The recurring question without an answer

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It never changes. It’s an automatic response.

Your morality system is unpredictable and depends on which side of the bed you arise from each morn. The Catholic moral system is not relative to ones’ fleeting feelings but to unchanging reasoned principles and that’s a good thing. Your distant cousin, as well as your mother, would certainly think so!

If by ‘unpredictable’ you mean ‘willing to change my mind’ then guilty as charged. Which would seem to be a position directly in opposition to yours.

 

[Gorgias]

In what way is “leprosy” better than the lack of leprosy?

Strawman argument. You’re asking a different question, I’m afraid. We’re talking about the existence of a being, not of a characteristic that the being might possess. So, the question rightly would be “is it better to exist and have leprosy than never having ever existed?”

(By the way the “null” thing is just an abstraction, which cannot have an ontological existence.)

That’s the whole point: ontological existence is superior to lack of ontological existence. Glad you brought that up: it’s better to exist than to be a mere abstraction.

When you talk all you want to do is show your right.

On the other hand, if I actually am accurate…

When you read all you see is what you want to see.

Perhaps I’m merely pointing out what you refuse to see.

Now maybe you can report me so Ill get banned.

Why would I do that? If my goal is to beat you, then that would take the opportunity away from me. (On the other hand, if my goal is for you to see the truth, then banning you is counterproductive in that case, too.)

You only looked for something you could use to win.

Isn’t that what you’ve been doing, too? Pot, meet kettle…

You dont want to listen and when you do you dont hear.

I hear. I listen. And when I see that someone misunderstands or misrepresents the truth, I’m not afraid to point it out to them.

 

[Freddy]

On the other hand, if I actually am accurate.

From what I read I think the lad had you covered on all points.

 

[Gorgias]

From what I read I think the lad had you covered on all points.

Right. There’s no distinction between the Golden Rule and the 2nd Great Commandment. Moreover, Buddhism doesn’t really assert that the universe is an illusion. Puh-leeze.

 

[Lys]

Strawman argument. You’re asking a different question, I’m afraid. We’re talking about the existence of a being , not of a characteristic that the being might possess. So, the question rightly would be “is it better to exist and have leprosy than never having ever existed?”

Leprosy is a disease caused by “Mycobacterium leprae” which is an ontological “being”. The question is: "is it better to have this bacterium to exist as opposed to have the world without it.

As for your secondary approach: “is it better to live in constant pain and suffering, rather than not having existed at all”? Everyone who contemplates and performs suicide would choose the latter one. And you are not in the position to “vote” instead of them.

Besides, you cannot separate the characteristic of a being from the being itself.

That’s the whole point: ontological existence is superior to lack of ontological existence. Glad you brought that up: it’s better to exist than to be a mere abstraction.

Says who? Is the actual existence of the AIDS virus “better” than if we would just imagine it?

Since you used the Anselm’s GCB, you might realize that the question of “is ontological existence better than conceptual existence” has been discarded by almost all philosophers - religious or otherwise. And rightfully so.

The problem is this: “the question of ‘is it better’?” as a nonsensical question without adding “better for WHOM”? Is the actual existence of a sadistic rapist better… for the VICTIMS? as opposed to a conceptual existence of such a rapist?

 

[Gorgias]

Leprosy is a disease caused by “Mycobacterium leprae” which is an ontological “being”.

The context of the discussion is being as it relates to rational beings, wouldn’t you agree? Nevertheless, let’s presume you’re asking the question, rather than asserting that a bacterium is a rational ‘being’. I would respond by pointing out that the notion of the ‘greatest being’ is normatively applied to rational beings. In that context, ‘being’ is superior to ‘non-being’.

Nevertheless, I’ll play along with your question. On the level of the bacterium itself – because that’s where the question is situated! – the question becomes “is it superior for the bacterium to exist or to not exist.” The question is never a relativistic / consequentialist / utilitarianist one. It’s not “is the universe a better place if Lys exists?”, but rather “is it better for Lys if he exists, or if he does not?” On the level of the question of existence, it’s always superior for you if you exist. If you do not exist, then there is less objective goodness than if you do exist.

The argument asserts that even a quantum of ‘goodness’ exists in your life, then that is superior to that quantum of goodness never being actualized (due to your lack of existence). It is not a question of whether or how you value your life – it’s whether there is goodness to your existence.

So… the question is explicitly not “is it better [to the universe] to have this bacterium exist as opposed to have the world without it?”. To present this question is to misrepresent the argument Anselm presents.

As for your secondary approach: “is it better to live in constant pain and suffering, rather than not having existed at all”? Everyone who contemplates and performs suicide would choose the latter one.

Clearly. Then again… are you asserting that a person in constant pain and suffering experiences clarity of mental thought? That their pain doesn’t cloud their perception and rationality? If so, then there is a reasonable question to be asked here, outside of their judgment.

And you are not in the position to “vote” instead of them.

It’s not a question of “voting”. One does not “vote” on objective, philosophical reality.

Lys:

Besides, you cannot separate the characteristic of a being from the being itself.

Umm… so you are the zit on your nose?

Lys:

Since you used the Anselm’s GCB, you might realize that the question of “is ontological existence better than conceptual existence” has been discarded by almost all philosophers - religious or otherwise. And rightfully so.

Again: strawman. We’re not debating the GCB – we’re discussing one of its premises. But hey… nice try redirecting the question.

Lys:

The problem is this: “the question of ‘is it better’?” as a nonsensical question without adding “better for WHOM”?

Agreed. One would have hoped you’d have read the argument and recognized the context, instead of misrepresenting it.

 

[Lys]

The context of the discussion is being as it relates to rational beings, wouldn’t you agree?

No, I don’t agree. The question is: “is it better for a being ‘X’ to exist ontologically, as opposed to its nonexistence or conceptual existence.” And the addition: “for whom?” is the quintessential addendum. Not just for being “X”? After all we are all parts of a complicated reality where entities have impacts on other entities. What is “good” for entity “X” is not good for entity “Y”.

So the whole question of “is ontological existence better than conceptual existence” is totally nonsensical. Not worthy to even posit this question, much less contemplating it.

 

[Gorgias]

No, I don’t agree. The question is: “is it better for a being ‘X’ to exist ontologically, as opposed to its nonexistence or conceptual existence.

Yes, but the context in which the question is asked is the context of the “greatest possible being.” Are you really gonna assert that a bacterium is in play, in terms of being the “greatest possible being”? Really?

And the addition: “for whom?” is the quintessential addendum

So, think about it for a second. Can the question be asked objectively without being asked subjectively? And, if it must be considered subjectively, then your objection disappears.

After all we are all parts of a complicated reality where entities have impacts on other entities. What is “good” for entity “X” is not good for entity “Y”.

Agreed. But, yet again, what is good for Y does not imply goodness for X. If we’re searching for maximal goodness, we cannot simply ask “is it good for this thing, or on balance?” What is good for you, or me, or for all Baltimore Ravens fans… cannot outweigh the fact that there’s a distinct question for the individual himself. And therefore, we cannot assert “maximal goodness” if a subjective consideration is not in play.

So the whole question of “is ontological existence better than conceptual existence” is totally nonsensical. Not worthy to even posit this question, much less contemplating it.

In your opinion. The minute I’m convinced that your opinion is Gospel truth, I’ll concede.

 

[Lys]

Yes, but the context in which the question is asked is the context of the “greatest possible being.”

No, it is not part of the question. (It was you who brought up “Anselm”.) It only deals with the abstract problem: “is ontological existence better than conceptual existence?”

Can the question be asked objectively without being asked subjectively ?

It cannot. And that is the problem with the abstract question. Incorrect questions have no answers.

If we’re searching for maximal goodness, we cannot simply ask “is it good for this thing, or on balance?”

I am not interested in “maximal” goodness, (which is nonsensical anyhow) only in the question: “is ontological existence ‘better’ (whatever that means), as opposed to conceptual existence”?

You said that some medieval philosophers “resolved” this problem, but no details were given.

Can you provide any solution and/or argument for it?

 

[Gorgias]

No, it is not part of the question. (It was you who brought up “Anselm”.)

Well… it was you who asked.

It cannot. And that is the problem with the abstract question. Incorrect questions have no answers.

I agree, to an extent: incorrect questions have incorrect answers. So, let’s ask an incorrect question: “if Lys is annoying to me, then is it superior that Lys exist or not exist?” See how that’s the wrong question to ask? I might answer “it’s superior to me”, but would you give the same answer? If the barista at Starbucks thinks you’re a bum, then would we necessarily answer “yep… better that Lys never existed”? Of course not. We can’t answer that objectively – in order to seek the answer – in a way that’s not consequentialist (since that approach is in conflict with Catholic Moral Theology) – we have to ask you: is it superior that you exist or not? Does your barista get to answer that question for you?

I am not interested in “maximal” goodness, (which is nonsensical anyhow) only in the question: “is ontological existence ‘better’ (whatever that means), as opposed to conceptual existence”?

Then you’re not interested in the question as it’s being asked. You’re asking a different question.

Can you provide any solution and/or argument for it?

Yes: do your own basic research into the question, rather than castigating me for providing the answer.

 

[Lys]

– we have to ask you: is it superior that you exist or not?

To whom and in what respect? Such a question cannot even be presented (much less answered) without accepting the consequentialist approach.

So, let’s ask an incorrect question: “if Lys is annoying to me, then is it superior that Lys exist or not exist?”

That is NOT an incorrect question. It is an awkward or uncomfortable question - for you. If my existence (and arguments) are annoying to you because you are unable to refute them, then my existence is “inferior” to you, because it makes you feel uncomfortable. For you it would be better if I did not exist. For others, who are interested in substantial dialog and want to learn from it, my existence is superior.

Then you’re not interested in the question as it’s being asked. You’re asking a different question.

What do you think I asked? The question is still the same: “Is actual, ontological existence better (or superior) as opposed to mere conceptual existence.” Anselm committed a basic error, and it was pointed out by other philosophers. He tried to present “existence” as if it were just another attribute, which is either present or absent. To say that some “thing X” is better than “thing Y”… in certain aspects, and then add: “oh, and it ALSO exists” is ridiculous. There are no attributes without existence. There can be imaginary attributes, but it is impossible to even speak of them, much less to evaluate them. (My imaginary brother is superior to your imaginary brother.)

Yes: do your own basic research into the question, rather than castigating me for providing the answer.

Ah. Another evader, who presents a position, and when asked to substantiate it, tries to evade it… how typical. Well, at least it came our rather quickly, before I wasted to much time on you.

 

[Gorgias]

To whom and in what respect? Such a question cannot even be presented (much less answered) without accepting the consequentialist approach.

Yes, of course it can. I’m explicitly requesting a non-consequentialist perspective. Is it superior that you exist, as compared to you never existing. It’s a simple question. Is “life” superior to “lack of life”. C’mon, man…

If my existence (and arguments) are annoying to you because you are unable to refute them, then my existence is “inferior” to you, because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

For you it would be better if I did not exist. For others, who are interested in substantial dialog and want to learn from it, my existence is superior.

LOL! My… touchy, today? Look – it’s just an example. It demonstrates that the question isn’t how I feel, but the question of whether your existence is superior to your non-existence.

There are no attributes without existence.

Au contraire. If there is merely conceptual existence, then there are conceptual attributes.

Ah. Another evader, who presents a position, and when asked to substantiate it, tries to evade it… how typical.

Ah. Another skeptic, who presents a question, but refuses to follow up and do his own basic research when the answers he requested are provided… how typical.

Well, at least it came our rather quickly, before I wasted to much time on you.

Thank goodness for that. I’d hate to waste your time by asking you to come to the discussion prepared.

 

[Komor]

If there is merely conceptual existence, then there are conceptual attributes.

Which is merely fantasy or imagination. The point is: “where does that concept come from”? From reality, or sheer imagination? Of course, if you dig deep enough every imaginary thing is rooted in reality. Distorted maybe, like a unicorn is a combination of a horse and some other animal with horns.

Nihil est in intellectu, quod not prius fuerit in sensu.

And any comparison requires the base of the comparison and someone who makes the comparison. A vacuous “which is better” is a meaningless question. It requires the specification of “for whom” and in “what respect”? How is it possible to deny it? I have participated in many conversations, but I never saw such irrational approach. (And the word “irrational” is just a convenient euphemism instead of a much stronger description).

 

[Gorgias]

Which is merely fantasy or imagination. The point is: “where does that concept come from”?

No, the point is that two types of existence are being discussed – ontological and merely conceptual. Lys asserted that there cannot be attributes without existence (presumably, he’s talking about ontological existence). I asserted that conceptual attributes are possible, as well.

A vacuous “which is better” is a meaningless question. It requires the specification of “for whom” and in “what respect”? How is it possible to deny it?

It does not, because we’re talking about whether ‘ontological’ or ‘merely conceptual’ existence is superior. If you want to address a different question, you’re free to do so. That’s not what we’ve been discussing here. If philosophy seems irrational to you, well… have an irrational day, brother.

 

[Komor]

No, the point is that two types of existence are being discussed – ontological and merely conceptual.

As Lys has already explained, “existence” (ontological existence, of course) is NOT an attribute, which is either present of not. The “conceptual existence” is just a sloppy wording. In the times of Anselm some philosophers treated “existence” as an attribute. But nowadays I have not heard of any serious philosopher who would agree with this concept.

 

[Gorgias]

As Lys has already explained, “existence” (ontological existence, of course) is NOT an attribute, which is either present of not

“Existence” is not an attribute. Lys did not assert otherwise. He claimed that attributes cannot be present absent existence (presumably, ontological existence). If you want to assert something different, please do so. We’ll show you the error of your assertion.

The “conceptual existence” is just a sloppy wording.

If you say so. Of course, that would mean that you’re merely asserting that Anselm was in error, without argument and purely by the force of your assertion. You know what a mere assertion, without argument, is worth… right?

 

[Komor]

“Existence” is not an attribute.

According to Anselm it is. His argument was that it is “superior” to have ontological existence rather than just imagined as a concept. As if existence would be something that can either be present or absent. His whole argument (which is discarded by theologians an philosophers) was based upon the concept of GCB, and that his being must exist, because to exist to “greater” than just being imagined. You should familiarize yourself with the topic.

If you say so. Of course, that would mean that you’re merely asserting that Anselm was in error, without argument and purely by the force of your assertion.

No, I gave the reason for it. And both theologians and philosophers agree with it.

 

[Gorgias]

His argument was that it is “superior” to have ontological existence rather than just imagined as a concept. As if existence would be something that can either be present or absent.

I think you’re being overly literal in your stress of the word “have”. More to the point, Anselm doesn’t discuss “having existence”, as if it were the possession of a characteristic. He discusses existing. So… no – not an attribute, but rather a state of being.

You should familiarize yourself with the topic.

Given your mischaracterization of Anselm’s argument, I think that “pot, meet kettle” is the most appropriate response. And trust me, I spent plenty of time with the medieval philosophers…

In any case, you’re only recapitulating Kant’s critique, which asserts that Anselm’s first ontological proof invalidly hinges on existence as a ‘property.’ You realize that his second proof doesn’t, don’t you? You realize that there is a second proof, right?

 

[Komor]

I think you’re being overly literal in your stress of the word “have”. More to the point, Anselm doesn’t discuss “ having existence”, as if it were the possession of a characteristic. He discusses existing . So… no – not an attribute, but rather a state of being.

What nonsense. “Overly literal”???

 

[Gorgias]

What nonsense. “Overly literal”???

Yes. You inserted the word “have” where it did not exist in the proof, and hinged your argument on it.