RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
March 12, 2014 at 10:05 pm
(This post was last modified: March 12, 2014 at 10:11 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
I thought I did:
Basically, modal realism says that possible worlds are really existing things, while modal fictionalism just says that possible worlds are just a useful fiction, not existing things in the same way our world is.
To inhere is basically to be a necessary aspect of. "Ontic" just refers to the factual, real existence of something.
(March 12, 2014 at 9:05 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: The problem here is this: What does it mean to say things exist in other possible worlds? There are 2 positions here: Modal realism - which says that other possible worlds REALLY exist and that the term "actual world" is just indexical and valid relative to each world - and Modal fictionalism - which says that possible worlds are just fictions useful in the analysis of modal propositions, not as realms with real ontic grounding.
Basically, modal realism says that possible worlds are really existing things, while modal fictionalism just says that possible worlds are just a useful fiction, not existing things in the same way our world is.
(March 12, 2014 at 9:40 pm)Jovanian Teapot Wrote: I'm pretty much a bone head in terms of philosophical terms. I understood the general argument (because I am familiar with most of the terms you used) but I'm not sure I completely understood what inhere or ontic actually mean.
Enlighten me,
To inhere is basically to be a necessary aspect of. "Ontic" just refers to the factual, real existence of something.
