That than which no smaller can be conceived of

Is such a thing necessarily nonexistent?

As I’ve learned it, you are referring to a “point”. It has no dimensions and exists only as a “limit”.

I am referring to the opposite of the Anselm’s God. I did not know it was a point. :astonished:

I can think of reasons why something like that would or would not exist…but why would you suggest that such a thing would be nonexistant necessarily?

because we percieve motion

-Imp

Let’s be Kantian here cause I’m in an odd mood.

For something to be nessisarily non-existant is the same as something being not possible to exist.

So, the claim is:
It is not possible that that which no smaller can be concived exist.

For Kant, to say that something is possible is to know it’s logical consequences and have them be compatible with the world as we know it.
Inversly we are trying to say that the consequences of this thing would contratict something we know.

So what does this new concept contradict? Perhapse the know powers of human conception? It seems to me for everything conceived to have some extension a person could imagen something smaller. And for everything concevied without extension the predicate ‘smaller than’ means nothing. Thus, for such a thing to exist it would have to be inconceviable.

Is it contradictory for something to exist and be inconceivable. Kant would say no, and so would I.

So, your tiny thing could exist, but it itself would have to be inconceivable.

LostGuy

I missed something here. I agree that for anything with extension, something smaller can be concieved. And I agree that for anything without extension, there is no sense to idea of something being smaller than it. But these two ideas lead me to a different conclusion: That a thing without extension would be the thing smaller than which nothing can be concieved. The question “Can something without extension be concieved of?” still needs to be addressed to come to a conclusion about the original question, right?

Well, the crux of the issue is the distinction between no extension and an extension of zero.

For example, it may be true to say that I am more conservative than my sister. Or that my sister is more conservative than Left Extereemism (which has a conservative of aproximately zero). However, I do not think it’s right to say, they I am more conservative than say a distant moon of a distant world. Because distant moons exist completly apart from conservatism.

Back to our question. Put in this language, the issue becomes weather we can concive of a zero extension object. Because anything with extension greater than zero can be divided, and anything were extension does not apply at all, the relivant predicate ‘smaller’ is non-sensical. One cannot be smaller than (or larger than, or of equal size to) communism.

I guess now its my task to argue that a zero extension object cannot exist.
This is hard to do. I could try to argue that all extension is measure only in positive numbers, but that seems dangerously like argueing the circle.

I guess you got me.

When I say “smaller”, I have in mind a metaphorical meaning. That is: “inferior”. Speaking of spatial extension is irrelevant.

Ok try agian. Inferior, hmm. Let’s see this to me seems to be a ranking thing. Now question are things ranked cardinally or ordinally? To put it in more plain English, can we assign a concrete value to everything or just make a list?

I’ll go ahead and allow you to answer that before I continue.

Samkhya,

When I say “smaller”, I have in mind a metaphorical meaning. That is: “inferior”. Speaking of spatial extension is irrelevant.

This is a very interesting point, in that it reflects the implications of a certain kind of thinking about God, that there necessarily is a superiority which subsumes the process. In the end it seems a question of Being and Nothingness, wherein the plenitude of Being is posited as God, and absolute absence of plentitude as Nothingness, or as you put it “that which is no smaller” (Derrida’s différance seems to be evoked here). Implicit in this seems the concept of Becoming, of Immanence. Within the process of Immanence we see the operation of things with greater Being (power) upon those with lesser Being, but only outside of this process itself can the ultimate hypostases of Being and Non-Being be posited. We in effect seem to see rather their shadows, their effects, and by virtue –or limitation- of the Mind, are able to imagine pure states existing beyond individual becomings. I prefer to imaging that the universe is in some directional state, moving from non-existence to existence, from lesser relation to greater relation, but this is in all probability a necessary mental projection so as to gain some orientation. Outside of this it would stand to reason that that which is smallest is also the greatest.

The gate [Gushen, Spirit of the Valley] is the place from which the Hidden She-thing [Xuanpin] comes. And because it is rooted in that from which it comes, it is the embodiment of the great Ultimate, and this is why the text refers to it as the “root of Heaven and Earth.” Do you wish to say that it does not exist? Well, we do not see its form. Do you wish to say that it does not exist? Well, the myriad of things are produced by it.

Tao-te Ching, section 6

Dunamis

Inferior qualitatively.

not for leibniz…

monads…

-Imp

Sâmkhya wrote:

AS I understand it, “inferior” would mean distance from the Absolute.

In the objective sense distance refers to material density and vibration. The slower the vibration and the more dense the materiality, the more distant from the Absolute.

There is a density of materiality that exists at the bottom of the involutionary process and cannot become part of the evolutionary process. From my perspective, this would be the furthest from the vibration of the absolute so the most inferior.

Hmm, interesting interesting. Ok, so here’s my next question. It seems the best thing is strong and good. But is the worst thing weak and evil, or strong and evil.

It is a good question. It depends on whether we place physical values above moral values or the opposite. I suppose it is better to give the first plac to moral values, which are spiritual, therefore I would answer: it is better to be weak and evil, so that less strength can be used to do evil.

In that case, I’m going to say it’s impossible to have something that we cannot conceive there is something worse.

Perhapse we can imagine something that ablutely evil in attitude. But for any amount of power we can imagen for said being, we could always add another power, another ability, another knowledge.

You could try to make an endrun and just have it be all powerfull, but it seems to me their are huge logical problems with that predicate. The good old fashion rock making/lifting delema.

You know, some philosophers say that evil is a lack of reality rather than a kind of being. Therefore, that than which no worse can be thought would be something akin to nothingness.

  It depends on how we define magnitude of evil.  If you can imagine someone that murdered 10 people and felt 100 units of happiness while doing it, I can imagine someone who murdered 11 people and felt 101 units of happiness while doing it.  So if 'worse' just means 'amount of evil stuff done', then it's not a trait that can be perfected. 
 However, the traits that we think of God having in perfection can be maximalized- things like knowledge and power. (Not too sure about benevolence).  Perhaps we should be trying to figure what the opposites of those are, and if they can be minimalized.