Is there no difference between being taken account of and existing prior to that account? — creativesoul
Beware the use of 'clearly'. Things are rarely if ever as clear as one first thinks. The truth of the proposition in question is far from clear to me.being taken account of is clearly not necessary for existence, otherwise there could be no such thing as discovery — creativesoul
Thanks. No worries at all. That thread was a minefield!I just remembered, or at least I think I remember, that I owe you an apology. — creativesoul
I was not aware of that. Is that scientific contention, involving criticism of whether the experiment was definitive, or is it philosophical, along the lines of what constitutes an 'observation'.That is still contentious for some it seems. — creativesoul
With that correction, the objection - so far as I understand it - seems to disappear. — andrewk
It depends on what the objection is. — andrewk
Without the crucial 'bound' qualifier, one might object that Quine's statement means we cannot say that any dinosaur existed other than one we can refer to individually, for instance because we are looking at the fossil of its skeleton. That would be a strange position because although we are confident that millions of dinosaurs inhabited the Earth, we can only recognise the existence of a few hundred of them. Hence, the misreported Quine definition becomes a partial dinosaur denial.
What the 'bound' qualifier does is allow us to refer to all dinosaurs (eg 'all dinosaurs had hearts'), and also to particular dinosaurs whose identity we do not know (eg 'the tallest dinosaur that ever lived'). Those dinosaurs meet Quine's criterion for existence. We can thus see that Quine was not a dinosaur-denier to even the slightest degree.. — andrewk
There is no difference that can be identified in language, because by speaking about entities that are not taken account of, we are taking account of them.To be the value of any variable, bound or otherwise, is to be taken account of within some framework of logical notation.
Is there no difference between being taken account of and existing prior to that account? — creativesoul
Is there no difference between being taken account of and existing prior to that account?
— creativesoul
There is no difference that can be identified in language, because by speaking about entities that are not taken account of, we are taking account of them. — andrewk
The best one can do is feel - if one so wishes - that there is more to this than taking account of things, but you cannot articulate that feeling in any known language, or in any language I can imagine.
I think when Quine refers to a bound variable he is not referring solely to a variable referenced in a formal, symbolic logic expression, but that he is including all natural language expressions that mean essentially the same thing.So, Quine's statement "To be is to be the value of a bound variable" stands in direct conflict with basic knowledge regarding what logical notation is existentially dependent upon.
I'm assuming Quine is advocating for predicate logic. I'm also working under the assumption that his aim is to target the superfluous nature of the term "existence" and other abstract 'objects'. — creativesoul
I think you might be right about that. An appealing (to me) interpretation is that he's just pointing out the futility of ontology. I would expect devoted ontologists to disagree. Fortunately, philosophy is a broad church, and can accommodate us all.I'm also working under the assumption that his aim is to target the superfluous nature of the term "existence" — creativesoul
So, Quine's statement "To be is to be the value of a bound variable" stands in direct conflict with basic knowledge regarding what logical notation is existentially dependent upon.
I'm assuming Quine is advocating for predicate logic. I'm also working under the assumption that his aim is to target the superfluous nature of the term "existence" and other abstract 'objects'.
— creativesoul
I think when Quine refers to a bound variable he is not referring solely to a variable referenced in a formal, symbolic logic expression, but that he is including all natural language expressions that mean essentially the same thing — andrewk
Limiting the interpretation to formal logical expressions would make the statement nonsensical. It would mean that 'Quine did not recognise the statement "Look, there's a wombat!" as taking account of existence. — andrewk
I think when Quine refers to a bound variable he is not referring solely to a variable referenced in a formal, symbolic logic expression, but that he is including all natural language expressions that mean essentially the same thing — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.