Q&A: Definition and Assumption
Definition and Assumption
Question
Hello Rabbi,
What is the difference between a definition and an assumption? On p. 114 in the first book of the trilogy: “He does not really assume the existence of God. He assumes a definition of God as a being possessing all perfections… but definitions are not assumptions.” Kant attacks Anselm on the grounds that he presupposes existence from the outset, yet that is precisely what follows from the definition of the concept of God. Clearly this is begging the question, since it is a logical argument. I did not understand what the problem is and what the difference is between defining God as a perfect being, which seemingly includes His existence, and implicitly assuming that He exists.
I hope I explained myself properly. Thank you very much!
Answer
An assumption is a claim that says something about the world. It is judged in terms of truth—if it matches the state of affairs it describes—or falsehood—if it does not. A definition does not claim anything; it merely clarifies some concept. The assumption that two parallel lines never meet is a claim (apparently a true one, at least in Euclidean space). The definition of a triangle as a polygon with three sides does not claim anything.
The uniqueness of the ontological proof is that it begins with a definition and arrives at a conclusion that is a claim. That is its whole point.
Discussion on Answer
A. I did not understand the question. Everything is explained in the first lecture/notebook.
B. One can absolutely define a nonexistent object. There is not the slightest problem with that, and I do not think Kant ever challenged that.
A. Is the difference between a definition and an assumption supposed to reject Kant’s objection? Thanks for the clarification.
B. Is it even possible to define something that does not exist? This is exactly Kant’s claim (as I understand Kant), that the definition of a definition applies only to something that exists. A dragon is a giant fire-breathing lizard. But in reality a dragon is just another fiction. And in fact there is what exists and what does not exist. What does not exist is 0. How can one pour content into and define what zero is? (In the sense that I give definitions to things that do not exist, when the correct definition of those things is only 0.) Zero is only absence. So how can I define what a dragon is if it has no existence and is only part of nothingness—or more precisely, there is only nothingness and there is no dragon? The definition is nonexistence and nothing more. Consequently, there is nothing to give a definition to unless that thing exists. A triangle is such-and-such. What is a triangle? This itself is his claim—that we are smuggling in the triangle here as a reality, and that is why we refer to it at all. The definition of the object triangle does indeed say something about the world: that there is such an object. And what is that object? One with 3 sides. If it does not exist, then it does not bear that definition, because there is nothing there to bear the definition. And the very existence of the definition means that there is something that bears the definition. (And also, when we define nothingness as nonexistence, the meaning is probably that what exists here is nothing. The reference is in the sense of: what exists in the existing space? Nothing. And we are not pouring in content but only negating content. So this is expressed on the plane of existence.)
I hope I am being clear. Now on the site in the vocalized version too!