عنوان مقاله [English]
Anselm’s ontological argument is the most famous one which has been controversial since its appearance. One crucial part of the argument is “if [that than which nothing greater cannot be conceived] exists solely in the mind even, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.” According to this part, one can make a comparison between “that than which nothing greater cannot be conceived” when it does not exist and itself when exist. Thus, there is a problem (we dub it self-comparison problem): how can one model this kind of comparison?
In this paper we will try to evaluate four attempts to solve the problem–namely those of Milican, Oppenheimer & Zalta, Lewis, and King. In responding to the problem, Milican and Oppenheimer & Zalta have dissolved the problem; Lewis uses possible-worlds semantics to model the comparison; and King, as Lewis, models it but by means of the intentional objects theory. We firstly argue that the problem is genuine and cannot be dissolved, secondly Lewis presupposes his, arguably problematic, possible-worlds metaphysics; and thirdly, King errs in recognizing the relata of the comparison.