humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:37:53 -0700, Mark N
wrote:

>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.

Depends, as in having that premise?

That premise is just not central to the argument, and I don't see
where it concludes that God has existence. The island argument (which
I still say spells out these facts) concludes that the most excellent
island must exist. Even if it used the phrasing "...has existence,"
that kind of reification of 'existence' is not relevant to the
argument, it's just an Aristotelian slip.

>> 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."

But don't you find problematic the idea of God's existence? How this
is worded, whether existence is made out to be an attribute or not, is
irrelevant to the argument.

"Excellence" is fine as an attribute, but we're talking about the
existence of a perfect excellence, without any flaws, and thus it is
one possessed only possibly by a perfect Being, God.

The existence of the attribute of "highest excellence," which is
perfection of being, begins in the ontological argument as a mere idea
(epistemologically?), which is then reified ontologically.

>> [...] 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!

Here's another way of analyzing this: you are only objecting to the
conclusion, "God, a being possessed of highest excellence, exists."
But wasn't Miss Rand concerned with checking premises? Is the
conclusion of an argument a premise of that argument?

Which premise(s) should be checked?

>> 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?

Out of context, I'm just giving you the interpretation that looks best
to me, I'm not questioning it here.

>>>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.

I hardly think that Kant was making that point, but if you want to
pretend he did based on the following, be my guest. Just keep scanning
it quickly until you run across something else that reflects your
belief. But if you don't want to understand the rest of it, that's
fine with me.

>> 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!

I don't need any heroes, I'm not some star-struck teenager.

>> 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"?

Because you read beyond the proof itself.

>> 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.

Ontological existence is more excellent than non-existence, which is
to say, God's existence is more excellent than your highest excellent
idea of it.

-

"I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he
might not be this at all. In fact, he probably
isn't. But it does not make any difference. If he
isn't, he could be, and that's enough."

Journals of Ayn Rand, Feb. 1928