Modal ontological argument

[vulcanlogician]

I don't like the careless insertion of a classical concept, maximally great, into an arguement structured according to analytic philosophy.

Maximally Great already entails necessity in all possible worls.

I tend to think of "maximally great" as a reference to utilitarianism. So only a little over a century old. In philosophical terms, quite young.

---

But maybe I'm unaware of some classic that I should be.

---

So I guess it's referencing Anselm. But I always knew it as "a being greater than which no there could be." Which is different (subtly) from maximally great.