Book contents
- Ontological Arguments
- Classic Philosophical Arguments
- Ontological Arguments
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Ontological Arguments in Focus
- 1 Anselm
- 2 Aquinas
- 3 Descartes
- 4 Leibniz
- 5 Kant
- 6 Hegel
- 7 Gödel
- 8 Lewis
- 9 Plantinga
- 10 Tichý
- 11 Conceivability and Possibility
- 12 Begging the Question
- 13 Characterisation, Existence and Necessity
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 November 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- Ontological Arguments
- Classic Philosophical Arguments
- Ontological Arguments
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Ontological Arguments in Focus
- 1 Anselm
- 2 Aquinas
- 3 Descartes
- 4 Leibniz
- 5 Kant
- 6 Hegel
- 7 Gödel
- 8 Lewis
- 9 Plantinga
- 10 Tichý
- 11 Conceivability and Possibility
- 12 Begging the Question
- 13 Characterisation, Existence and Necessity
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ontological Arguments , pp. 270 - 279Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Abaci, U. (2008) ‘Kant’s Theses on Existence’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16: 559–93Google Scholar
Adams, R. (1994) Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. (1997) ‘The Logical Structure of Anselm’s Arguments’ in The Virtue of Faith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 221–42Google Scholar
Adams, R. (2007) ‘The Priority of the Perfect in the Philosophical Theology of the Continental Rationalists’ in Ayers, M. (ed.) Rationalism, Platonism and God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–116Google Scholar
Allison, H. (2004) Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, second edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. (1990) ‘Some Emendations on Gödel’s Ontological Proof’, Faith and Philosophy 7: 291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. (2015) The Poverty of Conceptual Truth: Kant’s Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Anselm, (1077–8) Monologion (translated by Harrison, S.), Proslogion and Reply to Gaunilo (translated by Charlesworth, M. J.) in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, ed. Davies, B. and Evans, G. R. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 5–81, 82–104 and 111–22 respectivelyGoogle Scholar
Anselm, (1078/2001) Proslogion: With the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm, edited and translated by Williams, T.. Indianapolis, IN: HackettGoogle Scholar
Antognazza, M. (2007) ‘Comments on Adams “The Priority of the Perfect”’ in Ayers, M. (ed.) Rationalism, Platonism and God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117–31Google Scholar
Antognazza, M. (2015) ‘The Hypercategorematic Infinite’, The Leibniz Review 25: 5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1077/1856) Scriptum Super Sententiis, available at www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp1003.html (Cited as ‘SSS’)Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1930) Summa Contra Gentiles, edited by Ucelli, P.. Rome. (Also cited as ‘SCG’)Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1944) ‘Summa Theologiae Part I’ in Basic Writings, translated by Pegis, A. C.. New York: KopfGoogle Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1947) Summa Theologica, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominic Province. New York: Benziger Brothers (Also cited as ‘ST’)Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1952) Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei, translated by Kenny, J.. Westminster, MD: Newman Press. (Cited as ‘QDPD’)Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1959) Expositio Super Librum Boethii De Trinitate, edited by Decker, B.. Leiden: Brill. (Also cited as ‘ESLBDT’)Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1975) Summa Contra Gentiles, Book One: God, translated by Pegis, A.. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame PressGoogle Scholar
Baker, L. and Matthews, G. (2010) ‘Anselm’s Argument Reconsidered’, Review of Metaphysics 64: 31–54Google Scholar
Bell, D. (1984) Spinoza in Germany from 1670 to the Age of Goethe. London: Institute of Germanic Studies, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
Blumenfeld, D. (1995) ‘Leibniz’s Ontological and Cosmological Arguments’ in Jolley, N. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 353–81Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, D. (2003) ‘On the Compossibility of the Divine Attributes’ in Martin, M. and Monnier, R. (eds.) The Impossibility of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press, 91–103Google Scholar
Bonaventure, G. (1979) Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, translated by Hayes, Z.. New York: Franciscan InstituteGoogle Scholar
Bosley, R. and Tweedale, M. (2006) Basic Issues in Medieval Philosophy, second edition. Peterborough: Broadview PressGoogle Scholar
Cameron, R. (2009) ‘God Exists at Every (Modal Realist) World: A Reply to Sheehy’, Religious Studies 45: 95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. (1976) From Belief to Understanding. Canberra: Australian National University PressGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2002) ‘Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?’ in Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.) Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145–200Google Scholar
Church, A. (1940) ‘A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 56–68Google Scholar
Cowan, J. (2003) ‘The Paradox of Omnipotence’ in Martin, M. and Monnier, R. (eds.) The Impossibility of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus PressGoogle Scholar
Curley, E. (1978) Descartes against the Skeptics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Curley, E. (2005) ‘Back to the Ontological Argument’ in Mercer, C. and O’Neill, E. (eds.) Early Modern Philosophy: Mind, Matter, and Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 46–64Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1641) ‘Meditations on First Philosophy’, translated by Cottingham, J. in (1984) The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume II, edited by Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R. and Murdoch, D.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–62Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1897–1909) Oeuvres de Descartes, 11 volumes, edited by Adam, C. and Tannery, P.. Paris: Leopold Cerf. (Cited as ‘AT’)Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1911) Meditations, translated by Haldane, E. and Ross, G., in Philosophical Works of Descartes, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. (1964–76) Oeuvres de Descartes, 12 volumes, revised edition, edited by Adam, C. and Tannery, P.. Paris: J. Vrin/CNRS. (Cited as ‘AT’)Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1984–91) The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, translated by Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., Murdoch, D. and (for volume 3) Kenny, A.. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Cited as ‘CSM(K)’)Google Scholar
Doney, W. (1978) ‘The Geometrical Presentation of Descartes’s A Priori Proof’ in Hooker, M. (ed.) Descartes: Critical and Interpretive Essays. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1–25Google Scholar
Doney, W. (1993) ‘Did Caterus Misunderstand Descartes’ Ontological Proof?’ in Voss, S. (ed.) Essays on the Philosophy and Science of René Descartes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75–84Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (ed.) (1995) Kurt Gödel, Collected Works, Volume III: Unpublished Essay and Lectures. New York: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forgie, J. (2008) ‘How is the Question “Is Existence a Predicate?” Relevant to the Ontological Argument?’ International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 64: 117–33Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1981) Posthumous Writings, edited by Hermes, Hans, Kambartel, Friedrich and Kaulbach, Friedrich, translated by Ogon, Peter and White, Roger. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (2000) ‘Vorschläge für ein Wahlgesetz’ in Gabriel, G. and Dathe, U. (eds.) Gottlob Frege: Werk und Wirking, edited and introduced by Dathe, U. and Kienzler, W.. Paderborn: Verlag Mentis, 283–313Google Scholar
Gardner, S. (1999) Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds.) (1970) Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds. and trs.) (1970) Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (2002) ‘Introduction: Conceivability and Possibility’ in Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.) Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–70Google Scholar
Gregory, D. (2010) ‘Conceivability and Apparent Possibility’ in Hale, B. and Hoffman, A. (eds.) Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 319–42Google Scholar
Grier, M. (2001) Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gueroult, M. (1984) Descartes’s Philosophy Interpreted According to the Order of Reasons, volume 1, trans. Ariew, Roger. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P. and Wood, A. (1992–) The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Harrelson, K. (2009) The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel. Amherst, NY: Humanity BooksGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, C. (1965) Anselm’s Discovery: A Re-Examination of the Ontological Proof for God’s Existence. La Salle, IL: Open CourtGoogle Scholar
Hazen, A. (1998) ‘On Gödel’s Ontological Proof’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 361–77Google Scholar
Hegel, G. (1832/95) Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, translated by Speirs, E. and Sanderson, J.. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. (1966) Vorlesungen über die Beweise vom Dasein Gottes, edited by Lasson, Georg. Hamburg: Meiner. (Cited as ‘VBDG’)Google Scholar
Hegel, G. (1976) Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by Miller, A.. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. (1985) Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, volume III: The Consummate Religion, edited by Hodgson, P., translated by Brown, R., Hodgson, P. and Stewart, J.. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. (1991) The Encyclopaedia Logic, translated by Geraets, T., Suchting, W. and Harris, H.. Indianapolis, IN: HackettGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. (2007) Philosophy of Mind, translated by Wallace, W. and Miller, A., revised by Inwood, M.. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. (2009) Heidelberg Writings, translated by Bowman, B. and Speight, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. (2010) The Science of Logic, translated by di Giovanni, G.. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Hick, J. and McGill, A. (eds.) (1967) The Many Faced Argument. New York: The Macmillan CompanyGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1959) ‘Existential Presuppositions and Existential Commitments’, Journal of Philosophy 56: 125–37Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. and Rosenkrantz, G. (2006) ‘Omnipotence’ in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/Google Scholar
Hong, W. (2012) ‘An Almost Neglected Aspect of Kant’s Theology’, Bijdragen: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology 73: 28–54Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. and Richardson, H. (eds.) (1974) Anselm of Canterbury, Volume 1. New York: Edwin Mellen PressGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1748/2007) Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Millican, P.. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Ichikawa, J. and Jarvis, B. (2012) ‘Rational Imagination and Modal Knowledge’, Noûs 46: 127–58Google Scholar
Jacquette, D. (1994) ‘Meinongian Logic and Anselm’s Ontological Proof for the Existence of God’, The Philosophical Forum 25: 231–40Google Scholar
Janke, W. (1963) ‘Das Ontologische Argument in der Frühzeit des Leibnizschen Denkens (1676–78)’, Kant-Studien 54: 259–87Google Scholar
Johnston, M. (1992) ‘Explanation, Response-Dependence, and Judgement-Dependence’ in Menzies, P. (ed.) Response-Dependent Concepts. Canberra: RSSS ANU Working Papers in Philosophy, 123–83Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1781/1787/1929) Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Smith, N.. London: Macmillan (corrected edition 1933)Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1781/1787/1998) Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Guyer, P. and Wood, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1781/1900–) Kritik der reinen Vernunft, first edition; Volume 3 of Kant’s gesammelte Schriften, edited by Königlichen Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Georg RiemerGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1787/1900–) Kritik der reinen Vernunft, second edition; Volume 4 of Kant’s gesammelte Schriften, edited by Königlichen Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Georg RiemerGoogle Scholar
Keller, J. (2016) ‘Philosophical Individualism’ in Keller, J. (ed.) Being, Freedom, and Method: Themes from Van Inwagen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 299–323Google Scholar
Kemp-Smith, N. (tr.) (1933) Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, second edition. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1971) ‘Identity and Necessity’ in Munitz, M. (ed.) Identity and Individuation. New York: New York University Press, 135–64Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1972) ‘Naming and Necessity’ in Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.) Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 253–355; reprinted as Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980Google Scholar
Kung, P. (2010) ‘Imagining as a Guide to Possibility’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 620–63.Google Scholar
Kung, P. (2016) ‘You Really Do Imagine It: Against Error Theories of Imagination’, Noûs 50: 90–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, K. (1960) ‘The Definition of E! in Free Logic’. In Abstracts: The International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
Leftow, B. (in press) Anselm’s Proofs. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1875–90) Die Philosophischen Schriften, edited by Gerhardt, C., 7 volumes. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. (Cited as ‘GP’)Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1923–) Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, edited by Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Series 1-VIII. Darmstadt, 1923–, Leipzig, 1938–, Berlin, 1950–. (Cited as ‘A’)Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1948) Textes inédits d’après les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Provinciale de Hanovre, 2 volumes, edited by Grua, G.. Paris: PUF. (Cited as ‘Grua’)Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1960–1) Die Philosophischen Schriften, edited by Gerhardt, C., 7 volumes. Hildesheim: OlmsGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1965) ‘Two Notations for Discussions with Spinoza’ in Plantinga (1965), 55–65Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1981) New Essays on Human Understanding, edited and translated by Remnant, P. and Bennett, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cited as ‘NE’)Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1989) Philosophical Essays, edited and translated by Ariew, R. and Garber, D.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Cited as ‘AG’)Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1992) De Summa Rerum: Metaphysical Papers, 1675–1676, translated with an introduction and notes by Parkinson, G.. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Cited as ‘Parkinson’)Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. and Des Bosses, B. (2007) The Leibniz–Des Bosses Correspondence, translated, edited and with an introduction by Look, B. and Rutherford, D.. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Cited as ‘LDB’)Google Scholar
Leisenring, A. (1969) Mathematical Logic and Hilbert’s ε-Symbol. London: Macdonald Technical and ScientificGoogle Scholar
Lenzen, W. (2017) ‘Leibniz’s Ontological Proof of the Existence of God and the Problem of “Impossible Objects”’, Logica Universalis 11: 85–104 (Special Issue on ‘Logic and Religion’ edited by R. Silvestre)Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983a) ‘Postscripts to “Anselm and Actuality”’ in Philosophical Papers Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–5Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983b) ‘Postscript to “Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic”’ in Philosophical Papers Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–46Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1999) ‘New Work for a Theory of Universals’ in Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8–55Google Scholar
Longuenesse, B. (1998) Kant and the Capacity to Judge: Sensibility and Discursivity in the Transcendental Analytic of the Critique of Pure Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Look, B. (2013) ‘Leibniz’s Modal Metaphysics’ in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/Google Scholar
Look, B. (2018) ‘Leibniz’s Arguments for the Existence of God’ in Antognazza, M. R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leibniz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 701–716. Online version DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744725.013.010Google Scholar
Lowe, E. (2012) ‘A New Modal Version of the Ontological Argument’ in Szatkowski, M. (ed.) Ontological Proofs Today. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag, 179–91Google Scholar
Malcolm, N. (1960) ‘Anselm’s Ontological Arguments’, Philosophical Review 69: 41–62; reprinted as pp. 301–20 of Hick and McGill (1967)Google Scholar
Marek, J. (2008) ‘Alexius Meinong’, in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meinong/. (Accessed May 2016)Google Scholar
Maydole, R. (2003) ‘The Modal Perfection Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being’, Philo 6: 299–313Google Scholar
McCormick, M. (2016) ‘Atheism’ in Feiser, J. and Dowdan, B. (eds.) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/Google Scholar
McDaniel, K. (2004) ‘Modal Realism with Overlap’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82: 137–52Google Scholar
McGuinness, B. (ed.) (1984) ‘On Mr. Peano’s Conceptual Notation and My Own’, in Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 234–48Google Scholar
Meinong, A. (1960) ‘The Theory of Objects’ in Chisholm, R. (ed.) Realism and the Background of Phenomenology. Glencoe: Free Press, 76–117Google Scholar
Menzel, C. (2015) ‘Actualism’ in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/actualism/Google Scholar
Menzies, P. (1998) ‘Possibility and Conceivability: A Response-Dependent Account of Their Connections’ in Casati, R. (ed.) European Review of Philosophy, Volume 3: Response–Dependence. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 255–77Google Scholar
Millican, P. (2004) ‘The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm’s Argument’, Mind 113: 437–76. (Cited as ‘M2004’)Google Scholar
Millican, P. (2007) ‘Ontological Arguments and the Superiority of Existence: Reply to Nagasawa’, Mind 116: 1041–53Google Scholar
Millican, P. (2017) ‘Hume’s Fork, and His Theory of Relations’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95: 3–65Google Scholar
Mizrahi, M. and Morrow, D. (2015) ‘Does Conceivability Entail Metaphysical Possibility?’ Ratio 28: 1–13Google Scholar
Murdoch, D. (1993) ‘Exclusion and Abstraction in Descartes’, Metaphysics: Philosophical Quarterly 43: 38–57Google Scholar
Nolan, L. (1997) ‘The Ontological Status of Cartesian Natures’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78: 169–94Google Scholar
Nolan, L. (2001) (revised 2015) ‘Descartes’ Ontological Argument’ in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/Google Scholar
Nolan, L. (2005) ‘The Ontological Argument as an Exercise in Cartesian Therapy’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35: 521–62Google Scholar
Nolan, L. and Nelson, A. (2006) ‘Proofs for the Existence of God’ in Gaukroger, S. (ed.) The Blackwell Guide to Descartes’ Meditations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 104–21Google Scholar
Oddie, G. (forthcoming) ‘The Statue and the Lump: Beyond Monism and Dualism’Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, P. and Zalta, E. (1991) ‘On the Logic of the Ontological Argument’, Philosophy of Religion 5: 509–29Google Scholar
Oppy, G. (1995) Ontological Arguments and Belief in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (2016) ‘Ontological Arguments’ in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/Google Scholar
Pasternack, L. (2001) ‘The Ens Realissimum and Necessary Being in The Critique of Pure Reason’, Religious Studies 37: 467–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, K. and Pruss, A. (2012) ‘Understanding Omnipotence’, Religious Studies 48: 403–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pears, D. (ed.) (1972) Russell’s Logical Atomism. London: Fontana; second edition, Abingdon: Taylor and Francis, 2010Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1966) ‘Kant’s Objection to the Ontological Argument’, The Journal of Philosophy 63: 537–46Google Scholar
Priest, G. (1995) Beyond the Limits of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press; second (extended) edition, 2002Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2005) Towards Non-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press; second (extended) edition, 2016Google Scholar
Pruss, A. (2009) ‘A Gödelian Ontological Argument Improved’, Religious Studies 45: 347–53Google Scholar
Pruss, A. (2012) ‘A Gödelian Ontological Argument Improved Even More’ in Szatkowski, M. (ed.) Ontological Proofs Today. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 203–11Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975) ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7: 131–93Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. (2014) ‘Continuity as a Guide to Possibility’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92: 525–38Google Scholar
Reck, E. and Awodey, S. (eds.) (2004) Frege’s Lectures on Logic: Carnap’s Student Notes, 1910–1914. Chicago: Open CourtGoogle Scholar
Reicher, M. (2014) ‘Non-Existent Objects’ in Zalta, E. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1905) ‘On Denoting’, Mind 14: 479–93; reprinted as chapter 5 of D. Lackey (ed.) Essays in Analysis. London: Allen & Unwin, 1973Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1924) ‘Logical Atomism’ in Muirhead, J. H. (ed.) Contemporary British Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge; reprinted in the second edition of Pears (2010)Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. (1813) On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Doctoral dissertation, University of JenaGoogle Scholar
Scotus, D. (1298/9) Lectura II, www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Duns_Scotus/Lectura/Lectura_IIGoogle Scholar
Sidelle, A. (1989) Necessity, Essence, and Individuation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. (2003) ‘Reductive Theories of Modality’ in Loux, M. and Zimmerman, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 180–208Google Scholar
Sobel, J. (1987) ‘Gödel’s Ontological Proof’ in Thompson, J. J. (ed.) On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 241–61Google Scholar
Sobel, J. (2004) Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, R. (2006) ‘Meta-conceivability and Thought Experiments’ in Nichols, S. (ed.) The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretence, Possibility and Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 257–72Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. (1925) Spinoza Opera, 4 volumes, edited by Gebhardt, C.. Heidelberg: Carl WinterGoogle Scholar
Stang, N. (2015) ‘Kant’s Argument that Existence is not a Determination’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91: 583–626Google Scholar
Tichý, P. (1982) ‘The Foundations of Partial Type Theory’, Reports on Mathematical Logic 14: 57–72Google Scholar
Tichý, P. (1987) ‘Individuals and their Roles’ in Svoboda, V. et al. (eds.) Pavel Tichý’s Collected Papers in Logic and Philosophy. Prague and Dunedin: Filosofia and University of Otago Press, 749–63Google Scholar
Tidman, P. (1994) ‘Conceivability as a Test for Possibility’, American Philosophical Quarterly 31: 297–309Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. (2007) ‘Some Remarks on the Modal Ontological Argument’ in Lutz-Bachmann, M. and Schmidt, T. (eds.) Metaphysik heute – Probleme und Perspektiven der Ontologie. Freiburg and Munich: Verlag Karl Alber, 132–45Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. (2012) ‘Three Versions of the Ontological Argument’ in Szatkowski, M. (ed.) Ontological Proofs Today. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag, 143–62, available at http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/ThreeVersions.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, R. (2015) ‘Material Constitution’, in Zalta, E. (ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/material-constitution/Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2002) ‘Necessary Existents’, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 51: 233–51Google Scholar
Wippel, J. (1982) ‘Essence and Existence’ in Kretzmann, N., Kenny, A. and Pinborg, J. (eds.) The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 385–410Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1929) ‘Some Remarks on Logical Form’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 9: 162–71Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (1993) ‘Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53: 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yablo, S. (2002) ‘Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda’ in Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.) Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 441–92Google Scholar
Zalta, E. (1983) Abstract Objects: An Introduction to Axiomatic Metaphysics. Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar