Are you claiming that nothing existed prior to language? Are you claiming that nothing exists prior to our reporting upon it?

No, I am saying that 'things existing',only has meaning in the context of language users. Scenarios 'prior to human observers' is an oxymoron because you the current speaker are the observer of such a scenario in 'your minds eye' as we speak. The fact that we can visualize such scenarios which have explanatory utility for current events is an entirely human activity.

No, I am saying that 'things existing',only has meaning in the context of language users. Scenarios 'prior to human observers' is an oxymoron because you the current speaker are the observer of such a scenario in 'your minds eye' as we speak. The fact that we can visualize such scenarios which have explanatory utility for current events is an entirely human activity. — fresco

Why isn't this simply confusing epistemology and ontology?

Since what we call epistemology and ontology are well known to be inextricably linked, I can't see the problem.

NB. This article containing an account of Heidegger's Dasein gives a backgound to my view of 'existence' being a function of human activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology

I like your philosophy, despite what they say. Some of the things you say make a lot of sense. for example:

The term "existence" exists. All terms are existentially dependent upon language use. All language use is existentially dependent upon pre-linguistic thought/belief. All thought/belief consists entirely of meaningful correlations drawn between different things. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, regardless of further subsequent qualification. — creativesoul

That, there, is very clever. :up:

(I'm sure someone even more clever will come along and deconstruct it with their innate genius :roll: .)

What does the notion of "relative" existence add here? Better yet, does it help or hinder our understanding? — creativesoul

The better question would be, what is understanding, and what is best for it?

That is for the understanding one to decide. I think that the notion of entering a bottle to be a very intriguing enterprise. What does the bottle entail, and what can we find out about ourselves by temporily taking leave into one bottle or another? We will at least discover (on a personal level) that some bottles are better than other -
some filled with rainwater, some filled with whiskey, and some filled with piss. But, one of the best discoveries (imo) might be that one can enter and examine various bottles simultaneously.

Are you claiming that nothing existed prior to language? — creativesoul

No. — fresco

Good.

What about thought/belief, does its content exist prior to it?

Yes.

wait... that could be argued. What is the less short answer?

I like your philosophy, despite what they say. — Merkwurdichliebe

Thanks.

...that could be argued. What is the less short answer? — Merkwurdichliebe

It has been argued for. Without subsequent refutation and/or valid objection it does not need to be further argued. I'm seeing where it leads.

The term "existence" exists. All terms are existentially dependent upon language use. All language use is existentially dependent upon pre-linguistic thought/belief. All thought/belief consists entirely of meaningful correlations drawn between different things. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, regardless of further subsequent qualification.
— creativesoul

That, there, is very clever. :up:

(I'm sure someone even more clever will come along and deconstruct it with their innate genius :roll: .) — Merkwurdichliebe

Anyone is more than welcome to try. I would think that if it could be done, it would have been by now. Folk around these parts carry axes...

It has been argued for. Without subsequent refutation and/or valid objection it does not need to be further argued. I'm seeing where it leads. — creativesoul

Not the less short answer I was looking for, I know you can do better, but I will accept it so as to avoid complicating matter.

Are you wanting to get into Kantian notions, synthetic apriori thought/knowledge, in particular?

Anyone is more than welcome to try. I would think that if it could be done, it would have been by now. Folk around these parts carry axes... — creativesoul

What they need is a feller buncher, like what you drive.

Anyone is more than welcome to try. I would think that if it could be done, it would have been by now. Folk around these parts carry axes...
— creativesoul

What they need is a feller buncher, like what you drive. — Merkwurdichliebe

I have no idea what that means, but it's funny anyway. Must be the accent.

Are you wanting to get into Kantian notions, synthetic apriori, in particular? — creativesoul

Negative. I just wanted to hear your assessment of how the content of thought/belief can exist prior to thought/belief. But, at the bottom of it all, this kantian scheme seems inescapable, so never mind, unless you have a better notion. I'm willing to listen.

All thought/belief consists entirely of meaningful correlations drawn between different things. — Merkwurdichliebe

Partly, not entirely.

The screwdriver is a screwdriver in relation to its application. It doesn't need that relation to be a screwdriver, but the relation is an inevitable consequence.

So belief does not need an attachment, but may consequently develop one.

It doesn't need that relation to be a screwdriver, but the relation is an inevitable consequence — Shamshir

This is where it gets tricky. But I am the great Merkwurdichliebe, and I demand reconciliation on this matter...or else! :strong:

A screwdriver is always a screwdriver. With the added meaning that relation grsnts, it becomes a screwdriver+.
Go back to the first sentence and realise the meaning dissolves like salt in water.

A screwdriver is always a screwdriver. With the added meaning that relation grsnts, it becomes a screwdriver+.
Go back to the first sentence and realise the meaning dissolves like salt in water. — Shamshir

Is that because the instant the sentence is posited, the term screwdriver has propositional significance - viz. meaning?

It's because additional meaning dissolves in to a partition of the original. You're no longer adding on to but discovering of.

And the original always holds these parts, regardless of their discovery.

And the original always holds these parts, regardless of their discovery. — Shamshir

The existential constant?

@creativesoul
@Shamshir

For a nondescript thing to change into something identifiable, like a screwdriver, because of its apprehension in thought/belief, would entail a problem of perpetual alteration, meaning that discovering anything new (qua functionality, correlations &c.) about the screwdriver would change it into something else. But, by presupposing all its properties in its propositional form (qua the existential constant), it retains its essentiality, despite any subsequent predication (true or false).

A screwdriver is an individual thing. Its qualities, likewise, are individual things.

So any relative application of the screwdriver would appear additive, but it's actually divisive.
As it's not a screwdriver plus a relation, but a relation of the screwdriver - which would entail, it was latent and merely pulled out.

Now does rediscovery and partition of an object, alter it? No.
It merely alters the perception of the object. The object remains the same throughout all instances, but relative to the observer it alternates, due to the changes occuring with the observer; which is to say discovery.

It merely alters the perception of the object. The object remains the same throughout all instances, but relative to the observer it alternates, due to the changes occuring with the observer; which is to say discovery. — Shamshir

This would apply to, say, identifying the screwdriver as an ice pick. Perhaps, a screwdriver by any other name?

This would apply to, say, identifying the screwdriver as an ice pick. Perhaps, a screwdriver by any other name? — Merkwurdichliebe

What even is a screwdriver? A sharp stick of metal.

Can you use a knife as a screwdriver? You can.
But you don't, because you the observer choose not to, not because they are intrinsically different.

But you can't cut with a screwdriver, right?
You can, using the tip - which is the way you cut with box cutters and box cutters are essentially pocket knives.

What even is a screwdriver? A sharp stick of metal.

Can you use a knife as a screwdriver? You can.
But you don't, because you the observer choose not to, not because they are intrinsically different.

But you can't cut with a screwdriver, right?
You can, using the tip - which is the way you cut a with box cutters and box cutters are essentially pocket knives. — Shamshir

You are making screwdrivers out to be violent weapons, but can they not also be repurposed to feed our babies? :joke:

As a spoon? Sure. It's all in the intention of the user.
Which is what I'm repeating, more or less.
Objects are absolutes. Relations are user experience.

Since what we call epistemology and ontology are well known to be inextricably linked, I can't see the problem. — fresco

An example of the problem is this: "Scenarios 'prior to human observers' is an oxymoron because you the current speaker are the observer of such a scenario in 'your minds eye' as we speak."

You, as the observer of whatever you're observing, is an epistemological perspective. It's a matter of what we know and how we know it.

Scenarios prior to human observers is not talking about an epistemological perspective. It's talking about an ontological perspective (where we're reading "ontology" as what ontology is about).

So there's no contradiction there (to fuel an oxymoron), because we're not talking about the same thing, in the same respect, from the same perspective, etc., in both cases.

In short, it's the rudimentary error (that persists throughout too much philosophy despite how rudimentary it is) of conflating things like concepts, for example, with what concepts are about. Or, it's conflating sense and reference.