Is a tree existentially dependent upon it's relations?

That question is very incomplete. — creativesoul

It is definitely vague. But you know what its getting at. And what it is getting at is spot on.

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'? — Banno

Any psychological context has to do with cognitive immediacy, like "my toe itches".

Hm. Phenomenology, rather than psychology.

Phenomenology, rather than psychology. — Banno

You are correct. Psychology is fundamentally phenomenological.

I'm unimpressed.

I think that those are the kinds of frameworks and/or assertions that Quine is targeting.
— creativesoul

How so? — Banno

Because I took Quine to be targeting frameworks using the term "existence" as a predicate.

I'm unimpressed. — Banno

That argument is impotent, it will convince no one.

Is a tree existentially dependent upon it's relations?

That question is very incomplete.
— creativesoul

It is definitely vague. But you know what its getting at. And what it is getting at is spot on. — Merkwurdichliebe

That has yet to have been determined.

What are we counting as a tree's relations?

By using the term "existence" as a predicate. — creativesoul

Fresco says it is not a noun.

What is it? :chin:

It wasn't an argument. Stringing stuff together is easy.

Meh. I don't see anything here worth considering.

Sorry - are you saying Quine treated "exists" as a predicate?

What are we counting as a tree's relations? — creativesoul

One example would be all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence.

Stringing stuff together is easy. — Banno

You don't want my pearl necklace? But it is the Queen's jewel. :kiss:

For me it's not that Rorty finally gets things right but rather that he had the right attitude. The attempt to prove the futility of X seems as futile as X itself. A certain approach is discarded, not refuted. — g0d

I agree with Rorty's opinion regarding social responsibility regardless of strict determinism.

His discarding of truth is a huge mistake. He makes a coherent argument for it. However being based upon the idea that truth is a property of true propositions, it's is based upon a falsehood. Truth is central to everything ever thought, believed, spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered. If it is a property, it is a property of true thought/belief and statements thereof. Some true thought/belief are prior to language. Thus, either truth is prior to language, and thus prior to true propositions, or true thought/belief does not require truth.

Truth is prior to language.

That's precisely how the use of "is true" becomes redundant when attached to a thought/belief statement. Truth is presupposed within all thought/belief somewhere along the line.

This is beside the thrust of the thread though.

A certain approach is discarded, not refuted. — g0d

Discarding has no comparison to refutation when it comes to argument. Discarding is a cowardly retreat

↪creativesoul Sorry - are you saying Quine treated "exists" as a predicate? — Banno

No.

Just as well.

To Arne.

Unfortunately your request for 'plain language' begs a multitude of questions about language describing language. This is why philosophers like Heidegger needed to resort to neologisms to account for the coherence of their systems. Think of 'reading Heidegger' like the need for 'cultural immersion' if you were truly to understand the nuances of a foreign language.

Is a tree existentially dependent upon it's relations?

That question is very incomplete.
— creativesoul

It is definitely vague. But you know what its getting at. And what it is getting at is spot on.
— Merkwurdichliebe

That has yet to have been determined.

What are we counting as a tree's relations? — creativesoul

One example would be all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

Translation would render the question rephrased as follows...

Is a tree existentially dependent upon all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence?

Looks like a bottle to me.

What are we counting as a tree's relations?

Some relations are prior to language.

One example would be all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

Is a tree existentially dependent upon all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence? — creativesoul

"Necessary conditions not inherent to the tree itself"... What? "... which are nonetheless required for its existence"...

Looks like word salad.

I also invoked the consideration of whether or not a thing's existence is dependent upon its relations. — Merkwurdichliebe

Is a tree dependent upon it's relations?

Is a tree's existence dependent upon it's relations?

How are we to make sense of this?

Yup. I'm beginning to arrive at the same conclusion.

Is a tree existentially dependent upon all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence? — creativesoul

No. That is not what I said. At best, its is a poor poor translation. Best to stick verbatim.

Necessary conditions not inherent to the tree itself"... What? "... which are nonetheless required for its existence"...

Looks like word salad. — Banno

So there are no conditions that are required for the existence of a tree? Explain yourself

Necessary conditions not inherent to the tree itself"... What? "... which are nonetheless required for its existence"...

Looks like word salad.
— Banno

So there are no conditions that are required for the existence of a tree? Explain yourself — Merkwurdichliebe

Never mind, I know you won't/can't.

Yup. I'm beginning to arrive at the same conclusion. — creativesoul

It's easy to disagree with a statement when you mutilate it into something absurd.

Is a tree dependent upon it's relations?

Is a tree's existence dependent upon it's relations?

How are we to make sense of this? — creativesoul

Is a tree dependent on water for its existence? Does a tree provide it's own water?

The presupposition of existence is not existentially dependent upon language use.
All notions of "existence" are.
— creativesoul

That is also a very good point to consider.

Language is certainly not existence as such. Yet each are it intrinsically bound up in the other. — Merkwurdichliebe

You've this very odd habit of claiming agreement, and/or offering praise and then immediately asserting something that does not follow.

Weird.

That which is prior to something else cannot be intrinsically bound up in that something else. The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief is prior to language. Thus, on that level, it is not bound up in language.