Necessary Existents.
It seems obvious that I could have failed to exist. My parents could easily never have met, in which case I should never have been conceived and born. The like applies to everyone. More generally, it seems plausible that whatever exists in space and time could have failed to exist. Events could have...
| Publicado en: | Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement Vol. 51; no. 1; pp. 233 - 252 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2002
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=57117994&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 57117994 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13582461 38BJ jtl: Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement issn: 13582461 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: 2002 vid: 51 iid: 1 pid: 15979 pub: Cambridge University Press artinfo: ui: 57117994 10.1017/S1358246100008158 ppf: 233 ppct: 19 formats: tig: atl: Necessary Existents. aug: au: WILLIAMSON, TIMOTHY affil: Wykeham Professor of Logic at New College, Oxford. su: Existentialism Philosophy Spacetime Phenomenology Self sug: subj: Existentialism Philosophy Spacetime Phenomenology Self ab: It seems obvious that I could have failed to exist. My parents could easily never have met, in which case I should never have been conceived and born. The like applies to everyone. More generally, it seems plausible that whatever exists in space and time could have failed to exist. Events could have taken an utterly different course. Our existence, like most other aspects of our lives, appears frighteningly contingent. It is therefore surprising that there is a proof of my necessary existence, a proof that generalizes to everything what-soever. I will explain the proof and discuss what to make of it. A first reaction is that a ‘proof’ of such an outrageous conclusion must contain some dreadful fallacy. Yet the proof does not collapse under scrutiny. Further reflection suggests that, suitably interpreted, it may be sound. So interpreted, the conclusion is not outrageous, although it may not be the view you first thought of. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y dt: @attributes: year: 2002 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|