Resumen de Anselm, existence, and the metaphysics of intentionality: proslogion 2 revisited
I argue that (i) the Proslogion 2 argument rests on Meinongian assumptions, and (ii) Meinongianism is more defensible than many metaphysicians think, but (iii) although Meinongianism can be defended from (venerable) objections, the most promising (known) strategies for doing that call into question the cogency of the Proslogion 2 argument, so (iv) that argument is less than convincing, even if Meinongianism is true.
