The proposition "Pegasus is a flying horse" and "Pegasus is an imaginary flying horse" are not identical.. — MindForged

It depends on what one has in mind, no?

Twice named, I appear before you.

It's fun to play with what exists and what doesn't. In logic, to exist is to be an element in the domain of discourse. ∃(x) means that there is an x, a variable, for us to make use of.  We also have the elements, the individuals, a, b, c, d...

But interestingly,  ∃(a) is not well formed.

Santa is not real. The stories about Santa, they are real. In logic, we might say that there is something that has a beard and lives at the north pole and so on, but not that there is a Santa.

Of course, we can't say that there is a Wallows, either.

I think there is something in that for all of us.

My red cup has long since been replaced by a more capacious blue up.

The key point I wished to make in that ancient thread came from Austin. He observed that sometimes in order to understand a term, we needed to look to its negation.

SO we understand that my blue cup is real by contrasting it to the green cup floating in the air one metre in front of your nose, which is not real. This paragraph about the green cup is real.

Which I think is pretty much what you suggested.

It's what we do that counts - as Wittgenstein shows by eating the hot dog.

May I go now?

Santa is not real. The stories about Santa, they are real. In logic, we might say that there is something that has a beard and lives at the north pole and so on, but not that there is a Santa.

Of course, we can't say that there is a Wallows, either. — Banno

So, Pegasus or Wallows exists but doesn't.

Is there some term for this fluxual state of existence?

:razz:

You assumed that if we can't say it is, then it isn't.

The point here is that being real and existing are not the very same.

The point here is that being real and existing are not the very same. — Banno

Yes, then what do you call that?

The property of being an empty name?

Call what?

Thank you for appearing when only twice summoned. Some spirts require 3 summons before they are able to appear. Pretentious spirits...

How do you call something that is either real or existing but not both, such as Pegasus?

Of course you are aware of how I detest pretence of any sort.

Call as in summons? A pentagram and a potion, perhaps.

Or as in how does the name work? What reason is there to think that "Pegasus" works differently to "Phar Lap" - except in naming something else, of course.

Or as in how does the name work? What reason is there to think that "Pegasus" works differently to "Phar Lap" - except in naming something else, of course. — Banno

Yes. What does the name "Pegasus" or Wallows represent then?

Represent?

The point here is that being real and existing are not the very same. — Banno

So, Pegasus exists without being real. No horse with wings (let alone being bright red) was ever real, but one did exist as a fictional character. Now Lassie the precocious canine and Champion the Wonder Horse were both real and existed -- there were several collies name Lassie who did their dog schtick and Champion even had his own TV program -- The Adventure of Champion the Wonder Horse.

I heard the wonder horse was into bestiality with boys. He had ulterior motives in being nice to the creepy Ricky North. As for the Canyon of Wanted Men, I'd very much like to visit it.

Yes, what are they?

Pegasus exists without being real — Bitter Crank

Not quite; better, the story of Pegasus exists, as does its associated history... it's just use.

Yes, what are they? — Wallows

Well, Wallows is you; "Pegasus" is a word.

What more do you want?

The Adventure of Champion the Wonder Horse. — Bitter Crank

Not something I am familiar with.

Well, Wallows is you; "Pegasus" is a word. — Banno

Am I really Wallows? Is Pegasus only a word?

I think you are just asking arbitrary questions. Loosing interest quickly.

So, what's a characteristic of entities that reside in Meinongs Jungle? That they have no reference to real world things?

You think there is something that they all have, that other stuff doesn't?

But perhaps it is just that we talk about them in different ways, rahter than that they have some special property.

Aren't they empty names?

If you like, you can call them that.

Biut "Harry Potter" usually refers to Harry Potter. SO empty name does not mean a name that does not refer.

SO empty name does not mean a name that does not refer. — Banno

Then what does it mean to say that stuff in Meinongs Jungle are actually empty names?

...if the stuff in Meinongs Jungle aren't really empty names, then what are they?

Not something I am familiar with. — Banno

That's OK, because I had never heard of him either. I use Wikipedia to manufacture fake omniscience.

Not quite; better, the story of Pegasus exists, as does its associated history... it's just use. — Banno

Pegasus is a character in a story, and because the story exists, pegasus exists. In practice we often cite fictional characters that don't exist outside of their story. Dracula, Frodo, Jesus, Sam Spade, et al.

Fictional stories are real fictional stories; see, there they are on the book shelf: Dracula; Lord of the Rings; the Gospel of St. Matthew; Dashiell Hammett's 1930 novel, The Maltese Falcon. Real stories. Not true stories, just real.

What's real is real, what's not real is not real. Dracula and Frodo are not real beings. Donald Trump is a real character in a real tragedy. Theresa May is real, too, and lives in an English tragedy. I gather that Scott Morrison MP is a real person too. Does he live in a tragedy, a comedy, or a bore?

As to use, we can say "Dracula and Frodo are real characters" as long as we understand that they are fictional characters in fictional stories that actually exist. Donald Trump and Theresa May can "get real" and I wish the hell they would, but Dracula and Frodo can not get real. Being fictional characters, they of course have no existence, no agency outside of the stories that real people wrote and published.

There's a history of using "real" so that it refers to being external to mentality. Of course, there's a history of using "exist" that way, too, and they both reflect (because of connotative weight those terms normally possess) an unreasonable bias against the subjective, the imaginary, the fictional, etc.