Final answer:
Anselm's distinction between necessary and contingent beings is that necessary beings are self-sufficient and must exist, while contingent beings depend on other entities. Anselm used the ontological argument, claiming that the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being implies God's necessary existence, as existence in reality is greater than mere conceptual existence.
Step-by-step explanation:
Distinction between Necessary Being and Contingent Being
The difference between necessary beings and contingent beings as posited by Anselm is that necessary beings are self-sufficient entities that must exist, in contrast to contingent beings which are dependent on other entities for their existence. Anselm supported this distinction through his ontological argument, which is a form of reasoning that deduces the existence of God by asserting that the concept of the greatest possible being necessitates existence; to exist in reality is greater than to exist merely in the understanding. Anselm's argument is fundamentally an a priori argument, meaning it does not rely on empirical evidence but on the internal logic of the concept of God itself.
Anselm's Ontological Argument
- Anselm defines God as 'that than which no greater can be conceived.'
- If such a being exists only in the mind, a greater being could be conceived to exist both in the mind and in reality.
- Therefore, to not diminish the greatness of God, God must exist in reality.
This argument leads to the concept of God as a necessary being, rather than a contingent one. Contingent beings, such as animals, plants, and human artifacts, are temporary and dependent on other things for their existence. They are not necessary in the sense that they could conceivably not exist. Anselm's ontological argument concludes that a necessary being, such as God, has inherent existence and does not depend on anything else.