Homework answers / question archive / 1)Kant argued that there is no real difference between an existing triangle and the concept of a triangle

1)Kant argued that there is no real difference between an existing triangle and the concept of a triangle

Philosophy

Share With

---

1)Kant argued that there is no real difference between an existing triangle and the concept of a triangle. The idea of a triangle can be explored a priori (prior to experience), but the existence of a triangle must be explored a posteriori (after experience). [Kant applied this same counterargument to the ontological argument for God, that the existence of God can only be known a posteriori, after one has observed God. No one has ever seen God, therefore, no proof for God's existence].

2.      What are the current usual counter-arguments to the ontological argument for God's existence?

a.       Existence is not a perfection or a real predicate that can be added to change the concept.

1)   Kant admits that it is possible (modal possibility) to make analytically true statements about God. Examples include: "God is all-powerful," "God is eternal," and "God is infinite." These statements all derive their predicates from an examination of the idea of God.

2)   What one cannot claim is that "existence" is a predicate that belongs to the concept of God, because existence is not an actual predicate. Therefore, the ontological argument is a fallacy, Kant argues.

b.      All existence statements are synthetic.

1)     Analytic statements, such as "Bachelors are unmarried males," are true by definition, by analysis of the subject. The predicate "unmarried males" is contained in the subject "bachelors."

2)     But Kant argued that Anselm's (and later Descartes' and others) ontological arguments made a fallacious assessment of there being a synonymity between the verb forms "to be" and the word "exists."

3)     Malcolm counter-responds to Kant's reply by reminding that geometry establishes proof for an infinite set of prime numbers, but they are not known by appeal to experience, the senses. Proof for an infinite set of prime numbers is by reason alone, just as one can argue rationally for the existence of God without appealing to experience, Malcolm argues.

4)     But the verb form "to be" is used in different ways depending upon the context in the sentence. For example, the word are means three different things in the following three sentences.

a)      Bachelors are. [This verb "are" denotes "existence."]

b)     Bachelors are unmarried males. [Here the verb "are" denotes an analytical judgment, based on the definition of a "bachelor."]

c)      Bachelors are adventuresome. [This use of the verb "are" denotes a "synthetic judgment." One can only know if bachelors "are" adventuresome a posteriori, after observing actual bachelors.]

c.       Necessity is a property of statements, NOT of beings. One of the features of analytic statements is that their truth can be determined completely a priori, and such true statements are necessarily true.

1)     The truth of such statements cannot be disproved by experience because the truth or falsity of analytic statements is a function of the terms in the statement, just like math problems. They are all derived purely from what is already given in the stated math problem. No sensory experience of them is required.

2)     One counter-argument to this argument, originated by Kant, is that one can speak of a statement as necessarily true, but there is no "sense" in stating that a being is necessarily existing.

3)     Necessity is a property of statements, NOT of beings. Kant's argument is that failure to recognize that fact leads one to think that one can conclude that God necessarily exists because one makes necessarily true statements about God (that is, IF God existed, certain predicates about God would be necessarily true).

4)     [See Malcolm's counter-argument to Kant's argument above in section B1 and B3b3)].

 

 

 

Do you agree with Kant's claim that existence is not a real predicate? Or do you agree with Malcolm's view that necessary existence IS a perfection, such that a Necessary being could not NOT exist? Why or why not? Show that you understand both sides by giving arguments from both, then conclude with the argument with which you agree, and why.