Existence, predication, and the ontological argument
J Shaffer - Mind, 1962 - JSTOR
J Shaffer
Mind, 1962•JSTORHUME said," There is no being,... whose non-existence implies a contradiction", 1 and Kant
said," The predicate of existence can.. be rejected without contradiction". 2 In making these
claims, Hume and Kant intended to bring out a peculiarity in assertions of existence, for they
both would admit that assertions that something was (or was not), for example, round might
turn out to be self-contradictory, whereas assertions that something exists (or does not exist)
could never turn out to be self-contra-dictory. Now if this is a genuine peculiarity of …
said," The predicate of existence can.. be rejected without contradiction". 2 In making these
claims, Hume and Kant intended to bring out a peculiarity in assertions of existence, for they
both would admit that assertions that something was (or was not), for example, round might
turn out to be self-contradictory, whereas assertions that something exists (or does not exist)
could never turn out to be self-contra-dictory. Now if this is a genuine peculiarity of …
HUME said," There is no being,... whose non-existence implies a contradiction", 1 and Kant said," The predicate of existence can.. be rejected without contradiction". 2 In making these claims, Hume and Kant intended to bring out a peculiarity in assertions of existence, for they both would admit that assertions that something was (or was not), for example, round might turn out to be self-contradictory, whereas assertions that something exists (or does not exist) could never turn out to be self-contra-dictory. Now if this is a genuine peculiarity of assertions of existence, then it follows that any proof that something exists because its nonexistence implies a contradiction will be invalid. A famous example of an argument which purports to prove the existence of something by showing that its nonexistence implies a contradiction is the Ontological Argument, which purports to show that it follows from a particular concept of God that such a being exists, and therefore that the assertion of the nonexistence of God is self-contradictory. Most philosophers have agreed with Hume and Kant that the Ontological Argument is invalid, although it has recently been defended. 3 My own view is that the argument is basically unsound, but I find the standard criticisms totally unconvincing. In this paper I shall show what I take to be the faults in the standard criticisms and then go on to show what I take to be the proper criticism of the argument.
The many versions of the Ontological Argument have in com-mon the following feature: a definition of" God" is given from Which, by the use of certain premises, the conclusion," God exists", is deduced. The Ontological Argument has frequently been attacked by casting doubt upon the acceptability of these premises. I wish to avoid such controversies. I am interested in the move from a definition to an existential statement. Therefore I shall use an argument which brings attention to bear just on that move. This will be the specimen under discussion: Let the expression," God", mean" an almighty being who exists and is eternal" Therefore" God is an almighty being
JSTOR