From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 12:31:04 MST
--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> and then in a final spasm of clarity, removing
> the last so-called property, namely, "existence",
> even if technically it Kant be done.
Right, it Kant be done. To believe otherwise, as you
seem to, is to fall victim to an illusion of the mind,
as did many religionists of the past who wanted to
believe Anselm's classical ontological argument. To my
knowledge no philosopher of any repute has refuted
Kant's criticism of Anselm.
Because existence is not a property of objects, it is
not possible to imagine an object that lacks
existence. To imagine a thing is to imagine its
existence. This is what it *means* to imagine a thing.
Thus it is not possible (for clear-headed people, at
least) to imagine the universe lacking the supposed
property of existence. The best we can do is imagine a
universe in which some thing or things do not exist.
Note that this does not preclude the possibility that
you may imagine yourself imagining a non-existent
uncle, as you did in your last message. You can quite
easily imagine yourself or others harboring the false
idea of your non-existent uncle.
However you cannot imagine said uncle without also
imagining that he exists.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:36 MST