Q&A: The Ontological Argument and Perfection
The Ontological Argument and Perfection
Question
Hello and greetings, Rabbi Michi. I read the first book in the trilogy not long ago, and it got me thinking a bit, in connection with the ontological argument, that according to Kant one cannot say that existence is a property. In my view, conceptually that is certainly correct, but one should note a few principles that follow from it:
If we define perfection as a maximally positive concept — a concept indicating a state in which there is no deficiency, no dependence, and no limitation of any kind in terms of essence, realization, and capacity.
Then non-existence bears no properties, and does not even allow for empirical conceptual apprehension: something that does not exist bears no reality or content, and one cannot attribute to it action, influence, relation, or content-analysis.
It lacks everything that characterizes an “entity” — whether in consciousness, in language, or in reality.
- Therefore, anything that does not exist is essentially lacking perfection — since it has no realization of any property or action, it is devoid of any self-realization or any perfection whatsoever.
- If so, perfection requires existence:
- Not in the sense that existence is a “property” added to essence, but in the sense that the absence of existence negates the very possibility of perfection. (In the potential sense.)
- Perfection without existence is a self-contradiction, because it claims a perfect state that is at one and the same time also unrealized and null.
- Therefore, an entity defined as fully perfect must exist.
Not by adding the property of “existence” to the concept, but by logically denying the possibility of non-existence in a state of perfection.
I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thank you.
Answer
Something that does not exist cannot have anything attributed to it, because there is nothing to which to attribute it. The alternative to God's existence is not that He does not exist but is perfect. That's just nonsense. Rather, He does not exist, full stop (His perfection is irrelevant in such a state).
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, that's true, and even trivial. But it has nothing to do with the argument.
I understand, indeed. What about the idea that existence is a threshold condition for the emergence of any perfection whatsoever — and therefore an entity that does not exist cannot be considered perfect, not even as a possibility.
That is:
• existence in itself is not perfection,
• but its absence completely cancels the possibility of perfection, and its presence serves as a prerequisite for the existence of properties.
And in that sense, an existing thing is more perfect than a non-existing thing.