Comparing Anselm And Descartes 'Fool'

Anselm and Descartes both take for granted that their audience, Fool or otherwise, will accept the ideas foundational to the progression of their argument. Anselm needs his audience to accept the idea of “that than which nothing greater can be thought” and understand it (or at least claim to understand it). Descartes needs the reader to conceptualize an infinitely perfect being. In both Anselm and Descartes’ cases, the acceptance of the concept of the infinite is required for the persuasive strength of the argument as a whole. As the dialogue above suggests, there may be compelling reasons to reject the foundational assumptions used to prove God’s existence in these two cases. Neither Descartes nor Anselm have done the work needed for

Anselm expects the Fool to understand this idea as easily as the idea of the “tallest man in the room.” However unlike understanding who is “the tallest man in the room,” it is impossible to understand “that than which nothing greater can be thought” without understanding the infinite. Any conceptualization of “that than which nothing greater can be thought” requires understanding God’s infinitely many qualities, each of which He holds in infinite quantities (infinitely good, infinitely knowing,

In talking to the Fool, Descartes must account for the Fool’s insistence that an infinitely perfect being is incomprehensible. Descartes characterizes everyone as having concepts of “perfections” (infinite quantities of goodness, knowledge, self-existence) all of which God must possess (Descartes 59). To use this premise, Descartes needs the Fool to admit that his mind contains the idea of infinity which is needed to understand perfection. However, the Fool should not have to admit to understanding the infinite and even if he did, there is no way to assure that the concept of the infinite is truly