J was mentioning that there exist some bats in some lavoratories.
I wrote that we should distinguish between the unqualified, "Bats exist" and the locally qualified, "Bats exist in the lavatory".
He commented:
>Yeah.
---- In fact, I was hoping he would contradict me: 'exist' should NOT be locally qualified. "Bats exist in the lavatory" sounds to me like one of the most pretentious things I have heard this week.
Warnock discusses this in a paper which was a surprise and a pleasure for me to read. Especially since I never saw a philosopher (other than me, on the mirror) quoting it!
It's
Warnock, "Metaphysics in logic".
In my reference section for my PhD I made the point that ALL the references had to be on Oxford authors, so Warnock has his big share!
It is an excellent essay. The full version appeared in "R. I. P.", which is Not 'Rest in Piece' (sic), but "Revue Internationale de Philosophie", as I recall. Flew reprinted it in 'Essays in analysis'. It should be memorised by -- at least -- Dame Warnock!
Warnock discusses (Ex) and 'some'. He notes that the plural can only confuse.
"Tigers exist"
for example, is silly (a silly thing to say).
"Black swans don't exist" was claimed to be true for a time ("All swans are white").
-----
He notes that if there is only ONE black swan, it is still true to say, "Some swanS are black".
---
---
Personally, I take 'exist' to mean 'spatio-temporal continuant'. A billiard ball exists, for example, means that there is a spatio-temporal continuant which is a billiard ball.
Abstract numbers don't exist -- similarly, means that they are NOT spatio-temporal continuans.
"Unicorns don't exist" means that they (unicorns) are not spatio-temporal continuants.
In my scheme (of things), the range of constants of individuals (Grice's tiny pellets) is spatio-temporal continuants: Harry, Billy, Joe -- but NOT Bellerophon, or Pegasus.
There's nothing laughable about Pegasus not existing. Grice prefers the example of "Marmaduke Bloggs" -- the man who climbed Mt. Everest on hands and knees, as he was invented by the journalists.
-----
Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, existence is already implied with ordinary language (or in Kant's Klassic, existence is not a predicate! supposedly)--but what about suspected entities (like a unicorn...actually a pic of a unicorn-like deer, one horn online recently), empirical research.
ReplyDeleteThe point on domains somewhat relevant, certainly in computing contexts, research or evidence, etc'-- are you speaking of the entire natural and human history of the earth, or the Universe (note they're called ..universals, and negated existence translates to a universal generalization in front of a negated formula--like an absolute, really. Given Russellian criteria--acquaintance, as he said I believe--one who is not acquainted with the facts of universe should not presume to know whether there are Pegasuses or not in distant galaxies; it's about like saying "there are no aliens, anywhere" (that might be the case, but earthlings certainly don't know). To do so suggests that the mere mortal has a god-like mind....)
Yes. I will elaborate on this, thank you.
ReplyDeletesimilarly...consider Chupacabras (noting recent report on MSN) The default position would be...there are no Chupies! Then, one day headed out to the barn, you hear some nasty growls and a giant, hairless bloodsucking Chupie's right in yr grill! (actually they are most likely coyotes with disease, mange, etc...besides the legendary chupies were supposedly much bigger meaner, with wolf-snouts, giant fangs, glowing eyes, etc) Yr hypothesis has been shot down with confrontation with the ding an sich as it were (ie, like all swans are white issue).
ReplyDeleteNot that profound, but most inductive reasoning works like that. We say there are no pegasuses and then in a few hundred years some JPL astronomers detect white, horse-like creatures aloft in the atmosphere of some distant planet. Unlikely, but not logically impossible. On the other hand one might wonder whether we should even attempt any induction/empiricism with formal logic anyway. Really its suited to..formality, mathematical foundations, axioms, classes, sets etc. Toss a chupie into the formula and everything's f-ed.
Yes. Perhaps the blame is on the that logician who invented "universe of discourse" (Venn), 'domain' and the rest. I was reading Rescher, online (my tutor said: 'never read a philosopher who publishes more often than Barbara Cartland) but hey. He has this book on nonexistents, online, where he quotes from Grice, "Vacuous Names" -- and speaks of 'discussability' of names such as "Pegasus" and notes that language should never be so rigid as to allow that "Pegasus" is, was, and will be, a 'vacuous name'.
ReplyDelete--------- Personally, I'm a Darwinian in that I belive in 'fixed species' (?). So, a horse is a horse is a horse. I would NOT like to think that I would use the word 'horse' for a thing that LOOKS like a horse, but has wings. So, in terms of the 'definition' or, better, 'description' of Pegasus, I would have a problem. I can certainly allow for a horse-LIKE, as you say, creature is created, perhaps bionically, so that it can be used to repair a light bulb on the cealing.
---- It's different from a square-circle, which possibly will never exist.
Grice wants to stick the discussion to 'contingent' non-existents. Suppose it is discovered that Michael Jackson (who has ceased to exist -- rendering "Michael Jackson" vacuous) is found to have been hiding somewhere and existing. Etc.
In fact, Michael Jackson, qua spatio-temporal continuant, possibly still exists. It's different if your loyalties are various. Hardy, for example, sworn that his heart would lie in his beloved Dorset. When he died, they just extirpated the heart and buried it in Dorset while the rest of his body is in the Poets Corner at Westminster. So, there is not really a 'continuity' anymore -- so he HAS ceased to exist alright.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGrice wants to stick the discussion to 'contingent' non-existents.
ReplyDeleteRight. That's what I was saying re suspects (the suspected mob boss, etc). Or 'contingent' possible-existents. Who really was the person who wrote the plays attributed to "Shakespeare"? Or ..what is the Loch Ness monster? Aliens?.....Chupacabras?? When the existence of some putative Being--human, animal, hybrid, etc--has not been conclusively decided as it were, logicians--and scientists for that matter--should not be using predicates as if it were. How obvious is that--but happens (which is to say, just keep premises true/tautological/confirmed).
And I'd say that holds ...even for Pegasus tho' yes, it's highly unlikely a horse-like animal with wings existed. Then...when the first big dinosaur fossils (apart from shells, a few bones, etc) were discovered early 1800s many humans thought it was a hoax, or ...worse. A Pterodactyl or T-Rex in the victorian parlor could really ruin high tea.
Yes, Shakespeare was possibly a vacuous name. My personal pet of a theory is that Viscount St. Albans (aka T. Hobbes) wrote the plays. This poses the problem if Hobbes was in love with Anne Hattaway, though.
ReplyDeletePossible, tho' Hobbes was a bit young for Shakespeare's early plays wddn't he? (have to check the bio. facts). I suspect the "Shakespeare" guy (Stratford on Avon) wrote most of them, but MAY have been assisted, or some ghostwriting vis a vis thea-turr types (ie, thespians) or clerics ala Hobbes and Bacon (actually closer to S's age). But from a logical POV, conjectures don't really...work (ie, most supposed historical "facts" are not necessary truths). As you are probably aware.
ReplyDeleteOops. I meant Bacon. Never mind with the info on Hobbes. I think I meant Bacon. Should doublecheck.
ReplyDeleteOK. Bacon was Hobbes' mentor, and both probably knew "Shakespeare", though. To wax biographically for a few nano-seconds, the younger Hobbes did engage in...belle-lettres at times--and was a master of latin and greek--, before he discovered Galilleo, Copernicus, Kepler etc and decided scientists were much preferable to philosophasters (Hobbes made one or two discoveries I believe but also...some errors). That said, Hobbes was detested by the roundheads AND royals, but Charlie Stuart II did finally give him a stipend (Hobbes was his tutor, and pal of...Charles I, until Cromwell & Co ...beheaded him). Leviathan's a profound political treatise, but I suspect Hobbes was a bit of a schemer--and par-tay animal--like his protege Chas II (not lacking a few..tyrannical aspects...as even Hume pointed out, to Hume's credit)
ReplyDeleteYes -- talking of vacuous names: that would be Charles I (after the decapitation), too.
ReplyDelete