Abstract

Can the Proslogion argument for God’s existence be parodied to demonstrate the existence of the worst evil? This is what Duns Scotus contends in one of his works, where he presents such a parody as evidence for the argument’s unsoundness. Elsewhere, however, Scotus defends a “touched-up” version (coloratio) of Anselm’s argument. In my reconstruction, Scotus’s touched-up argument includes three stages: first, a demonstration that that than which a greater cannot be thought is a possible object of thought; second, a demonstration that that than which a greater cannot be thought can be thought to exist and so can exist; third, a demonstration that that than which a greater cannot be thought actually exists. Contrary to what has sometimes been maintained, I argue that Scotus’s argument does not make any illegitimate shift from logical to real possibility. I also contend that one of the most characteristic aspects of Scotus’s touched-up argument is that the comparison between existing in the intellect and existing in reality (arguably the weakest point in standard reconstructions of Anselm’s argument) plays no role in it, and that accordingly Scotus’s argument is immune from his own parody of Anselm’s argument.