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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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