The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Jenny A]

We conceive of things that do not and even cannot exist all the time.

The Scholastics also distinguished between what can be imagined and what can be conceived. The nomenclature of the argument, like maximally great, conceive, imagine, possibility and necessity, have highly specific applications. I don't mean to disparage anyone not familiar with that philosophical tradition nor am I saying that the ontological argument is correct. I just think there really isn't much point discussing the merits of this particular argument without a contextual understanding of the terms used.

The way I see it, many of their useful and important distinctions have been lost because of general ignorance and modern misunderstandings about the Scholastic tradition. As far as that goes, I too am ignorant about so much about Medieval philosophy and its hard to hold on to the specific meanings of related terms that in everyday life are generally interchangeable. There is so much to learn and everything I have learned has been profoundly illuminating, if only because it provides important context for much of what gets discussed in contemporary philosophy.

I see no sense in announcing that we don't get medieval philosophical definitions, if you don't go further and provide definitions. What do you think the difference between conceive and imagine is in this context?   I think of conceiving as concretely imaging a possible thing.  But maximally great is neither imaginable, nor conceivable.  So, if you wouldn't mind, could we have the definitions of maximally great, conceive, imagine, possibility, and necessity?

It's been 35 years since I read Thomas Aquainus, or Anselm, and I really have no interest in going back to the oringinals, but given your definitions, I'd be happy to discuss the ontological proof.   My 19 year old self was unimpressed.  So, provide definitions and impress my 50 year old self.