But neither is what you have imagined, Hipster. There is no way that an imperfect being could actually conceive of perfection. Granted, your idea of the perfect being may be a reflection of the true existing perfect being.
But in order to prove that, you’d have to prove that said Perfect Being actually exists. Back to square one.
by the way, how do you feel about the perfect vacuum? logically, if we can conceive of the perfect vacuum, we don’t exist. A perfect vacuum being the complete absence everywhere of matter and all.
No, it’s more or less true. “Euclidian Geometry was well-followed though many different people have had problems with it. The parallel lines thing was a bit messy, and many attempts were made to prove it so as to avoid making God look like an asshole. Saccheri invented hyperbolic geometry as a result. we discoverd that mathematics doesn’t really describe the real world.”
No problem there. On the other hand, for Non-euclidian Geometry to work, you have to accept a different set of axioms which assign different meanings to words like “line” and “point.” Now, maybe making new definitions for old words doesn’t bother a Randian, but most of us would rather avoid this kind of juvenile solipism.
And again, epistemelogical questions are fairly objective and verifiable, as opposed to metaphysical questions like “it’s wrong to steal.” Two plus two is four, assuming the ordinary definitions of those words.
A “being that is perfect”–i.e., an actually existing entity, which is perfect in every other respect, e.g., perfectly wise, perfectly just, perfectly powerful, and so forth–doesn’t have to exist. A “perfect being” in the sense of an entity which “is” (fulfills the meaning of the verb “to be”) in a perfect manner would seem to describe every being which really is; “to be” in that sense isn’t really perfectible. Either you exist, or you don’t. I guess maybe this is what George was getting at when he described the logical flaw of the O.A. as being “amphiboly”, but I may be wrong about that. The point is, “existence” isn’t in the same category as “wisdom”.
That was Aquinas objection, sure. Still, I think Kant is the one who really did away with it.
I’m trying to design it, actually. It’s got a retractable cord in the handle, and an attached hose that you kind of shut off with a valve and then reattach to the body. the idea is to reduce the amount of bending over you have to do. Also, swivel casters.
Well, or it doesn’t exist, since the essence of vacuum is not existing.
Well, you’re doing a lot better than Alice’s Boyfriend, anyway. I would generally suggest people who are interested in this or other questions read about it, and the major criticisms, before holding forth. You’ve got the internet right here, and all.
Message to The Crimson Hipster Dufuz:
Simply telling people that they are not allowed to participate in a debate before they complete your required reading list, responding to objections with “That’s already been dealt with” and not dealing with it, complaining that people aren’t listening when the disagree with your points, and simply repeating your assertions without any support is not debating. You still haven’t provided any reason why a perfect tropical island, or perfect toaster, or perfect anything else that exists is not more perfect than a perfect tropical island, or perfect toaster, or perfect anything else that does not exist.
And this in no way makes Euclidean Geometry “wrong,” only the assumption that it was perfectly applicable to the “real world.”
Or rather, most mathematicians find redefinition of originally poorly defined entities to be completely in order. Really. Take pi for example. I’ve seen it most commonly “defined” to be the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle. This is fine. We may also define pi trigonetrically and then later derie the fact that (pi)d = C. Altogether remarkable, wouldn’t you say? We may even define pi statistically, though it is rather useless geometrically then.
Or perhaps the number e. We may define that as the limit of an expression to an infinite power, or perhaps instead as the base of an integration function. Some definitions are more useful than others.
That said, neither is more “right” mathematically, philosophically, or axiomatically.
You said it for me yourself there. But the basis of any epistemology (as Spiritus has gotten me to concede [sub]and spiritus, check that thread btw[/sub]) is pretty arbitrary.
But, feel free to expound the One True Epistemology where the Ontological Argument is impossible. I’m all ears.
That is, have even some idea what they’re talking about, so as to avoid being tiresome.
In fact, a zen master would probably say that the Island that exists is less perfect than the island that doesn’t, which is why you can’t use the ontological argument to prove the existence of the most prefect concievable island
for what it’s worth, the essence of the perfect vacuum isn’t non-existence. That is the definition of nothingness. A vacuum is somethinn in which there is nothing. Example, nothingness vs space w/ no matter.
Not to be picky, but a vaccuum does contain virtual particles, and that is something.
As far as perfect being is concerned, it was God who said his name is “I am that I am.” He is in existence, but things don’t have to exist or not exist. Some things are “becoming.” Human life, for example. Does a fetus exist as a human being? It certainly exists, but its existence is not perfect, as its existence is evolving. But that’s a matter for another post. I don’t know enough philosphy to argue intelligently on this one, exept to me, as pointed out, in a nutshell, if any thing exists it also has characteristics. The characteristic (or property) that is essential to make it what it is is its essence. As stated, the ontological reasoning fails because it does not make that distinction, between existence and essense.
A vacuum does contain virtual particles, but if the particles recombine and cancel eachother out with no observation taking place, then it is the same as having no particles.
and, by the way, we are obviously not self-annihilating pairs of negatron-positrons, are we?
No. I find Anselm’s refutation flawed. That is not the same as refusing to listen. Certainly you do not believe Anselm was infallible. Why, then, would you refuse to consider a refutation of Anselm which does not originate from a German Idealist?
My imagination is quite fine, thank you. I simply manage to differentiate it from my reason.
A circle is a geometric form. All circles are defined by exactly the same qualities. Perhaps you would like to “hold forth” on mathematics and demonstrate how one circle might be more perfect than another. Perhaps not. It might be that your arrogance is based upon a shallow understanding of the concepts involved and will shrink from any demonstration which requires thought rather than recitation.
Existence is no more intrinsic to being than to any other object. Neither Anselm’s assertion nor your repetitions of the point suffices to demonstrate its validity. Now, if you would like to exchange your reliance upon ad hominem assaults for a reasoned discussion, that might be an interesting place to start: given the class of all objects how might one derive an intrinsic necessity to exist for some elements but not others.
Easy, yes. Relevant, no.
I did not say my conception was a perfect being. That would necessitate its existence. I said that it was a conception of a perfect being. Whether or not that conception contains the element “being exists” has no consequence to whether the being contains the element “exists”.
Confusions in terminology do not create a valid argument.
You can read a man philosophy, but you cannot make him think.
As I mentioned above, I would be interested in seeing you develop an argument for how we determine existence to be a necessary quality of some objects yet not others. My susppicion is that you will have little luck with any course other than definition. I define a being to be an object with a necessary quality of existence. Of course, that still leaves the problem of determining which objects are members of the class “beings”. Still, it might be interesting if you feel able to support your assertions with anything other than attitude and repetition.
I would say impolite rather than mean. I would also add “naive” and “careless”.
Not precisely. We discovered that diffeent branches and fields of mathematics are more useful for mapping different aspects of the perceived Universe. Euclidian geometry perfectly describes that part of reality which can be represented on a plane. Spherical trigonometry correctly describes actions on teh face of a sphere.
It is correct that we have developed no field of mathematics which accurately describes all aspects of perceived reality.
Your first statement is correct but misleading. It is necessary to accept a different set of axioms. This is trivial. If you did not, you would by definition have Euclidian geometry. It is not necessary to adopt new definitions for existing terms. “Great circle”, for instance, works quite well as a term in Spherical geometry. The redefinition of “line” to make it correspond to “great circle” is simply a convenience based upon mathematicians’ long familiarity with Euclidian forms.
Your second characterizes any field which rigorously defines its terms as engaging in juvenile solipsism. Is it your contention that philosophers to not assign explicit definitions to the elements from which they develop their philosophies? If not, then do you argue that any philosophy (or any other branch of human knowledge) engages in juvenile solipsism when it uses terms that have broader or distinct meanings in some other field?
Or is this simply an example of why I would add naive and careless to your self-description.
A zen master would proably say the same about a being that does/doesn’t exist. Ergo . . .
Well, we’ve reduced him to citing Zen masters to try to support his position. Looks to me that he’s given up on trying to even appear to be using logic.