Final answer:
The absurdity of existence-tropes would count against the theory of existence-as-a-property rather than trope theory in general, as argued by Immanuel Kant's critique of Anselm's ontological argument.
Step-by-step explanation:
If the notion of existence-tropes is considered absurd, then this primarily counts against the theory of existence-as-a-property rather than trope theory as a whole. Immanuel Kant argued that existence is not a predicate that can be added to a concept to bring it into reality. Hence, if existence-tropes were absurd, it would undermine the idea that existence can be treated as a property, a characteristic element in Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. By contrast, trope theory can cover a wide range of properties beyond existence, so the absurdity of existence tropes does not necessarily impugn the broader theory.
Kant's critique of Anselm's ontological argument underlies the notion that you cannot conceive something into existence by attributing to it the property of existence. Kant pointed out that saying 'a unicorn exists' does not add anything to the concept of a unicorn and its inherent characteristics. Similarly, a reductio ad absurdum approach to argue for the existence of God based on the concept that existence is a property would lead into logical contradictions as per Kant's philosophy. Hence, the absurdity of existence tropes is a critique more directed at the concept of existence as a property within the ontological framework.