humanities.philosophy.objectivism

malenor@gmail.com wrote:

> This thread is becoming more disagreeable with time (as always);
> but why did I disagree with you? Because your original one-liner did
> not sum up the ontological argument well at all, [...]

I wasn't trying to "sum up" the argument. I just stated that it depends
on treating existence as an attribute.

[...]

> The attribute you should be focusing on is not "existence," but
> "perfection" or "excellence." [...]

Why should I focus on those attributes? I don't have a problem with
treating "perfection" or "excellence" as an attribute. The one that is
problematic is "existence."

> [...] You can't expect to get away with an interpretation like yours
> which lacked the idea of God's perfection or excellence. [...]

What do you mean? I understand the role that "excellence" plays in the
argument. But that's not the aspect of the argument that I object to!

> I wouldn't have disagreed with you if you'd written something like:
>
> If an excellent thing exists, then a most excellent thing of all
> exists.
> If the concept "God" has higher excellence than all your other
> concepts, then God would be even more excellent if He actually
> existed. [...]

What would God be if He didn't exist?

>>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
>
> I wonder if you agree with all of that?

I read it fairly quickly, and I wasn't sure that I understood all of it.
But it appeared to me that the main thrust of it (or at least, the main
thrust of a portion of the article) was essentially the point that I
have been trying in vain to get across to you.

[...]

> Kant is saying that the predicate (or attribute) being is not an
> attribute. He is disagreeing with the kind of predicate that involves
> "has existence" or "has being," which involves a kind of question
> you've had previously here, as when you wrote, skeptically,
> "Existence is an attribute?"

Right. Exactly. So if you disagree with me about this, then you're also
disagreeing with your hero!

> And I'm saying that doesn't have
> anything to do with the ontological argument: [...]

Really? Then why is the article entitled "Of the Impossibility of an
Ontological Proof of the Existence of God"?

> So whether or not you consider the "island" example sound or
> unsound, it serves the purpose of spelling out the fact that
> treating existence as an attribute has nothing to do with the
> ontological argument for God's existence.

I don't think that the island argument "spells out" any such thing. It
parallels the ontological argument, with the island in place of God. The
island argument treats existence as an attribute that an island may have
or may lack, and it says that an island that has this attribute is
better (or more "excellent") than one that lacks it.

Mark