Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Existence is a property

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:22:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Kant writes:

By whatever and by however many predicates I may think a thing (even in completely determining it), nothing is really added to it, if I add that the thing exists. Otherwise, it would not be the same that exists, but something more than was contained in the concept, and I could not say that the exact object of my concept existed...Whatever, therefore, our concept of an object may contain, we must always step outside it, in order to attribute to it existence.

Kant's ignores the possibility that "existence" is already a property of any conceivable predicate. In other words, adding "existence" to a predicate doesn't change it because we already conceive of it as existing within its object universe. But of course, this is not what Kant means. He means actual existence, or in other words, manifestation in the actual world. A maximally great being obviously possess the property "existence", but it also possesses actual existence, since God's definition precludes the idea that its object universe (the reality in which it exists) is a bounded context. That is, "actual existence" is a property of any predicate whose definition requires that its object universe be a universal descriptor, which obviously implies "maximal greatness" or "external boundlessness".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:37:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In other words, Kant's objection to "actual existence being a property" is irrelevant, since he's only dealing with "existence".
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:24:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let me break it down for you...

That quote had zilch to do with god at all...
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:12:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:24:43 PM, user_name wrote:
Let me break it down for you...

That quote had zilch to do with god at all...

It's Kant's objection to St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:14:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:12:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:24:43 PM, user_name wrote:
Let me break it down for you...

That quote had zilch to do with god at all...

It's Kant's objection to St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God.

Okay then explain it in context and don't create a strawman of a tiny part of it.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:14:14 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:12:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:24:43 PM, user_name wrote:
Let me break it down for you...

That quote had zilch to do with god at all...

It's Kant's objection to St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God.

Okay then explain it in context and don't create a strawman of a tiny part of it.

I basically did.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:56:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.

Kant says that existence is not a property, I say it is. How are we in agreement?

Please answer this: are you a troll?
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:56:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.

Kant says that existence is not a property, I say it is. How are we in agreement?

Please answer this: are you a troll?

You are not saying it's a property at all.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:04:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.

Kant says that existence is not a property, I say it is. How are we in agreement?

Please answer this: are you a troll?

You are not saying it's a property at all.

Yes I am. It's a fundamental property of anything conceivable.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:06:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:04:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.

Kant says that existence is not a property, I say it is. How are we in agreement?

Please answer this: are you a troll?

You are not saying it's a property at all.

Yes I am. It's a fundamental property of anything conceivable.

Kant never denied this. He simply denied that imagining something does exists adds any existence to it at all.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:09:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:06:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:04:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.

Kant says that existence is not a property, I say it is. How are we in agreement?

Please answer this: are you a troll?

You are not saying it's a property at all.

Yes I am. It's a fundamental property of anything conceivable.

Kant never denied this.

Kant explicitly denied that existence is a property.

He simply denied that imagining something does exists adds any existence to it at all.

That's because "imaging something does exist" is redundant, as it is already conceived as existing (already a property).
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:10:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:09:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:06:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:04:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.

Kant says that existence is not a property, I say it is. How are we in agreement?

Please answer this: are you a troll?

You are not saying it's a property at all.

Yes I am. It's a fundamental property of anything conceivable.

Kant never denied this.

Kant explicitly denied that existence is a property.

No he denied that it was a property of quantifiable means of measure. It either was or wasn't, one couldn't add to it nor take away from it.

He simply denied that imagining something does exists adds any existence to it at all.

That's because "imaging something does exist" is redundant, as it is already conceived as existing (already a property).
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:22:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:10:33 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:09:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:06:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:04:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.

Kant says that existence is not a property, I say it is. How are we in agreement?

Please answer this: are you a troll?

You are not saying it's a property at all.

Yes I am. It's a fundamental property of anything conceivable.

Kant never denied this.

Kant explicitly denied that existence is a property.

No he denied that it was a property of quantifiable means of measure. It either was or wasn't, one couldn't add to it nor take away from it.


Existence is a property of anything conceivable, because if it were removed, there would be nothing to consider.

He simply denied that imagining something does exists adds any existence to it at all.

That's because "imaging something does exist" is redundant, as it is already conceived as existing (already a property).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM, user_name wrote:

User_name: You are not saying it's a property at all.

Dylan: Yes I am. It's a fundamental property of anything conceivable.

User_name: Kant never denied this. He simply denied that imagining something does exists adds any existence to it at all.

Well which is it? Am I saying it's a property or aren't I?
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:51:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:50:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM, user_name wrote:

User_name: You are not saying it's a property at all.

Dylan: Yes I am. It's a fundamental property of anything conceivable.

User_name: Kant never denied this. He simply denied that imagining something does exists adds any existence to it at all.

Well which is it? Am I saying it's a property or aren't I?

You changed your mind later on. You began agreeing it was non-quantifiable then mentioned that it was a property that Kant had misunderstood.
Best wishes,
user-name.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:52:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:22:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:10:33 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:09:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:06:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:04:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:56 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:56:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:53 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:50:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:49:18 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:48:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:45:50 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:44:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:39:41 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:37:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Existence is not a property of anything. Anything is already pertaining to existence.

That's kind of the point. "Something" presupposes the property "existence".

Please break down the point you were making because I think either we both agree and Kant agrees with us too or you have misunderstood what he was saying.

When we think of something, we are thinking of something which exists (in its object universe).

Yes, and you did not add existence to it whatsoever. This is all that Kant was saying.

We don't need to add it, since it's already a property.

You agree with Kant and are too ignorant to admit it. You are arguing with someone on your side it is actually amusing to watch.

Kant says that existence is not a property, I say it is. How are we in agreement?

Please answer this: are you a troll?

You are not saying it's a property at all.

Yes I am. It's a fundamental property of anything conceivable.

Kant never denied this.

Kant explicitly denied that existence is a property.

No he denied that it was a property of quantifiable means of measure. It either was or wasn't, one couldn't add to it nor take away from it.


Existence is a property of anything conceivable, because if it were removed, there would be nothing to consider.

That's what Kant said.

He simply denied that imagining something does exists adds any existence to it at all.

That's because "imaging something does exist" is redundant, as it is already conceived as existing (already a property).
Best wishes,
user-name.