“By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing – even if we completely determine it – we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is. However, I think Kant’s point can be adequately summed up in this smaller quotation as follows: Plantinga quotes a long passage from the Critque, in which is contained the objection.
Because (says Kant), Anselm uses existence as a predicate in his argument, the argument fails. It relies on his belief that ‘existence’ is not a predicate, or property. Immanuel Kant’s objection to this formulation of the argument can be found in his Critique of Pure Reason. Anselm’s version only, so that is what this essay shall do also.Īnselm’s Ontological Argument as stated in Proslogion II can be simplified as follows:ġ) The concept of God is widely understood.Ģ) Whatever is understood exists in the understanding.Ĥ) God is defined as “that than which nothing greater can be thought”.ĥ) It is greater to exist in reality than to exist in the understanding alone.Ħ) Therefore, God must exist in reality (if not, a being greater than God could be thought of, i.e., a being that exists both in the understanding and in reality).
There are many different versions of the ontological argument however Plantinga’s article is concerned with St.
In this essay, I will show that Plantinga’s claim is false, as it relies on a misinterpretation of Kant’s view. In his article “Kant’s Objection to the Ontological Argument”, Alvin Plantinga claims that Kant’s objection (that existence is not a property or predicate) is irrelevant to, and has no bearing on, the ontological argument. Critically evaluate Plantinga’s view that Kant’s objection to Anselm’s Ontological Argument is irrelevant.
0 kommentar(er)
