Merdwurdichliebe is correct in saying disputes about 'existence' have important psychological implications with respect to 'social norms of thinking', but IMO, philosophers are producing word salad unless they recognize that 'trees exist' is either a tautology in the sense that all concepts 'exist', or that the word 'tree', implies a contextual expectancy of potential interaction for the user. — fresco
Then the mistake, imo, is that we can escape from the domain of 'language' at all.
As 'thinkers' all we have is 'language' — fresco
Could/would you please re-phrase that answer in plain language? Thanks.Its not a question of 'belief'. Its a fundamental later phenomenological pov which follows Kant's non accessibility of noumena and therefore discards 'noumena' as vacuous, and which accepts Nietsche's rejection of any difference between 'description' and 'reality'. It is also supported by Maturana's argument that all we call 'observation' essentially involves 'languaging'. — fresco
Then the mistake, imo, is that we can escape from the domain of 'language' at all. As 'thinkers' all we have is 'language'... — fresco
SO there is a pretty straight forward grammar for true. Some statement 'p' will be true only if: p. Tarski's T-sentence, disquotation, redundancy and so on. Within this grammar we can manage much of what was once considered philosophically contentious.
And another, not unrelated, grammar for necessity, using possible world semantics to set out how to use necessary and possible.
And running through both is a rather good grammar for existence - existential quantification. — Banno
We can observe and infer these relations, exchanges and interactions; and then the question becomes 'Are these relations, exchanges and interactions totally dependent on our observations and inference of them, or do they have some kind of independent existence or reality? — Janus
asking the questions expands the poetic imagination, and the sense of the numinous. It shows us just what kinds of question we are capable of imagining. — Janus
Its not a question of 'belief'. Its a fundamental later phenomenological pov which follows Kant's non accessibility of noumena and therefore discards 'noumena' as vacuous, and which accepts Nietsche's rejection of any difference between 'description' and 'reality'. It is also supported by Maturana's argument that all we call 'observation' essentially involves 'languaging'. — fresco
Its not a question of 'belief'. Its a fundamental later phenomenological pov which follows Kant's non accessibility of noumena and therefore discards 'noumena' as vacuous, and which accepts Nietsche's rejection of any difference between 'description' and 'reality'. — fresco
Could you please elaborate? — Merkwurdichliebe
there is something going on in natural language that elludes propositional logic... the mere power of poetic imagination over the human psyche is evidence enough. — Merkwurdichliebe
Dean, to the physics department. "Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff. Why couldn't you be like the math department - all they need is money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper."
What is salient is that "Existence is relative, not absolute" lies outside these grammatical spaces. That is, it is not something that could be parsed into such language.
And that is the same as creativesoul's question: what is added to our understanding of a thing by saying that it exists? — Banno
It's like a fractal - however we magnify our cognition, the same pattern keeps appearing. That is where propositional logic has its merits, it explains the pattern. — Merkwurdichliebe
Does anyone here actually doubt whether or not anything can exist prior to our talking about it? — creativesoul
It is no wonder that the value of philosophy proper has been considered on a steady decline for so long now by the average joe. — creativesoul
Strip away all the fancy specialist terms, and I think The Average Joe can and does get into these issues. — g0d
Existence does not require our account. All notions of "existence" do. — creativesoul
I assert 'existence' to be on the same level of every other concept which humans denote by a socially acquired languge in specific behavioral contexts. — fresco
And I've already shown the relevance of those spaces. — Merkwurdichliebe
I ask because I want to be sure I understand you. — Banno
Normal everyday common language users do not get lost in mistaken accounts of what they're doing, unless they are unknowingly misled into such cognitive dissonance. — creativesoul
I also invoked the consideration of whether or not a thing's existence is dependent upon its relations. — Merkwurdichliebe
I've no clear understanding of what the "psychological context of 'existence'" might be. Is it the context in whichi we might use the word 'existence'?
Much the same for "consideration of whether or not a thing's existence is dependent on its relations." Is this parallel Quine? creativesoul? — Banno
For me, the import of this discussion is that I assert 'existence' to be on the same level of every other concept which humans denote by a socially acquired languge in specific behavioral contexts. — fresco
The presupposition of existence is not existentially dependent upon language use.
All notions of "existence" are. — creativesoul
I think that those are the kinds of frameworks and/or assertions that Quine is targeting. — creativesoul
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.