Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Kant demonstrated that existence is not a predicate that adds to a concept's content, but merely posits the concept as instantiated.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Distinguishing 'positing as instantiated' from ordinary predication merely relocates the problem without solving it—positing is itself a relation requiring explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Properties like 'being spatiotemporal' or 'being causally efficacious' seem to be genuine predicates that existence-claims necessarily involve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frege's logic can accommodate existence as a quantifier without Kant's distinction, making his thesis metaphysically unnecessary for modern philosophy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Adding 'exists' to a concept's definition doesn't change what the concept means—a 'real hundred dollars' has the same properties as an 'imagined hundred dollars'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Positing instantiation avoids the regress problem: we don't need to define existence itself or ask what 'existing' predicate means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ontological arguments fail only if existence is not a predicate, making Kant's view necessary to reject proofs that God must exist conceptually.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.