tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post7813112831166258381..comments2023-07-18T08:00:22.009-05:00Comments on Steinblog: Kant's Reply to Anselm's Ontological Argument Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-7348677544219187662016-02-12T19:12:57.359-06:002016-02-12T19:12:57.359-06:00Anselm wasn't making an argument for the exist...Anselm wasn't making an argument for the existence of god because this particular belief, in his own epoch, was a given. Rather, he was making various arguments for both the knowability of knowing god versus the impossibility of this--all within the same book!<br /><br />Kant's point, while obviously valid, must be seen within the context of the polemic engaged with those of his own time, who pulled Anselm's 'ontology' out of its own context--ostensibly to serve a purpose for which it was not designed.<br /><br />Doing so is what's called 'theology'.bill harrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-61796112947158472182016-01-25T19:17:36.671-06:002016-01-25T19:17:36.671-06:00I believe existence to be a property of a thing. W...I believe existence to be a property of a thing. What differentiates between me and the idea of me is that I exist. Without the property of existence I am merely a figure in someone’s imagination, I have no ability to affect and be affected by the world around me. Because of this I think that existence is a “greatness making property” since it gives one the ability to influence the world around it. If I am standing on a crowded subway after a long day, I can imagine the perfect chair and how comfortable it would be for me to sit on it in while I wait for my stop. Although I can clearly see all of the chairs properties this imaginary chair does not give me the same satisfaction or relief than if the actual chair existed and I had the actual capacity to sit on it. Existence changes a property from the imaginary to the physical. To me, this change marks a change in the list of properties as well. A chair that I can sit on is a tangible object whereas an imaginary chair lacks the property that is tangibility. In order for something to be real it must exist and be able to influence the world around it. If something doesn’t exist than the idea of realness comes into question. Therefore, if you were to say that existence is not a property of a thing than you would also be forced to agree that being real or not is also not properties, which seems, to me, to be incorrect. Existence and realness are both properties that are critical in determining how and if an object is reflected in the world. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com