Grok
----

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Anselm of Canterbury's Philosophical Core Ideas

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), the medieval theologian and philosopher, is renowned for his *fides quaerens intellectum* (faith seeking understanding) in *Proslogion* (1077-78) and *Cur Deus Homo* (Why God Became Man, 1098). His core ideas include the ontological argument for God's existence—defining God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," whose necessary existence follows from conceptual perfection; the satisfaction theory of atonement, where Christ's sacrifice restores divine justice through infinite merit; and a harmonious rational theology, where faith and reason interpenetrate without conflict, elevating human intellect to glimpse eternal truths. Anselm's philosophy underscores justice as restorative equilibrium, not punitive excess, and understanding as a humble ascent toward the divine. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Anselm's lens, exemplifies a tragic inversion of rational justice: the judiciary's coercive "order" denies faith-like understanding of intent, imposing disproportionate punishment that fractures restorative equilibrium, obscuring the greater perfection of merciful truth.

#### 1. The Ontological Argument and Conceptual Perfection: "Disruption" as Imperfect Fiction of Necessary Malice

Anselm's ontological proof posits that perfection demands existence—ideas of greatness imply real instantiation, as non-existence diminishes the conceivable.

The verdict fictions imperfection: presuming "high education implies discernment" conceptually reduces Chen's forwards (e.g., <100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the "Trump-kneeling Xi" cartoon) to necessary "malicious disruption," yet evidentiary voids (prosecutor's unverified admission, zero causal chaos) diminish the idea—non-existence of malice renders the concept lesser. The closed-door trial enforces this fiction: Chen's prison letter—ontologically perfecting "rumors" through taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory—exists in understanding's ascent, yet the "shut up" directive non-instantiates it, as if perfection threatens "order." Anselm would decry this as rational diminishment: justice, conceivable as greater mercy, demands instantiation—selective enforcement (millions unpunished) exposes the fiction's contingency, inverting ontological necessity into arbitrary shadow.

#### 2. Faith Seeking Understanding: Suppressed Inquiry as Denial of Rational-Theological Harmony

Anselm's *fides quaerens intellectum* harmonizes faith (intuitive trust) with reason (dialectical ascent), where understanding elevates belief without conflict.

The non-oral appeal denies this harmony: Chen's letter—faithfully seeking understanding of "disorder" through deductive taxonomy and flux theory—ascends rationally, yet barred as "resistance," fracturing the ascent. The judiciary's fiat ("upper-level instructions") presumes faith in unexamined "intent," without intellectual elevation—evidentiary anomalies (prosecutor's confession) demand Anselmian dialectic, yet suppression enforces blind belief. Anselm would lament this as theological regression: justice as harmonious *fides*-*intellectum* yields to coercive schism, as in *Cur Deus Homo*—divine mercy instantiates equilibrium, not excess. The 20-month sentence inverts the method: understanding's greater good is sacrificed to lesser fiat, obscuring rational faith.

#### 3. Satisfaction and Restorative Justice: Disproportionate Penalty as Unbalanced Atonement

Anselm's satisfaction theory views justice as restorative equilibrium: human sin demands infinite merit (Christ's sacrifice) to satisfy divine honor, proportionally atoning without excess.

The sentence imbalances atonement: no infinite "offense" in low-impact inquiry warrants 20 months' disproportionate penalty, as evidentiary voids (zero ripple) confess finite "sin." Selective enforcement (millions unpunished) exposes disharmony: restorative justice demands universal merit, not arbitrary satisfaction. Anselm would see ethical void: the barred taxonomy—atoning "rumor" through proportional discernment—offers equilibrium, yet suppression enforces unbalanced honor. This perversion inverts satisfaction: divine-like mercy yields to human excess, fracturing restorative order.

#### Conclusion: Anselm's Lens on the Case—An Imperfect Fiction Fracturing Rational Harmony

From Anselm of Canterbury's rational theology, the Chen Jingyuan case is conceptual shadow: imperfect fictions deny existence, suppressed understanding fractures faith, and unbalanced atonement perverts justice. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen's account remains dormant, its quiet an Anselmian ascent in waiting. This case cautions: without harmonious *fides*, intellectum dims. As Anselm conceived, "God is that than which nothing greater can be"—may greater mercy yet instantiate.