Q&A: The Ontological Proof
The Ontological Proof
Question
Hello Rabbi,
A question about the ontological proof in The First Being:
There is a passage in the proof that isn’t clear to me:
p. 86
The Rabbi discusses there the fact that one cannot infer that if there is an epistemic (ontological) proof, then that has implications for an ontic proof, and then the Rabbi writes the opposite (apparently).
These are the two passages on the same page that I didn’t understand (they seem to me, apparently, to contradict each other):
- “Derivation from a definition is a logical property and not an ontic one. The definition of a thing … but existence cannot be derived from a property.”
- “However, if the proof is purely logical, then it would seem that the existence of such a proof indicates that the entity whose existence was proved necessarily does indeed exist with ontic necessity.”
And afterward, on the next page, the Rabbi brings Kant, who holds like position 1.
Thank you
Answer
I no longer remember, but what you wrote here is not contradictory. Indeed, definitions and what is derived from them do not necessarily say anything on the ontic plane. Still, you can assume that the definition describes reality, and then what is derived from it does say something about reality. If someone claims to derive some factual proposition from purely logical and conceptual analysis alone, then if he were able to do so, that really would refute claim 1. But there is no such argument (precisely because of the reason behind claim 1).
Discussion on Answer
* as correct
Indeed, the existence of such a proof—if it actually exists. But it doesn’t.
But the Rabbi writes claim 2 as if it is correct, and that is exactly what I didn’t understand.