IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Malcolm’s Version Of The Ontological Argument: Several Questionable Aspects

Listed author(s):
  • Yulia V. Gorbatova


    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Registered author(s):

    This article deals with the version of the ontological argument (OA) for existence of God proposed by Malcolm and Hartshorne. The study has three aims: to outline the role of de re modality in the OA, to reinvestigate the de re / de dicto distinction, and to reflect on the possibility of an a priori proof of the existence. The article analyses two logical formulations of the argument, points out some formal features of de re modality relevant to its validity, and proposes another approach to the formalization of de re. We demonstrate that the prevailing way does not represent the essential features of de re and, therefore, cannot be effective with respect to the argument. Further, we substantiate the thesis that most contemporary proofs of existence are vague. We conclude that a more precise distinction between modalities de re and de dicto makes Malcolm’s version of the ontological argument (as well as its improved version proposed by Hartshorne) unsound

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by National Research University Higher School of Economics in its series HSE Working papers with number WP BRP 68/HUM/2014.

    in new window

    Length: 9 pages
    Date of creation: 2014
    Publication status: Published in WP BRP Series: Humanities / HUM, October 2014, pages 1-9
    Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:68hum2014
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Myasnitskaya 20, Moscow 101000

    Phone: +7(495)7713232
    Fax: +7(495)6287931
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:68hum2014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamil Abdulaev)

    or (Victoria Elkina)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.