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
    Proslogion 3's modal framing does not escape the is/ought... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Hume's and Kant's criticisms of the ontological argument do not target the strongest version of Anselm's argument found in Proslogion chapter 3.

    Proslogion 3's modal framing does not escape the is/ought gap between conceptual necessity and ontological necessity that Kant's Critique identifies.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Anselm's modal argument moves from 'conceivability in intellect' to 'necessary existence', conflating epistemic with metaphysical modality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant showed that logical necessity of a concept tells us nothing about whether the thing itself must exist in reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Proslogion 3's necessity-claim remains a predicate about the concept, not a bridge to actual ontological necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Anselm's 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' already encodes necessity as a perfection, not merely conceptual necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The is/ought gap assumes a sharp analytic boundary between conceptual and ontological that some metaphysical realists reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If necessity is a genuine property/perfection, then conceptualizing it correctly may genuinely track ontological facts, not conflate them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Anselm's 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' already encodes nece...Anselm's modal argument moves from 'conceivability in intellect' to 'necessary e...Hume's and Kant's criticisms of the ontological argument do not target the stron...If necessity is a genuine property/perfection, then conceptualizing it correctly...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kant showed that logical necessity of a concept tells us nothing about whether t...Proslogion 3's necessity-claim remains a predicate about the concept, not a brid...The is/ought gap assumes a sharp analytic boundary between conceptual and ontolo...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit