Detached9

I never quite understood Kant's critique of The Ontological Argument (perfection requires existence, god by definition is a perfect being, therefore god exists). He mentioned something about existence not being an attribute. Maybe someone can help clear things up for me?

I understand various critiques of The Ontological Argument, but have always stumbled on Kant's critique. Any help would be appreciated.

Bill Snedden

I'm not well-read on Kant, but off-hand, I'd agree that existence is not an attribute. In order for it to be so, it would have to be possible for things to exist without the attribute of existence. I don't see how that could be.

There is (or has been) much debate about the status of "existence". I'm not sure the question is at all settled.

I'd say that existence must necessarily come before attribution but that nothing can exist without attribution. In other words, for something to exist, it must have at least one attribute.

Clear as mud?

Bill

pug846

Kant’s critique is that existence is not a predicate – existence is not a property to be had by an object. Only an object that exists in the first place can have properties.

For instance, lets say you have a red ball. If you were to list the balls properties one by one:

1. Red
2. Round
3. small
4. etc.

If you were to go through and eliminate each of these properties one by one, you wouldn’t be left with anything left after you had eliminated everything – saying it existed wouldn’t make sense.

So, the ontological arguments argues that since it is more perfect to have the property of existence than to not have the property of existence, God as the most perfect being must exists. As Kant argues, it is nonsense to talk about the property of existence.

That’s the quick and easy version of it – hope that made sense.

ManM

Hrm, something smells fishy here, and it is probably due to my own ignorance.

I can conceive of a unicorn and give an exhaustive list of properties. Yet in this case, I think 'existence' is a very useful predicate as it places the subject (unicorn) in reality as opposed to my imagination. And so, even though I apply many predicates to the subject of a unicorn, I am unable to say it exists.

I know Kant was no fool, so what is wrong with my thinking?

Detached9

Pug, that was perfect. Thank you.

pug846

ManM said:

The unicorn in your imagination doesn’t exist, just like the number 7 doesn’t really exist. You could certainly show me the brain waves that are formed when I think of a unicorn and the brain waves exist, but the unicorn doesn’t exist, even though I can conceive of it. Again, the number 7 doesn’t exist, yet I can think about it. I believe that would be Kant’s retort.

pug846

Actually, now that I think about it...Kant wouldn't agree with that at all. I don't know how Kant would respond, but that is how I would respond.

Bill Snedden

I, like pug846, am also unsure of what Kant would say, however I think the "problem" here is one of a informal vs. formal use of "existence".

In an informal sense, "existence" can be taken to mean any kind of predication one might make of an object. Thus, a unicorn might be said to "exist" as a mythological creature, or as a figment of the imagination. Such things might be said to "exist" as concepts. So, you can't really say that the unicorn doesn't exist; it does!

In a more "formal" sense, "existence" can be taken to indicate instantiation in reality. This type of existence would generally be denied to unicorns.

Maybe the reason Kant's objection seems to work is because the ontological argument (as stated here) is based on an equivocation between these two meanings (?).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

BLoggins02

I'm not sure, but I doubt it. The ontological argument seems to place heavy emphasis on "existance" meaning instantiation in reality. It makes little sense for the ontological argument to consider the more informal sense of the word because it undermines the argument.

NialScorva

But it does exist. It exists as a composite of properties that exist, painted on the landscape of your thoughts. Paintings of unicorns exist. They just don't have the property of "having been seen directly".

I would disagree with the notion that existence is not an attribute. I think it's more accurate to say that existence within a framework is an attribute, but if you can question it's existence, it necessarily exists linquisticly. Therefore existence in any context, which is what existence is commonly used as, is necessary for anything we can discuss.