I'm afraid not, you'd have to spell it out for me, if you fancy. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm always willing to try.

(FTI1) If God exists, then God is identical to Jesus.
(FTI2) God exists.
(FTI3) So, God is identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

(ATI1) If God does not exist, then God is not identical to Jesus.
(ATI2) God does not exist.
(ATI3) So, God is not identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, he could. For example, according to Muslims, God exists, and God is not Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

And Let's add in any third religion:

(FTButDifferent1) If God exists, then God is not identical to Jesus.
(FTBD2) God exists
(FTBD3) Therefore, God is not identical to Jesus.

It's a different argument from the atheist. Furthermore we can plug in any God here -- there's a lot to choose from in picking out God's identity. But God existing just says that without saying what God is.

Further, unlike saying something like "John Doe exists", there is no way to adjudicate between any of the above arguments. There is absolutely no difference in the external world whether God does or does not exist, which is normally how we'd go about making a decision as to which premise -- God exists or God does not exist -- to accept.

But we accept that up front while forming premise 1 such that premise 2 will lead us to believe that God is what we already believe him to be based upon whether or not we believe he exists or does not exist.

So, in isolation, sure -- but in terms of how people go about deciding these things I don't see a reason to accept that there is a relationship between God's -- or any objects -- existence and what they are identical to. The non-existence God is identical to the non-existent God, and the existent God is identical to the existent God, but the link between God and Jesus or any other name won't say much about its existence.

I believe that predicates are linguistic, while properties are ontological. The latter exist out there, in the external world, in the things themselves, independently of human beings. Existence is one such property, in my view. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm kind of uncertain about properties just as I'm uncertain about objects, but that'll take us pretty far astray :D -- a lot of my skepticism is based in wondering how we can reliably make inferences with respect to metaphysics, and generally wondering how it is we can really ascertain what metaphysics is preferable in the face of many smart and educated people asserting contradictory opinions on the subject.

We can set up an idiom such that "existence is a property of the external world, in the things themselves, independently of human beings", and I can follow along in this use of the word "existence" -- but that doesn't tell me how I go about ascertain what exists, and it seems to me that I could prove basically anything to exist if I accept something like an identity statement for inferring that such and such exists.

Such as your two arguments -- it's just kind of funny to make an inference between existence and identity. I'd be inclined to go the reverse -- if Jesus is God, then God exists. So God could exist without Jesus being God, rather than asserting existence in order to demonstrate identity. Imagine how the argument would go over with the Muslim, yeah? "If God exists, then Muhammed is the prophet, and Jesus is a prophet. God exists, therefore..."

Do you see how that's funny?

I follow Bunge in conceptualizing existence as a real property. The table in my living room has the property of existence. When I say that it exists, what I mean is that it has that property. As such, it's not a predicate. We instead symbolize it as a predicate, in particular with the first-order predicate letter "E". If the context is second-order or higher-order logic, we still use the "E" symbol, but as a predicate constant. Others disagree. Quine, for example, believes that we should symbolize it with a quantifier instead, "∃". I take it that Quine is wrong and that Bunge is right about this. However, I also believe that Bunge is wrong to distinguish two kinds of existence: real and conceptual. In my view, there's only real existence. Should the words "God" and "Jesus" be treated like Russellian definite descriptions? Or Kripkean rigid designators? Those are open questions. — Arcane Sandwich

I'd probably fall closest to Quine in that I can see a parallel between using the quantifier and treating existence like it's not some property added to a conceptual.

But in following Kant there's not an easy distinction between predicates and properties. So some of my influence influences me to be less precise just because it's what makes sense to me, but could definitely use work.

I'm wondering if a believer probably uses "God" and "Jesus" as Kripkean rigid designators, and a non-believer would use them as Russellian definite descriptions? It seems so, to me -- I see religious texts very much in the same vein as I see poetry. Their value isn't in their truth or falsity; they are likely all of them false, but in terms of religion that's not that significant -- people aren't persuaded into a religious position on the basis of its rational position. I think it's something that can be treated rationally, of course, but I don't think that the rational arguments are what are persuasive on the topic.

Not averse, but I wouldn't infer things between John Doe's existence and who John Doe is -- it's not something I'd infer because of some logical relationship between "John Doe exists" and "John Doe is James Calvin", as a statement of identity.

The hobbit talking to Gandalf is Bilbo Baggins. He does not exist, though.

A conditional statement of the form "if p, then q" is equivalent to a disjunctive statement of the form "not p, or q". Here's the proof. With that in mind, premise FTI1 is equivalent to the following:

(FTI1*) Either God does not exist, or God is identical to Jesus.

And premise ATI1 is equivalent to the following:

(ATI1*) Either God exists, or God is not identical to Jesus.

Conditional statements ("implications") are not causal statements. They do not state that there's a cause-effect relation between the antecedent and the consequent. Perhaps that's the source of your perplexity here. It's a common mistake. — Arcane Sandwich

O I flip around the values all the time because I don't usually bother to use the symbology unless I'm doing mathematics.

What I did before was represent it incorrectly in the checker. I checked "(P->Q) and (~P->~Q)", rather than "(~(P->Q) and (~(~P->~Q)) in my first reply so didn't see that it was a contradiction.

(EDIT: Funny to note, though -- you can believe both FTI1 and ATI1 at the same time, due to the funny thing that is the material conditional -- maybe an agnostic Christian?)

Maybe. Can you elaborate a bit more on that point? Doesn't matter if what you say isn't accurate. Just freestyle it and see what happens.

I do get the feeling that you want to treat this case in a similar way to how Russell treats the case of the current king of France. Is that so? Or am I way off here? — Arcane Sandwich

My thinking on existence is largely influenced by Kant. So sentences of the sort "God exists" do not have conditions of justification even if they have a truth-value, so I wouldn't bother believing "God exists", or its negation, on rational grounds. The old "existence is not a predicate" is something that rings basically true to me -- logic does not prove existence, existence exists regardless of a choice of logic -- and the thought experiment between the imagined unicorn and the imagined unicorn existing demonstrates to me that there's not really a property added to something I'm thinking about. I need some other kind of justification to infer that something exists.

Nope. These statements can only be false if their antecedent is true while their consequent is false. In this case, the antecedent in FTI1 is "God exists", and the antecedent in ATI1 is "God does not exist". By the principle of Non-Contradiction and the principle of Excluded Middle, they can't both be false. — Arcane Sandwich

Mkay, I agree. The conjunct of FTI1 and ATI1 yields a contradiction, but...

Perhaps. — Arcane Sandwich

If so then I'd have to find some way to deny both mostly because I don't think the implication itself holds. Since existence does not relate to identity, and implication is a relationship between propositions, I'm thinking that what's false is the implication itself.

At the very least I'm not tempted to say that Jesus is not God because God does not exist. I can set up the implicature, but it's not why I think these things -- and I don't believe either FTI1 or ATI1.

So how does one represent that? Is it impossible?

Conversely, it's not possible to reject both arguments at the same time. If you reject one of them, then that means that you accept the other one (again, unless you embrace paraconsistent logic, or some other logic in which contradictions are true). — Arcane Sandwich

Something about that doesn't seem right to me -- couldn't we reject both arguments on the basis that

(FTI1) If God exists, then God is identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

(ATI1) If God does not exist, then God is not identical to Jesus. — Arcane Sandwich

Could both be false?

What God is identical to isn't the same thing as whether or not God exists, even treating it as a first-order predicate. So we could deny the implication as true in either case, saying that the existential predicate has no relation to the identity relationship. (or, perhaps, that the existential predicate is actually quantification, and the identity of something is different from quantification)

I'd be more inclined to say that "In the Christian Religion God is identical to Jesus", or something along those lines, so as to avoid mixing up description or identity with existence.

Thanks :)

I know I explore odd things, but I hope to maintain the notion that there's a reason -- even if only philosophical -- I pursue them.

It's not that interesting when you figure out the game is "say the weirdest thing you possibly can get away with"

Yeah, but I don't see a real motivation to saying something crazy just to say it.

I gotta know that it's true first. So I keep coming back to these various odd beliefs.

If you're asking if there could be a fourth position, "only extraordinary objects, none of the ordinary ones", then I would say two things:

1) Yes, it's logically possible to defend such a view.
2) No one actually defends such a view.

Why not? Because you would be saying that there are fouts, but no dogs or trouts. There are incars, but no cars. There are snowdiscalls, but no snowballs.

It would be the most insane position of all, even crazier than permissivism, and that's saying a lot. — Arcane Sandwich

Heh, cool. Then I don't think I'm going down that path, and have more to learn.

Then you have two options: eliminativism or permissivism. — Arcane Sandwich

What about "not-ordinary, and conservative"?

Some objects are real. Check. Some objects are not-real. Check.

Or "Names are weird" -- I think they really are weird and not understood.

"The ordinary objects" for a medieval baker, or the CEO of a Chinese business in 2017?

Seems like "Some of them" is the easy way out?

"Some" in a logical sense, at least. "Ordinary" seems sus

Which objects we talking about here?

;)

I have more to learn.

My thinking was that the medium-independence of meaning is weird, from a metaphysical perspective, whether we accept that meaning is real or not-real. It's unexpected from the perspective of an ontology of objects, at least if we believe there is a difference between speaking and writing.

I'd much prefer to save discussions on reality for after discussions on how we think about reality. There are currently a handful of traditions in philosophy which allow us to do that.

One thing I take seriously is that if we can, in fact, have thoughts sans-metaphysics then it must be due to language. Or something along those lines. We can communicate about whether or not Daniel Dennett was conscious and understand that perfectly, but in scenarios where we start to question the meaning of meaning -- and all the baggage that comes with self-reference -- I at least don't know how to tell y'all (not including me) that what I'm saying means nothing other than to demonstrate a contradiction**.

And, at least usually, we don't think of objects like that.

**EDIT: And to turn the confusion up to 11 -- even then, sometimes contradictions are meaningful. "Meaning is a mystery" makes lots of sense to me.

I can stop anytime I want!

:up: I'll keep it in mind.

Meaning is not found, it's made. Or better, drop meaning and reference altogether and talk instead about use. — Banno

Yeah, but I want to talk about meaning and reference :D

O shit.

It's more explosive than I had imagined, then.

Relating this back to Quine, it reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_beard

***

I'm tempted to say this is along the lines of Wittgenstein's PI 1 that I linked earlier -- that just because you have something to say that it must indicate or refer to something seems wrong to me.

Kinda weird, though, right?

Isn't it as weird as accepting that the vinyl scratches record meaning?

Shorter: it's better to have fouts and trouts, instead of not having either. — Arcane Sandwich

I prefer "names are weird"

:D

There is a tremendous multiplicity and diversity, and I'd add that a lot of it is quite observable. Every dog is different, and every person—each snowflake as well as each fingerprint. My copy of the Metaphysics has different dog ears than my professors, different coffee stains, different places where the ink didn't quite come off the press correctly. And the same person or dog is also different from moment to moment, year to year, sometimes dramatically so. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I like this description of multiplicity. That's what it feels like when I think about every fact, rather than every relevant fact.

So I was thinking we'd all want to adopt the tripartite diagram -- not as a rule, just as a distinction in trying to understand the beast that is reference. — Moliere

Though going back over a bit ...

as the dotted line an the bottom makes sure to emphasise that relation between signifyer and signified is an imputed one. — Dawnstorm

That I agree with. It's imputed. There needs to be a speaker and an interpreter for meaning to be/happen/whatever.

Yes. Thanks. I mean, that's the plot I'm seeing so far -- I was thinking that agreeing with the tripartite diagram furthered the "multiple ways" by making us able to talk about both object-reference and language-reference.

So I was thinking we'd all want to adopt the tripartite diagram -- not as a rule, just as a distinction in trying to understand the beast that is reference.

Yes, I think the tripartite structure helps to clear this up. You can, of course, signify an idea, or even a complex collection of them (e.g. "the theory of special relativity") as the "object." You can likewise signify incorporeal "objects," such as an economic recession, or hypothetical ones. However, what is signified is different from the thought that interprets it, the interpretant.

Thinking and "talking to oneself" involves signs, but clearly what is signified and the interpretant are not thereby collapsed. So that's a common difficulty, an interpretant need not be conscious, nor need they be a whole person (an interpreter). — Count Timothy von Icarus

As for the triangles: I like the first one Count Timothy von Icarus posted best, as the dotted line an the bottom makes sure to emphasise that relation between signifyer and signified is an imputed one. And I also like that the "thought" sits on top. I think the source is Ogden/Richards The meaning of meaning, but I'd have to check to make sure [it doesn't say]. I like that, because I tend to think of thought as a process: not one thought, one clear-cut piece of mental content, but a stream of consiousness, classified and edited by analysis, so we can think about that. — Dawnstorm

I quite agree.

The diagram shows a relation between symbol and referent, linked by thought. Quine, Austin, Searle Grice and others showed this to be a somewhat keyhole version of what is going on. There is more to language than just reference, so a diagram that explains only reference will explain only a small part of language. — Banno

I find myself surprised -- in many ways.

I think the main thing I'd like to be able to distinguish is between when a person is talking about an object we are perceiving and when a person is talking about all the things we perceive when perceiving an object** -- I suspect that we do not need the notion of "the sign" to do this, but if we are speaking in terms of signs then I want to distinguish between the two references because I'm contending that language is not an object in the world like the other objects.

Which I think -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- @Dawnstorm and @Banno agree with me on only because I've been agreeing with what they've been saying.

So I'm left wondering where I'm losing the plot :sweat:

**EDIT: The confusing wording is because I'm trying to avoid "thought-objects" in the expression.

I can see the point about the difference between a thread and an essay. The author would probably need to be putting across a thought or view. There probably needs to be a certain amount of openness to varying forms of expression in the spirit of creativity. As Amity says Iris Murdoch distinguishes between her fiction and non fiction. The possible forms of non fiction, as distinct from fiction, may include letters and autobiographical, or life writing, and some other forms. — Jack Cummins

I'm certainly of the opinion that openness is the selling point for participation. I have no intent on refusing any submissions, for instance. I'm trying to give just enough structure to guide creative thought without hemming people in too much.

And my intent is to respond to every submission in a non-critical style -- i.e. I'll read the essay and try to take its own terms without importing my own thoughts, and try to offer pointers to clean up the essay.

Sweet! For thems who already write philosophy essays or have submitted them to journals I'd say that this offers an opportunity for your more experimental side to receive feedback -- things you know just won't publish but that you're interested in.

My thought is the difference is mostly about structure and effort -- we make posts about an idea but they only need to be somewhat related to philosophy to be A-OK, whereas the essay should somehow complete a thought. Whereas a thread is a conversation starter an essay is intentionally written by an author to express a particular thought for a reader.

But, mostly, I don't see being too picky about what really makes the difference, and with respect to fiction/poetry etc.:

I would hope this kind of imaginative response to questions in a philosophy thread could have its place in the 'Philosophy Writing Challenge - June 2025'. — Amity

I also don't see the benefit of being too picky in defining which is what when.

Since the idea is to explore ideas together for fun and exercise, and there's not any prize at the end, I'm not too concerned with a firm set of criteria. Insofar that the participants are putting in an effort I don't see ruling out something because it's using fiction or because it's using poetry -- Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and other philosophers being prime examples of people who use a poetic expression or create whole new words even in order to pursue a point.

The guideline is there to help differentiate what makes this different more than provide a set of rules by which something will or will not be accepted. Someone could even make a point in the threads, for instance, if they feel a particular entry is too poetic/fiction based or something -- I see more value in reflecting on that on the boards than defining it ahead of time.

Cool.

Glad at least one line of flight in the thread was resolved :D

I'd agree that Saussure's semiotics have not had a particularly helpful influence (in part because they led to Derrida :rofl: ). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oooff!! :D

It took me a long time, but I think I'm pretty much on team-Derrida.

****

I can accept the first picture over the latter. "The signified", at least in my understanding of Saussure, was always ambiguous in the sense that sometimes it referred to the idea people had and sometimes it referred to the physical object.

I don't think Derrida exploits that confusion, though. He calls into question "the sign" even here:

I should note that in the broader application, signification is happening everywhere, not just in language. For instance, in an analysis of the sensory system we might speak of light interacting with photoreceptors in the eye as the object, the pattern of action potentials traveling down the optic nerve as the sign vehicle, and then some particular resultant activity in the occipital lobe as the interpretant, or we might apply it to DNA and ribosomes, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The words we use to describe these causal patterns aren't the linguistic sign. That's the mystery -- how does a bundle of quarks become able to speak and communicate and do language?

Seems kinda suss, right? :D

Yes, but unfortunately not in a particularly helpful way. St. Augustine has a very nuanced view of language and his own formulation of meaning as use, but he mostly shows up in PI to present a very naive picture of language. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fair.

Would you at least go so far as to say that PI 1 highlights a common error, or do you think it's erroneous entirely?

The "meaning coming with sign" thing is what I have in mind here. Like Saussure. Say/write/do sign indicates meaning in head and communication happens when two heads mean the same thing.

That's the sort of thing I'm thinking is an illusion.

More or less -- Saussure was wrong, and Derrida was right. ;)

Or we can go down the Quine to Davidson path... all roads lead to Rome, as they say.

↪Moliere The emphasis on "sign" is problematic, in that it supposes that the main purpose, or fundamental element, in language is the noun.

It isn't. Language is about getting things done as a group. Reference is incidental to that purpose. — Banno

My thinking here is that after we get things done in a group we continue to be able to speak.

And also -- yeah, the treatment of language as a noun is why I quoted Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations section 1.

It even references a great medieval thinker, so I was thinking it might be more appreciated by our interlocutors.

Language is more about constructing, rather than exchanging, information. This choice of words may mark a pretty fundamental difference between those who agree with Quine and those who do not. — Banno

Yup.

Sweet, thanks.

I recognize how odd my conclusions are, and so sometimes wonder if I'm just barmy .... :D

This is indeed an important point. However, it is not unique to Quine, nor does it entail Quine's particular approach to reference. See the rest of the post above. From an information theoretic or semiotic perspective, there is a ton of information relevant to communication that is related to context (linguistic and otherwise), tone, body language, the identity of the speaker, the identity of the intended recipient, past conversation/stipulation, etc., in addition to convention. There is also a lot of signification going on in conversations.

However, signs clearly do signify according to convention, else language (and any communications convention) would not be useful for communications. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My thought is that we don't know how signs signify, or even if "signs" is the correct signification for understanding reference, or language.

"Sign", obviously, being a linguistic expression -- the sign that says "CAUTION" literally "stands for" the meaning "Be careful".

But the linguistic sign is not the literal sign.

I mostly think that meaning is something we don't know why it works, at this point. (hence, philosophy)

Pace Plato, Aristotle allows that weakness of will can occur, so he wouldn't necessarily be at odds with Sartre here. The point is more about predication. So, for instance, if you go outside and see a car, and it's blue, you cannot also judge that it is not-blue, in the same way, without qualification (so a car that is blue and another color isn't a counter example here).

So, once on this forum someone brought up the old duck/rabbit optical illusion as a counter example. But that wouldn't be one. That would be an example where we qualify our judgement. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree that the rabbit/duck illusion is not a counter-example. I think the belief would have to be of the form of a contradiction, rather than a contrary -- "P ^ ~P"

I believe that the literal notion that we lie to ourselves -- so I am telling me a lie -- that we end up believing something contradictory, at least if its something we actually do psychologically.

I don't think we're rational beings by nature, though, so this doesn't seem hard for me to accept. Beliefs are formed not on the basis of rationality as much as... whatever they are formed by.

And language follows suit because it's useful even if it's contradictory.

Explicitly speaking -- I've at least separated what I believe from what I believe Quine and Davidson to be saying, but only if I focus on the two sentences where I did that.

Else, I've not attended to the differences and have been (and continue to be) engaging in dialogue and self-expression, while attempting to express why "the inscrutability of reference" can't be dismissed, from a philosophical perspective at least.

Probably my fault -- in responding and thinking I've been hopping between what I think and what Quine thinks.

I have some radical conclusions that I'm exploring, but I don't believe Quine is there as much as serves as an entryway into what I'm thinking.

Basically meaning isn't tied to words, but the interplay of terms within the whole structure of the sentence. Hence there can be multiple valid translations all with the same final meaning (because the way the words reference each on in the structure of their translations equate to the same)...hence reference is inscrutable... because it's always changing. — DifferentiatingEgg

Thanks for posting this -- I was beginning to wonder if I'm entirely wrong and I believe that this is basically what I've been arguing for.

What's blasphemous about it? Is it because they're admitting their desires are erotic and pleasure-chasing?

What matters.