Why Kant Was Wrong

"Kant was correct. Existence is not a predicate. Everything on Earth has existence. If existence was [sic] a predicate, it would be redundant. Therefore, existence is not a predicate."

Above is a comment left on my homepage. Like everything else, philosophy has advanced over the years. Here's why modern philosophers, like Miller for example, reject Kant's claim.

The whole point of predication is to individuate, which is why Kant said that "Socrates exists" does not individuate Socrates from anyone else. We all exist, he argued, and much like the poster on my home page, concluded that because existence did not make anyone (or anything) unique, and existence did not individuate Socrates from a cabbage plant (or anyone or anything else), it was not a predicate.

I don't mean to knock Kant. I'm not saying he was an idiot; he was simply ignorant. He had no knowledge of the General Theory of Relativity. We learned from Einstein that our universe -- and all its history -- is shaped like a cone, with the Big Bang at the origin, and with each new moment forming the base. We learned that we could not separate space from time because they are inextricably tied together.

Put short, our universe is a probability distribution in the shape of a chronosynclastic infundibulum. It is therefore the case that existence is the opposite of what Kant believed. Our existence is within this cone, and each entity has existed inside it in variously different places and times.

For example, existence differentiates me from everyone and everything because my existence, which can be represented by a uniquely shaped thread in the cone, is different from any other. My existence therefore individuates me from everyone and everything else, and is predicated on my unique experience through space-time.

Even if you were my clone, it is a metaphysical impossibility for the two of us to have ever occupied the same place at the same time. Existence individuates, and is therefore a predicate.

Camus was less offensive than Sartre, although I do like Sartre's observation that "Hell is other people."

I played the role of Dudard during my first Sophomore semester at NCSU.

Thank you. I wish I could take credit for the refutation.

I would like to first hear a definition of predicate. Unless a word, and it's usage are common knowledge, (I doubt it, in this case) aren't you supposed to include that, right from the beginning?

  And that "universe shaped like a cone" stuff - I don't buy that at all. That's just a pictorial description of ONE way of looking at it. When you're talking about the entire space-time continuum, who knows what ANYTHING looks like?

A predicate serves to individuate its subject.

It was Einstein who described the shape of space-time. Take it up with him.

   Ok, Now that I have a definition, it seems like you did kinda say that right at the beginning. But I don't see how that does anything to refute the original argument; that if everything is individuated in the same way, it's not really individuation.

  As for the cone, it seems to me that Mr. Einstein was talking about the function, or progression of space-time, rather than its shape.

Thanks for participating as an intellectually honest gentleman. But everything is decidedly not individuated in the same way; otherwise, we would all hold the same perceptions, the same experiences, the same opinions, and so forth. Your occupation of space-time, and your experiences in it, form your existence, and is unlike any other. Your journey through existence is unique. That's all existence really is: your experiences and perceptions of what is around you.

Keep in mind that it's not just the shape of space, but of both space and time. They are inseparable.

His most famous is probably Critique of Pure Reason.

LOL