Hold the front page! Rumble in the philosophical jungle!

In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Aselm defines what we understand as God to be a "being than which no greater can be conceived". Anselm suggests that we understand what is meant by a "being than which no greater can be conceived" and we understand what exists in our mind. The concept either exists only in our mind or in our mind and in reality. If such a being exists only in our thoughts, then a great being - that which exists in reality as well - can be conceived. Therefore, if we can conceive of a being that than which nothing greater can be conceived, then it must exist in reality. Therefore, that than which a greater cannot be conceived really does exist.

 

LEIBNIZ:  I can think of something with more perfection than you conceive. What about a  perfect being who did not exist and yet created the world.

 

NIETZSCHE:  This is all so much schnitzel. You use ‘I’ why not use ‘It’

LEIBNIZ:  Anyway perfection if unanalysable 

KIERKEGAARD:  You already pre-supposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial.

NIETZSCHE:  That is what I said earlier that is why I am so great.

KANT: In my Critique of Pure Reason. Most famously, I show that the  ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a predicate.

NIETZSCHE: I can’t stand that man, he has theological blood running through his veins. Oh look who it is, clever clogs.

DESCARTES: I think therefor I am. 

KIERKEGAARD:  x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am

You use "x"  as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing. Your  cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks.Here you are  merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

NIETZSCHE:  Go on Soren, give him one for me.

KIERKEGAARD: The value of your  cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". The proper logical flow of your argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

 "x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am

You have used "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing. Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks.

ASLEM:  This is all so much poppy cock.

NIETZSCHE:  And you make use t of “referential vocabulary'. Yah, you know, names, definite descriptions, indefinite descriptions, quantified noun phrases, etc.You should prophylactic operators so as will not impregnate readers of this blog with your silly thinking

ASLEM:  Prophylactic operators, was is das

NIETZSCHE:  Prophylactic operators “as the story goes...if I can conceive of...' that sort of thing.

ASLEM: What use is that?

NIETZSCHE: It will afford the blogosphere protection against unwanted commitments. Oh look, a modern philosopher, Galen Strawson. What have you got to say Galen?

STRAWSON: : Just put this latte aside for one moment.  I just wonder what Aslem and Descartes are referring to when they refers to the 'I’ this 'self' they talk of?

 Is it a thing?

 Is it  ontologically different?  

Is it specifically mental?

Is it single?

Does it have certain characteristics?

Is it a subject of experience?

Is it a core thinker?

What is this ‘I’ you make claims for?

LEIBNIZ:  I can think of something that is more perfect then the perfect being (God) you conceive of.  A perfect being who does not exist and yet still managed to create the world. Would that not stretch perfection. Have I already said that?