Alright, let's see what we can do with it...

p1 That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it
p2 That which exists prior to something else cannot consist of it
p3 That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it
p4 That which consists of something else cannot exist prior to it
C1 That which is existentially dependent upon and consists of something else must exist after it(from p1, p2, p3, p4)


Starting with the notion of justification...

All justification is existentially dependent upon metacognition. All metacognition consists of pre-existing thought and belief. All justification is existentially dependent upon some thought and belief. All thought and belief is meaningful. All justification is existentially dependent upon some meaning. Some meaning exists prior to all justification. All metacognition is existentially dependent upon pre-existing thought and belief. Some thought and belief exists prior to all justification. Some thought and belief are not existentially dependent upon justification. All justification exists after some thought and belief.

Hmmm...

All this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all...

p1 That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it
p2 That which exists prior to something else cannot consist of it
p3 That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it
p4 That which consists of something else cannot exist prior to it
C1 That which is existentially dependent upon and consists of something else must exist after it(from p1, p2, p3, p4)



All attribution of causality is thought and belief. Some attribution of causality is prior to language acquisition. Some thought and belief is prior to language. Not all attribution of causality consists of language. Not all thought and belief consists of language. All propositions consist of language. Not all thought and belief consists of propositions.

A language-less creature can touch fire. Touching fire causes discomfort. Some language-less creatures can touch fire, feel discomfort, and attribute causality by virtue of inferring that touching fire caused the discomfort. All attribution of causality is thought and belief. That creature thinks, believes, and otherwise infers that touching fire caused the discomfort. That creature's belief is true. That creature's belief is well-grounded. That creature's belief cannot consist of language. That creature's belief cannot consist of propositions. That creature's belief cannot be existentially dependent upon language. That creature's belief cannot be existentially dependent upon justification. Not all well-grounded true belief is existentially dependent upon language. Not all well-grounded true belief is existentially dependent upon justification.

That creature's thought, belief, and/or inference consists of correlations drawn between it's own behaviour(touching fire) and the discomfort that followed. None of this is existentially dependent upon language aside from this report itself.

Some well-grounded true belief exists prior to language. All well-grounded true belief is justified true belief(knowledge). Some justified true belief exists prior to language. All justification is existentially dependent upon language. Some well-grounded true belief is not existentially dependent upon justification.

How's that?

:halo:

All this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all... — creativesoul

How so? I mean, I see the point with existentially idependant things, but care to elaborate?

All this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all...
— creativesoul

How so? — Posty McPostface

They hold that truth and meaning are existentially dependent upon language.

I see the point with existentially idependant things, but care to elaborate? — Posty McPostface

Upon what? I mean, what part would you like to see better explained, or in more detail? What would an elaboration need to include in order for it to be satisfactory?

I've just negated the idea that only propositions are true.

A language-less creature... — creativesoul

I understand lacking what we currently consider as language, but is there a creature which lacks self-expression? I think beliefs and thoughts are part of self-expression which is inherent in all creatures.

...is there a creature which lacks self-expression? — BrianW

If all expression of thought and belief counts as self-expression, then it would follow that no there is not - at least amongst thinking/believing creatures...

However, I do not think that neglecting the distinction between self-expression and other kinds of expression is very helpful. So, I would say yes there are such creatures.

I wouldn't be willing to say that my drake expresses himself, and much as he expresses his own thought and belief. I take the notion of "self" to be a social construct informed by complex language.

All this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all...
— creativesoul

How so? — Posty McPostface

Collingwood was setting out what must be presupposed in order to begin inquiry.

Inquiry is existentially dependent upon language. Language upon non-linguistic thought and belief. Inquiry upon the same.

ll this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all...
— creativesoul

How so? — Posty McPostface

Witt was looking for hinge propositions as the baseline of thought/belief systems. Propositions are existentially dependent upon language. Some thought and belief are not...

I think beliefs and thoughts are part of self-expression which is inherent in all creatures... — BrianW

When a creature has a self-conception, statements of thought and belief are a part of their self-expression. Self-conception is existentially dependent upon metacognition... Some thought and belief are not.

Hmmmm. P3

p3 That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it — creativesoul

What about being and the world?

Being-in-the-world (Dasein (the human being / consciousness)) is existentially dependent upon the world but does it exist prior to it?

Hmmm. Existence...

Latin:
Ex- (out)
Sistere (take a stand)
Existere (come into being)

So, does being-in-the-world come into being or stand out prior to the world?
Being-in-the-world 'coming into being' would be the predicate.

Kant thought the ontological argument was flawed. Any argument for the existence of God based on the proposition that a God that exists in reality is greater than a God that only in the imagination is based on a confusion.

Predicates
According to Kant the confusion lies in the fact that existence is not a predicate. The predicate is that part of a sentence which is not the subject but which gives information about the subject. A predicate might be a single word like ‘John laughed’ where John is the subject and ‘laughed’ is the predicate. Or a string of words as in the sentence Clare went to school, 'Clare' is the subject and 'went to school' is the predicate. A predicate is a property that a thing can either possess or lack.

Predicates and the Existence of God
When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a God and he possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people assert that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence, i.e. they would be both affirming and denying God’s existence at the same time. Kant suggests that to say that something exists is to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world. For Kant, existence is not a matter of a thing possessing a property i.e. existence. Existence is a concept corresponding to something in the world.
Kant's objection to the ontological argument is that existence is not a property that can be attributed to beings like we can attribute other properties such as being blue, hard, or round. When we talk about entities existing, Kant contends that we do not mean to add existence as a property to their beings. In other words, the objection seems to be that one cannot go around adding existence as a property to God (or anything else for that matter) in order to define God (or anything else) into existence. Unfortunately, defining my bank account as such a place that contains millions of pounds would not mean that a careful understanding of that definition of ‘my bank account’ would really make it so. In order to see if that definition were true, we would have to go to an ATM and check the balance of my account and see if it is accurate. Similarly, a definition of God must be checked with reality to see if it is correct.

Kant’s Objection to Descartes’ Ontological Argument
Descartes had argued that God had existence in the same way as a triangle has three sides. Kant would agree, if you had a triangle then you did indeed have an object with three sides. But if you do not have the triangle, you have neither its three angles or its three sides. If you accept that there is a God, it is logical to accept also that His existence is necessary. But you don’t have to accept that there is a God.

"Existence is a concept corresponding to something IN THE WORLD."

Ergo existence or Dasein being-in-the-world is "existentially dependent" on the world, but neither is the world prior to existence or is existence prior to the world--if this line of thinking is correct...
But, in that Dasein is "thrown into the world;" that is, its being consists of its possibilities--it is its possibilities of being-in-the-world. So in a certain sense the being of consciousness is prior to the world yet existentially dependent on the world.

However, speaking of it like this seems strangely based, for the being of the world is different than being-in-the-world.
Does the world have a being of its own? Is the being of consciousness absolutely incommensurable in relation to the being of the world?
I think not! It is precisely being along side the world, connected in unison.

Hmmmm. P3

p3 That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it
— creativesoul

What about being and the world?

Being-in-the-world (Dasein (the human being / consciousness)) is existentially dependent upon the world but does it exist prior to it? — Blue Lux

No. It cannot.

So, does being-in-the-world come into being or stand out prior to the world? — Blue Lux

No. It cannot.



Existence is not existentially dependent upon language. Heiddy's notions of "Dasein" and "Being-in-the-world" are. Heiddy's notion are a discovery of that which existed in it's entirety prior to it's discovery(via metacognition), but not prior to language. According to Heiddy, language is the house of Being. Heiddy put forth an unnecessarily overcomplicated notion of the effects/affects that adopting an initial worldview via language acquisition has upon people, and he did so by method of rendering otherwise perfectly intelligible notions - such as "existence" - virtually meaningless.

I'm no fan of Heiddy, although there's much good to be said about the dialogue at the beginning of On The Way To Language... That's another topic.

perfectly intelligible notions - such as "existence" - virtually meaningless. — creativesoul

...

He has a whole section called 'The ontico-ontological priority of the question of being.'

He thought being was uninintelligible. That is the whole premise of his work.

Funny that...

A guy thinks, believes, asserts, and/or otherwise expresses the following proposition...

"Being is unintelligible"

... and yet he still proceeds to base an entire worldview upon it's existence.

I wish it was that simple, but it isn't.

His idea is from Plato.

I can't personally read the Greek, but here is the translation

"For manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression 'being'. We, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed."

I disagree with both; with each upon different but equally compelling ground.

Why?

Isn't it pretty coherent?

I am? Okay yeah, I know I am rather than I am not... But what does it mean to be? I know that I am but I do not not know what the meaning of being is.

That is the formulation... Don't make it harder than it is lol. That is easy to do... But maybe breaking it down might get you somewhere... Maybe...

Isn't it pretty coherent? — Blue Lux

Coherency is not necessary for the presupposition of truth inherently within all thought and belief formation. It is necessary, but insufficient for propositional truth.

Yes. Both are consistent in some of their terminological use. I enjoyed reading both.

and this propositional truth you speak of is purely analytic?

Coherency is not necessary for the presupposition of truth inherently within all thought and belief formation. It is necessary, but insufficient for propositional truth. — creativesoul

and this propositional truth you speak of is purely analytic? — Blue Lux

Propositional truth is existentially dependent upon propositions. Propositions are existentially dependent upon language. Propositional truth is existentially dependent upon language.

That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to it.

Propositional truth cannot exist prior to language.

Some true belief exists prior to language.

What is the difference between dependent and existentially dependent?

What of the proposition "This proposition is not a true proposition"?

What is the difference between dependent and existentially dependent? — Blue Lux

The existentially part...

And what does that mean? What is the difference between saying an infant is dependent on the mother and an infant is existentially dependent on the mother? What is the difference between being dependent and existentially dependent? It just seems superfluous.

What of the proposition "This proposition is not a true proposition"? — Blue Lux

What of it?

Would you like to discuss how convention has taken it to task? There's been several takes on it. Some say it's meaningless. Some say it's not truth-apt. Some say both. Others build a logic upon it. Etc...

I say it is not truth-apt, because it doesn't say anything meaningful. Typically when a competent English speaker says "This proposition is false", it is accompanied by a example of a false proposition. The exemplary proposition ought be a false one, but may not. Where there is no example for the statement itself to describe as being false, there is no meaning.

It is when we are looking at one sentence that speaks of itself that we are looking at something that does not have all the parts to do what we're asking it to do.

One finger cannot point at itself.