system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What am I missing with the ontological argument? It seems like one of the silliest philosophical arguments for anything ever, yet some people take it seriously? Or do they? Is it just a historically interesting piece of theology?

Truly it can't be compelling for anyone? I just don't get it.

It relies on an assumption (that the most perfect or "great" thing can be conceived) then makes a subjective analysis of "greatness" then assumes that this hypothetical greatest being would have to exist in order to fulfil the qualities necessary to be the greatest thing one of which is to exist.

I've learned about this argument multiple times and every time I just think it's the stupidest fucking thing. Yet invariably someone says they find it compelling. Am i missing something here?
gpt
> It relies on an assumption (that the most perfect or "great" thing can be conceived) then makes a subjective analysis of "greatness"...

This seems like a strange interpretation to me. Anselm is here using the typical language and context which is used to refer to one of the central concepts of the philosophical tradition of which he was an heir, notably the concept around which the theory of ontology typical to the time was framed, a concept with origins in Plato (notably, the theory of exemplar causality) and Aristotle (notably, the theory of analogical predication), and which was continually developed through the broadly Neoplatonic and Augustinian tradition that connects Anselm to these classical sources.

Is there a good reason to think that, appearances notwithstanding, Anselm is not referencing this philosophical background, but is rather introducing a novel analysis along the psychological and subjective lines you indicate here?