"Existence is not a predicate" means that the concept of "existence" does not describe a characteristic or quality of a thing, but rather confirms its reality. It highlights that stating something exists doesn't add new information to what that thing is, only that it is found in the world.
Understanding Predicates
In logic and grammar, a predicate is something that tells us more about the subject of a statement. It describes a property, attribute, or action that the subject possesses. For example, in the sentence "The car is red," "red" is a predicate because it describes a characteristic of the car.
- Examples of Predicates:
- Being tall
- Being intelligent
- Being heavy
- Being blue
- Running fast
These predicates add specific details or qualities to the concept of the subject.
Why Existence Differs
When philosophers like Immanuel Kant argue that "existence is not a predicate," they mean that "existence" doesn't function in the same way. When you say "a car exists," you are not adding a new quality to the idea of the car itself. The concept of a car—its shape, function, color, engine, etc.—remains precisely the same whether it exists in reality or only in your imagination.
Think of it this way:
| True Predicate (Adds Meaning) | Existence (Confirms Reality) |
|---|---|
| "A red apple" | "An apple exists" |
| The redness describes the apple. | "Exists" states the apple is real. |
| The apple would be different if it were green instead. | The idea of the apple is the same whether it exists or not; only its instantiation changes. |
Whether or not something exists doesn't add any meaning to the idea of what that thing is. Saying "a perfect island" describes the island's qualities. Saying "an existing perfect island" merely asserts that such an island is real, without adding to its perfection or island-ness.
Kant's Critique of the Ontological Argument
This idea is particularly significant in philosophy, especially as a counter-argument to the Ontological Argument for God's existence proposed by thinkers like Anselm. The Ontological Argument attempts to define God into existence by claiming that God, as the most perfect being, must possess all perfections, and existence is a perfection. Therefore, God must exist.
Kant, however, challenges this by stating that existence is not a property that can be added to a concept to make it more perfect. If it were, you could simply define anything into existence by calling it an "existing" thing. For instance:
-
If existence were a predicate:
- One could define "the most perfect pizza" as a pizza that is hot, cheesy, delicious, and exists.
- By this logic, merely defining it would bring it into existence.
-
Kant's counter-argument:
- Defining the concept of a pizza (hot, cheesy, delicious) doesn't make it real.
- To know if it exists, you have to check the world, not just analyze the definition.
In essence, existence isn't a descriptive property; it's the condition under which any other descriptive properties can be actualized. You don't add "being real" to a list of qualities like "being blue" or "being heavy." Instead, "being real" is the prerequisite for those qualities to manifest in the world.
