Q&A: An Unclear Point in the Ontological Argument
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
An Unclear Point in the Ontological Argument
Question
An unclear point in the ontological argument
Hello Rabbi.
On page 84 you distinguished between the claim
“the proposition ‘2+2=4’ is necessarily true” and “the proposition ‘x exists’ is necessarily true.”
You said that the second is ostensibly a claim about us and not about the world. I didn’t understand why. After all, 2+2=4 can also be written as ‘this proposition is true,’ and on the other hand the second can also be written as “‘x exists’ necessarily.”
What is the difference?
Answer
The matter was explained there היטב. The question is whether you say, “the proposition ‘X exists’ is necessarily true,” or “X necessarily exists” (its existence is necessary; it is a necessary being). The first is an epistemic claim and the second is an ontic one.
A similar distinction can also be formulated with respect to 2+2, but the distinction is valid, and usually the usage is what I described.