humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Malrassic Park wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:10:00 -0700, Mark N
> wrote:
>
>>Malrassic Park wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:33:47 -0700, Mark N
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>
> If it's internally consistent then there is no self-contradiction. In
> and of itself, that's basically rationalism.

Who cares if there is "no self-contradiction"? I'm evaluating the
argument for *soundness*, and it comes up short!

>>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.
>
> I gave you a reason, you said you didn't take it seriously. However, I
> never asked you to "take it seriously," just understand the argument
> which takes God out of the picture and replaces it with a parallel
> argument using the perfect or most excellent island in existence
> instead.

I believe that I do understand it.

> Your idea of the ontological argument completely lacks the idea of
> 'excellence,' so if you want to know what's wrong with your version of
> it, start there.

OK, I'll get right on that. Thanks for the advice.

[...]

>>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?
>
> You're trying to get me agree that existence is used as an attribute
> in the ontological argument by implication. [...]

I'm not trying to get you to agree with anything. I am (or was -- this
is getting kinda old now) just trying to understand the basis of your
disagreement.

Here is an article I just found, by a guy who appears to be making
pretty much the same point that I have been trying to make. I have a
feeling that you may find his means of expressing it more agreeable than
mine.

http://tinyurl.com/ywoag4

Mark


b
o
t
f
o
o
d