Combining Texts

Ideas for 'works', 'Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations)' and 'The Philosophy of Logical Atomism'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


3 ideas

28. God / B. Proving God / 2. Proofs of Reason / b. Ontological Proof critique
Existence is not a first-level concept (of God), but a second-level property of concepts [Frege, by Potter]
     Full Idea: For Frege (unlike Kant) existence is a genuine concept, but of the second level, not the first. Since God's perfections are of the first level, existence is not a candidate to be one of them.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §053) by Michael Potter - The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 09 'App'
     A reaction: That is, God's perfections are of God, but existence is a concept of concepts (that they are instantiated). So existence is a metaconcept. I'm not convinced. If I bake a successful cake, its existence is its most wonderful feature.
Because existence is a property of concepts the ontological argument for God fails [Frege]
     Full Idea: Because existence is a property of concepts the ontological argument for the existence of God breaks down.
     From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §53)
     A reaction: The point being that existence (like number) is not a property of actual things. His proposition sounds rather dubious. The concept of unicorns exists quite entertainingly; it is the failure of actual unicorns to exist that is so heartbreaking.
You can discuss 'God exists', so 'God' is a description, not a name [Russell]
     Full Idea: The fact that you can discuss the proposition 'God exists' is a proof that 'God', as used in that proposition, is a description and not a name. If 'God' were a name, no question as to its existence could arise.
     From: Bertrand Russell (The Philosophy of Logical Atomism [1918], §VI)
     A reaction: Presumably 'a being than which none greater can be conceived' (Anselm's definition) is self-evidently a description, and doesn't claim to be a name. Aquinas caps each argument with a triumphant naming of the being he has proved.