à l'existence de Dieu si nous reconnaissons qu'il est possible que Dieu existe. Autrement dit, et j'y reviendrai sur mon blog (www.parlafoiblog.wordpress.com), l'argument ontologique montre que nous n'avons qu'à montrer qu'il est possible que Dieu existe pour prouver son existence.

Fantastique, je vous laisse avec la dernière prière de ce livre :

Je t'en prie, ô mon Dieu, fais que je te connaisse, que je t'aime afin qu'en toi je trouve ma joie tout entière. Et si je ne puis dans cette vie obtenir la plénitude de la félicité, qu'au moins elle croisse en moi chaque jour, jusqu'à ce moment désiré (la vie éternelle). Que dans cette vie, chaque instant m'élève de plus en plus à la connaissance de toi-même, et que dans la vie à venu-cette connaissance soit parfaite ; qu'ici mon amour pour toi s'accroisse, que là il atteigne sa plénitude ; qu'ici ma joie en espérance, soit de plus en plus grande, que là elle soit parfaite en réalité. Seigneur, tu nous ordonnes, tu nous conseilles par ton fils de demander, et tu nous promets que nous recevrons, afin que notre joie soit parfaite. Je demande, Seigneur, comme tu le conseilles par la bouche du maître admirable que tu nous as donné, fais que je reçoive, comme tu le promets par ta vérité, afin que ma joie soit pleine. Je demande ; fais, Dieu fidèle dans tes promesses, que je reçoive pour que ma joie soit pleine. Et maintenant, au milieu de ces désirs et de ces faveurs, que ce soit là l'objet des méditations de mon âme, et des paroles de ma langue. Que ce soit là ce qu'aime mon cœur, ce que parle ma bouche. Que mon âme ait faim de ce bonheur, que ma chair en ait soif, que ma substance tout entière le désire ; jusqu'à ce que j'entre dans la gloire du Seigneur qui est Dieu dans sa trinité et son unité, béni dans tous les siècles. Ainsi soit-il.

[Aayush Thapa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Faith seeking understanding. Anselm identifies a single self-sufficient argument for the existence of God: we think of God as that than which nothing greater can be thought. And from this one argument as from a generative principle all of the attributes of God (and more) can be deduced by simple logic. Obviously there are questions, as in how are we thinking of the concept "that than which nothing greater can be thought", or how can we understand the term "greater"? There are neo-Platonic presuppositions in every step, but the ontological argument is incredibly potent as it demonstrates that the existence of God is a proposition already implicit in my intellect: "I think, therefore God is." This has drastic consequences even for an atheist!

[Jon Cheek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anselm discusses the greatness of God and presents his classic argument for his existence.

“And indeed, we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. . . . And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. . . . Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.”

[Stephen Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anselm of Canterbury? More like Anselm the Brain-Breaker.

But as my professor said, there is so much more here than *just* the so-called “ontological argument,” which itself must be read in context. Anselm isn’t trying to reason himself into belief; rather, he is confessing that which he has already taken on faith in hopes that he might better understand.

[Gage Fowlkes · Rating 4 out of 5]

My introduction to the ontological argument for the existence of God. A mind-bender for sure. Anselm rewards the reader’s grit (earned by chewing thru that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought) with a beautifully doxological conclusion in the last 3 chapters.

[Drew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peculiar, yet delightful. The early sections are somewhat chaotic as Anselm reasons into faith, but as he meditates on the glory and existence of God, the Supreme Good, his meditation ends in joy.

[Daniel Stepke · Rating 5 out of 5]

beautiful in all aspects (excluding the ontological argument)

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a moving piece of piety and insight

[Marcy]

I had no plans to read this right now, as great as Cur Deus Homo was, but I was talked into taking a class that is discussing 'Faith Seeking Understanding' starting this week. So here goes!

[Ole Andreas Teistedal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gøy å lese om det ontologiske argumentet og Guds attributter, selvom det kan være litt forvirrende språk ettersom det er litt gammeldags. Avslutningen og beskrivelsen av håpet og livet vi har i vente var nydelig!

[Matthew Adelstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting combination of a philosophy text and a meditation on God. Too bad the ontological argument is bunk!

[Grace Mal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did I fully understand this? Yes....but no. I feel like he stated things so simply that I thought I got it. Then, I realized that I actually don't fully get it. But, I try. I love this

[alkowicz_czyta · Rating 2 out of 5]

no niech będzie