Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:41:15 +1000

On 12/09/2007, Youness Ayaita <youness.a.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

> The no-justification argues that it doesn't make sense to introduce
> 'existence' as a property, or expressed in another way, that it is not
> possible to meaningfully separate (imaginable) things that have the
> (hypothetic) property that they 'exist' from (imaginable) things
> without that property. This leaves us with two options if we still
> want to use the concept of existence given by the everyday theory:
> that the ensemble of (imaginable) things is empty or that every
> (imaginable) thing has the property that it exists. The property is
> degenerate, it does not separate some (imaginable) things from others.
> Since, in our everyday theory, we say that things surrounding us
> exist, we must consequently take the second option: that every
> (imaginable) thing has the property that it exists. This is the
> Everything ensemble.

Are you aware that "existence is not a property" was Immanuel Kant's
answer to the ontological argument for the existence of God? Kant,
however, did not derive modal realism from this.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/existenceisnotapredicate.html




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Sep 12 2007 - 00:41:26 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST