Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Kant's critique that existence is not a predicate exposes a structural flaw intrinsic to all ontological arguments, not merely contingent versions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Kant assumes existence is never a predicate, but quantified logic treats 'there exists an x' as fundamentally different from properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Some ontological arguments (Gödel's) don't treat existence as a predicate but derive necessity from positive properties themselves.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim that existence adds nothing to a concept may conflate grammatical form with logical function in formal systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Existence is not a property that increases the extension of a concept; perfect island + existence = still just island.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
All ontological arguments treat existence as a predicate by deriving instantiation from conceptual definitions alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Kant's distinction collapses attempts to move validly from analytic truths about concepts to synthetic truths about reality.
?
How convincing is this?
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.