It is very complex this one. Because he is speaking about positive realism. So I guess he wants to put a divisional line between tangible and non tangible realities. Let me put another example of this. Descartes said perfection is that realism which even dreaming does not drive to failure. It is pretty similar as yours but one important point here: Awareness.The magnitude of positive reality, taken precisely, beyond the limits or boundaries in the things that have them. And where there are no limits, that is, in God, perfection is absolutely infinite.
This also answers the objection that not-existing might be better than existing, and that therefore non existence might be a perfection
Let us assume that the subject of all perfections does not exist: then non-existence is a perfection, and in the subject of said perfection said attribute must be expressed without any limits, which would imply that not only does it not exist outside of the mind, but neither does it exist as an idea in the mind. — Amalac
When you say the subject of all perfections does not exist, — Amalac
If you define omnipotence like that, then that is obviously correct. But in order to inquire epistemologically into the most coherent and logically viable notion of God (and also to abide to the principle of charity), we should look at all notions of omnipotence that seem as plausible as possible. For instance, one may define omnipotence as the ability to do anything except what is contrary to the laws of logic. — Amalac
«a simple quality which is positive and absolute, and expresses without any limits whatever it does express.» that's the definition I use, Leibniz'. Existence is only one among other perfections, and certainly does not mean the same as that. — Amalac
That is one possible conception of God, yes. But many philosophers would not accept it. For instance, Aquinas would retort that it makes no sense to say that God is constrained by the laws of logic, because God didn't «create» the laws of logic, he is those laws, just as he is, literally, truth (once again, according to Aquinas and other philosophers). — Amalac
True, but all one needs to do to avoid equivocation is to clarify the meaning of the terms used. — Amalac
then non-existence is a perfection, and in the subject of said perfection said attribute must be expressed without any limits, which would imply that not only does it not exist outside of the mind, but neither does it exist as an idea in the mind. Therefore God does not exist as an idea in the mind. But God does exist as an idea in the mind, therefore the assumption that the subject of all perfections has the perfection of not-existing led us to a contradiction. — Amalac
Yes, even better stated. — Amalac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.