humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Malrassic Park wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:33:47 -0700, Mark N
> wrote:
>
>>Malrassic Park wrote:
>>
>>>Here is Gaunilo's "island" version of Anselm's ontological proof of
>>>God:
>>>
>>>'"Now if some one should tell me that there is ... an island [than
>>>which none greater can be conceived], I should easily understand his
>>>words, in which there is no difficulty. But suppose that he went on to
>>>say, as if by a logical inference: "You can no longer doubt that this
>>>island which is more excellent than all lands exists somewhere, since
>>>you have no doubt that it is in your understanding. And since it is
>>>more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist both
>>>in the understanding and in reality, for this reason it must exist.
>>>For if it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more
>>>excellent than it; and so the island understood by you to be more
>>>excellent will not be more excellent".'
>>
>>It seems pretty clear to me that this argument *is* treating existence
>>as an attribute. What is the difference between the more excellent
>>island and the less excellent island? Isn't it that the former possesses
>>the attribute of existence, while the latter lacks it?
>>
>>This guy is (supposedly, although this actually doesn't make any sense!)
>>comparing two islands, one that exists and one that doesn't exist, and
>>saying that the former is more excellent, on account of the fact that it
>>exists. And people actually take this seriously! It's amazing to me! :-)
>
> If you don't want to read it for internal consistency, then you have
> not understood the ontological argument and you can't say anything
> about existence being used as an attribute, etc.

I "don't want to read it for internal consistency"? I'm sorry, but I
have no idea what that means.

I'm open to the possibility that I may have somehow misunderstood the
"ontological argument." But you have not given me any reason to think
that that's the case.

>>>Anyway, the argument slides from the existence of perfection or some
>>>other excellence as a concept to its ontological being, aided along by
>>>the premise that "it is more excellent not to be in the understanding
>>>alone," its reality would make it a greater excellence yet, indeed,
>>>the greatest possible.
>>
>>I assume that an island that is *not* "in the understanding alone" is
>>one that possesses the attribute of existence, and that an island that
>>*is* "in the understanding alone" is one that lacks existence. No?
>
> In the example above, the word in dispute is consistently being used
> as a verb.
>
> So I will answer, "No."

So if I say, "X is better than Y, because X has existence while Y does
not," then I'm treating existence as an attribute, because I used the
noun "existence"? But if I say, "X is better than Y, because X exists
while Y does not," then I'm not treating existence as an attribute,
because I used the verb "exists" instead of the noun "existence"? Is
that what you're saying? If so, can you explain what you think is the
difference in meaning between the two statements?

Mark


b
o
t
f
o
o
d