Well this is related to what said about the notion of unlimited (although it is more precisely about power than general unlimitedness). Do we think th...
I don't find this controversial when applied to existence. See my reply to Wayfarer: - Is the concept of (1) "unlimited"? Not per se. And are you poin...
Part 3. The Atheist, Who is Not a Fool I want to open up the third section for anyone who wants to move on. Those who want to keep looking at earlier ...
- Pulling in quotes from a different thread in order to make it appear as if something was said here? To make it look like the "this thread" from Janu...
You are going to embarrass yourself again by going so fast and not taking enough care. (a) is the root of the reductio itself, for (b) contradicts (1)...
The wonder of Anselm's proof is that it does something that we think it should not be able to do, and it is very hard to say why it is wrong, or at le...
- Haha :grin: - - I like Janus' answer. I know you think the early Christians did not believe that God exists, but luckily we don't have to discuss th...
Well this looks like an argument against God, and I'm struggling to see how it derives from "this construction" (namely Klima/Anselm's definition of G...
Well, suppose life is just the result of an accidental collection, such that when the parts are in place there is life. So as an analogy, if my jigsaw...
- Thanks Paine. Another very lucid and helpful post. :up: Some overlap here: - Yes, I think I am just barely understanding what you are saying here. I...
Yes, and this bears on premise (3): To contradict this is to say that a thought object is not thought to be greater in virtue of its being thought to ...
And moving on is fine, but I want to highlight that this objection of yours is precisely the sort of Quinian question-begging that Klima wanted to off...
Klima claims that the proof is valid, and it looks to me that he is correct. I see you saying, "This thought object can't be quantified, and that's fa...
:roll: You are here projecting your own difficulties. For example, when I asked you a question we both knew the answer to, you decided to lie instead ...
Fair enough. Anselm's proof is definitely a big part of the paper. I tried to highlight that in the OP: - As I said earlier, in section 2 Klima gives ...
What is your idea here? Is it that ampliation has to do with "reaching beyond themselves," and so that if something is reaching beyond it is ampliatin...
Rather, Klima thinks debating and argument is crucially important, particularly with respect to fine and concrete points. This is what we are doing ri...
Let’s look at ampliation in relation to Banno’s objection: Let’s consider three different options with respect to the greatest number: First: "The gre...
Anselm's proof is for the conclusion that God "has to exist also in reality." In order to understand what a paper contains one must read it. That's wh...
The problem with objecting to the two-place predicate M()() in premise (1) without looking at premise (3) is that premise (3) is the crucial place whe...
Your objection relies on the idea that some concepts cannot exist even as beings of reason (entia rationis). If you can't flesh out that idea then the...
Yes, and I actually think Klima's interpretation vindicates Anselm's reply to Gaunilo. I added a link to Anselm's Proslogion <here>, and the header wi...
I actually know philosophers who find the argument convincing, but they lack prejudice in an abnormal way. Someone without prejudice who encounters an...
But the proof at hand does not assume that, and it nevertheless succeeds in drawing the conclusion. It does not assume that "existing in reality" is a...
It sounds like you're saying that we can't have a being of reason if it isn't a being. Or in other words: we can't think of what doesn't exist. "X doe...
I think it's worth taking a moment to say something here: The trouble with the 30,000 foot view is that everyone is right in their own book at 30,000 ...
Cool, thanks Banno. I guess we're on the same page that quoting someone accurately or inaccurately makes no difference. Syntactical "formatting" is ju...
On my computer screen Klima's html version reads as follows: (1) g=dfix.~(?y)(M(y)(x)) Or if we look at the official book chapter, linked in the OP: g...
Your misrepresentation is still there: (1) g=dfix.~($y)(M(y)(x)) (As well as the other lines of the proof where similar problems occur) That post of y...
Okay, so you're not actually objecting to step (2) of the proof? Klima is explicit that step (2) is a supposition and that step (1) is a definition, s...
Maybe check the book chapter version above. Your web interpreter may be misinterpreting the html encodings (although that would be a bit surprising - ...
- Good. This is what I mean by "engaging the paper." Pontifications from 30,000 feet are something that should only come after we've worked through th...
"What Is It Like to Be a Troll?" by Banno with a preface by Thomas Nagel. You haven't engaged with the paper at all, so clearly you're not managing to...
In the way that quantification brings with it ontological commitment. Quine is meant to be part of the background for common contemporary interpretati...
Does "pooch" refer to the three of us equally? Do you see how if I adopt your methodology we will be unable to communicate? I've only said that refere...
Yes, I think this is a key point. Right, and when we teach someone a new language we are teaching them about the intentional relations that attach to ...
Right, ergo: So back to your original quote of Klima: My understanding is that you are saying Quine rejects the idea that existence is a second-order ...
Part 2: The Proof (Here is a link to Anselm's Proslogion for those interested.) In this section Klima formulates Anselm's proof according to the princ...
But you've changed the scenario. There is one dog, not three. Or do you think it is not possible to have a room with one dog? So you've reiterated the...
- So is the idea that Quine is here implicitly abandoning this doctrine that is "espoused in my own first book"? Is Quine here abandoning his idea tha...
Odd to continually bring up things that you aren't willing to support or defend. It's almost like you're just a bored old man who wants to stir up con...
Yes, the Troll hath arrived, as anticipated: Banno polled the recent fads in Anglo philosophy and found that Kripke is more popular than Russell. If h...
Because you said: So you want to critique and call out McDowell while simultaneously avoiding giving any substantive account of what you think McDowel...
The other technical part of this section concerns "ampliation": The idea here is that we can think about something without thinking that it exists, so...
I will say that Moliere and I are referring to the same thing with 'chair' or 'rabbit'. Someone else will come along and tell me that there is a 0.1% ...
Presumably we all agree that words signify by convention ("nomina significant ad placitum"). So then a token like J-o-h-n will be indeterminate if the...
"Islamophobia" - "Homophobia" - "Transphobia" Whenever someone tries to attach a term from psychiatric diagnostics ("phobia") to the person they disag...
"There are no fixed referents," vs, "We could be wrong some of the time." Do you see how the latter does not justify the former? If you and I are sitt...
Comments