When I thought of Anslem's ontological argument, the form that he takes (reductio argument), I couldn't help but think back to the Socratic dialogue. Could reductio be used to define the form of argument he makes in his dialogues? He assumes the young man knows something, for the sake of the discussion. Then he shows the young man how his view is incorrect, just as Anslem shows how atheism leads to a contradiction, leading the young man to side with Socrates' view-they are both ignorant.