'not about existence', is an antimetaphysical dogma, not a self-evident truth. If Anselm is right, it can be shown to be incorrect. All logical questions (and indeed all questions) are about existence, though not all are equally directly and significantly so. Those logical or self-answering questions which most directly and significantly concern existence are at the same time 'metaphysical' questions. Anselm discovered one of the most important of these--does divinity exist? What Anselm proved was the contradictoriness of the negative answer. To reject the positive answer therefore amounts to rejecting the question itself. But the believer is likely to remain serenely confident in his realization that the question is inevitable--on some level of consciousness. It can only be repressed, not rejected.
Such was Anselm's gift to faith--and not only to faith, to philosophy, which cannot evade its responsibility to deal with faith. That the gift has rarely been accepted proves little, so long as it remains equally true that it has rarely been examined in anything much like the form in which it was offered.
Let us proceed with our own examination.
The next point to be clarified is the way in which the term God is being used. For a premise of the argument is that even the 'fool' who denies God knows, or thinks he knows, the meaning of the word. He is to be confuted by this very meaning. But what is the meaning? Anselm replied with great simplicity: to be God is to be such that 'none greater can be conceived'. And if you ask about the import of 'greater', the reply is, x is greater than y insofar as x is, and