According to Anselm, when I understand the meaning of a phrase that refers to some object, the object “exists in the understanding.” Do you agree? Why? Is Anselm confusing the idea we have of an...

According to Anselm, when I understand the meaning of a phrase that refers to some object, the object “exists in the understanding.” Do you agree? Why? Is Anselm confusing the idea we have of an object with the object itself? That is, he seems to say that understanding a phrase that refers to an object means the object exists in the understanding. Should he only conclude that the idea of the object exists in the understanding? If you carefully distinguish the idea of an object from the object itself, how would that affect Anselm’s argument?