The Two Stacks of Coins

[UnworthyApostle]

Kant tried to demonstrate that existence is not a perfection of an object, and he used the following example in doing so.

He said that the thought of an idea of a hundred coins existing in the intellect alone is not different than the thought of an exisitng hundred coins in reality.

Surely though this reasoning has some underlying inconsistecnies.

For example. if I go to buy a lottery ticket, I have the idea that there exists a certain amount of money in reality and that it is winnable, which prompts me to buy a ticket.

Or, if I go to work at a job, I concieve the money I will earn exists in reality, which prompts me to work.

Now. if I think the converse, that is the money only exists as an idea, and existence is not attributed to it, then both of the afromentioned situations would be insane to mention.

Why would I work only for an idea that does not have existence?

If it could not exist, then my labor would be in vain.

If the money in the lottery exists only as an idea, and does not have existence attributed to it in my mind, then I would be a fool to buy a ticket.

Therefore, there is a greater quality of a thought which attributes existence than one that does not.

 

[JohnDamian]

Therefore, there is a greater quality of a thought which attributes existence than one that does not.

Evidently.

The predicate of existence (real) perfects an entity. The concept of an entity in quid is formally distinct from a real entity in hac. The latter being perfected by it’s existence (haecceicly) which is real by nessecity, and the former being imperfect through it’s quiddity which specifies existence as an accident and not a nessecity.

 

[momor]

Also a good reality check is to take those imaginary 100 coins into a store and try to buy something with them.

 

[Abba]

Kant tried to demonstrate that existence is not a perfection of an object, and he used the following example in doing so.

He said that the thought of an idea of a hundred coins existing in the intellect alone is not different than the thought of an exisitng hundred coins in reality.

Surely though this reasoning has some underlying inconsistecnies.

For example. if I go to buy a lottery ticket, I have the idea that there exists a certain amount of money in reality and that it is winnable, which prompts me to buy a ticket.

Or, if I go to work at a job, I concieve the money I will earn exists in reality, which prompts me to work.

Now. if I think the converse, that is the money only exists as an idea, and existence is not attributed to it, then both of the afromentioned situations would be insane to mention.

Why would I work only for an idea that does not have existence?

If it could not exist, then my labor would be in vain.

If the money in the lottery exists only as an idea, and does not have existence attributed to it in my mind, then I would be a fool to buy a ticket.

Therefore, there is a greater quality of a thought which attributes existence than one that does not.

Is there a reason as to why you are not citing your source nor using paratheses and giving credit to where credit is due?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Well if the money exists only as an idea I will let the lottery ticket and work remain as ideas.

 

[Betterave]

Kant tried to demonstrate that existence is not a perfection of an object, and he used the following example in doing so.

He said that the thought of an idea of a hundred coins existing in the intellect alone is not different than the thought of an exisitng hundred coins in reality.

Surely though this reasoning has some underlying inconsistecnies.

For example. if I go to buy a lottery ticket, I have the idea that there exists a certain amount of money in reality and that it is winnable, which prompts me to buy a ticket.

Or, if I go to work at a job, I concieve the money I will earn exists in reality, which prompts me to work.

Now. if I think the converse, that is the money only exists as an idea, and existence is not attributed to it, then both of the afromentioned situations would be insane to mention.

Why would I work only for an idea that does not have existence?

If it could not exist, then my labor would be in vain.

If the money in the lottery exists only as an idea, and does not have existence attributed to it in my mind, then I would be a fool to buy a ticket.

Therefore, there is a greater quality of a thought which attributes existence than one that does not.

I believe Kant’s point refers to what we might call the content of the thought. A thought of 100 dollars specifies a conceptual content, whereas the assertion (or denial) of its existence does not add to (or detract from) its conceptual content. Kant would not deny, however, that there is a qualitative difference introduced by positing the existence (not just possibility) of something.