© 2013, Proceedings of the ACPA, Vol. 86 pp. 129–140 doi: 10.5840/acpaproc20138611 Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Aristotle’s Elegktikōs Apodeixai Michael Oliver Wiitala Abstract: Saint Anselm’s ontological argument is usually interpreted either (1) as an attempt to deductively prove God’s existence or (2) as a form of prayer, which is not intended to “prove” God’s existence, but rather to deepen the devotion of those who already believe. In this paper, I attempt to find a mean between these two interpretations, showing that, while Anselm’s argument is not a deductive proof, it is nevertheless a proof of God’s existence. I argue that Anselm’s ontological argument is analogous to Aristotle’s to elegktikōs apodeixai (retorsive argument) for the truth of the principle of non-contradiction in Metaphysics IV: an argument that does not move from premises to conclusion, but rather demonstrates the truth of its conclusion by showing that its conclusion is always presupposed. I argue that interpreting Anselm’s ontological argument in this way exempts it from the most common objections against it. S aint Anselm’s ontological argument in the Proslogion is generally inter- preted in one of two basic ways. The most common kind of interpretation reads the argument as an attempt to deductively prove God’s existence. This way of reading the argument tends to focus almost exclusively on Proslogion II and looks for the logical structure of the argument, often ignoring both the textual and historical context in which the argument is situated. Hence, such interpretations usually begin by “reformulating” the argument of Proslogion II as an argument with numbered premises, often even changing its form to a reductio ad absurdum. Then, these interpretations proceed to deal with this “reformulated” argument as if it were Anselm’s own. 1 In contrast, the other basic way of interpreting Anselm’s ontological argument focuses on the text of the Proslogion as a whole and on the historical and social context in which it was written. These kinds of interpretations will often claim that Anselm’s argument is not a publically accessible, much less a strictly deductive, proof of God’s existence, but rather a form of prayer. Thus the “proof” of God’s existence in Proslogion II is a proof that is only convincing to those who pray. 2 While this second way of reading Anselm’s argument saves it from the endless debates and