I wasn't questioning it along Berkleyian lines. I was saying it no longer means anything. It is a placeholder term for real. Or verified. It sounds like it is describing a certain substance type, but it isn't. It just means it exists.Clearly, of things that exist, a whole raft of them exist as ideas. I think material existence still stands, notwithstanding Berkeley, of which we discovered that while he could deny material - and what that means is another topic - he affirmed reality and the reality of things like stones. And it seems there are two to be added that don't fit in these: force, and process. — tim wood
Materialists consider forces real and material. As they do processes. And most would consider ideas merely a facet of certain kinds of (conscious) matter. Something like length or vibration. Not a new substance. Obviously you disagree, but you need to show how they are wrong because scientific materialism has swallowed everything. Even though it no longer means anything.The list, then, of classes of things that exist (as how they exist):
1) material things,
2) ideas/mental constructs,
3) forces,
4) processes. — tim wood
The truth of the matter is that the quality of encounterability is a quality of the object in question, not some individual or specific class of individuals that may or may not either encounter or be able to encounter the object. — tim wood
This isn't about existence for, rather it's about criteria for existence qua. — tim wood
I mean, you can't really miss existents, and there's not much of a complement to contrast with. — jorndoe
"Exist" is fairly basic, and categorizing different sorts of "existents" seems more fruitful, like tim wood has been doing. — jorndoe
And most would consider ideas merely a facet of certain kinds of (conscious) matter. Something like length or vibration. Not a new substance. Obviously you disagree, but you need to show how they are wrong because scientific materialism has swallowed everything. — Coben
You're starting down this path again, and it's not a good path. "Encounter" is a verb. "Encounterability" is a noun. I think there's an excellent chance that you know the difference between nouns and verbs. So don't confuse them."Encounter" — Metaphysician Undercover
It also "implies" the moon is made of green cheese. But so does everything else. But the moon is not made of green cheese. So get off this path, or put some sense into it.It implies the necessity of assuming something which will act as the encounterer. — Metaphysician Undercover
Here solid ground? Almost, but you have to make clear the grounds for your qualifying encounterability in terms of encounters. I'm thinking it's an illegitimate move - I wonder why you'd even be tempted to make it.Here's a suggestion for you categorization schema, absolute existents, and relative existents. The former are not related to encounters, the latter are. — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you tell a cannonball from no cannonball? can you tell a cannonball from a cranberry? Most people can do these things and do them in a simple and uncritical way. Existence is one tool for doing it. But for you that's "absolutely fruitless." We've been here before, so I'll just call you out now. Make your case - or be quiet!The process tim wood and the others are engaged in is absolutely fruitless, — Metaphysician Undercover
5. if (2), and if (4), then the world necessarily exists; therefore the set of non-contradictory facts = the actual world (i.e. transfinite list - unbounded phase-space - of "things/classes that ... exist"). — 180 Proof
The fundamental criterion for the existence of things, is the possibility of its negation. If its negation is impossible, it must exist, even if we have no idea what it is; if its negation is possible, its existence is not given, but is necessarily presupposed as existing, in order to have something to which the negation would apply. — Mww
I wonder how it all relates to Kant. What about such categories as time and space, the very principles of individuation? — petrichor
existence is primordial. — tim wood
If some things exist necessarily - if there are such things - then they have always existed and certainly did not spring fully-formed from the brow of logic/reason. — tim wood
And it may well be that the ability of language and thought to apprehend existence is, on the one hand, constrained, yet on the other hand, the constraint irrelevant. — tim wood
I think in mathematics, an "object" may be infinite.
Almost everything humans talk about now can relate to what Kant has already said. — Mww
Yes you can miss existents, and that's the point of one of my objections. — Metaphysician Undercover
Fundamental particles are supposed to be existents, and I don't encounter them ever. — Metaphysician Undercover
There may also be all sorts of other existents which human beings haven't encountered, and may not even be encounterable to us. It is a mistake to define "existents", as things which are evident to me, or even to us. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Encounterability" is a noun. — tim wood
The fundamental criterion for the existence of things, is the possibility of its negation. — Mww
If its negation is impossible, it must exist, ... — Mww
if its negation is possible, its existence is not given, ... — Mww
What can this world-beyond-all-carving be if not a kind of internal suspicion within our systematic carving-up of the world? — Eee
The map is not the territory could be interpreted to mean only that we expect our map to change. Our map appears on itself as a changeable entity? And the world-beyond-the-map is the world-to-come is our map's knowledge of its own fragility? — Eee
If "encounterability" is a noun, then it is used to refer to a thing, or class of things. So how do you propose to use this word such that it describes what all existent things have in common, existence? — Metaphysician Undercover
We'll never know the territory directly. Our map can change to a degree, and it will. But it can never be altogether dissolved while leaving us intact. Its fragility is ours. But ultimately, what is, is — petrichor
Your thoughts? — 180 Proof
Our map can change to a degree, and it will. But it can never be altogether dissolved while leaving us intact. — petrichor
I am not looking for what existence is. I am satisfied that is a different question from what exists, and what exists seems to be a criteriological question. — tim wood
Encounterability, then, is a criterion of existence. — tim wood
Is your objection that no reasonable discussion about existents can happen without first figuring out what existence is? Do you ever buy tomatoes? — tim wood
But I do! And wrt tomatoes, I do not worry about whether the tomato I have in my hand exists. Keep in mind that knowing what a tomato is, is different from any question of its existence.Say you bought some beefsteaks and some romas. How would you know that what you bought are tomatoes if you don't even know what a tomato is? — Metaphysician Undercover
What exists, and does this thing (whatever it is) exist, are two different questions.But how can you expect to answer "what exists?" — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you not think about what you write? Being cold is an encounterable. You encounter it, and you feel, think, maybe say, "That's cold." Being cold in itself means nothing more than that. Are you going to argue that because something has some characteristic it must be (or alternatively, cannot be) some particular thing? Did you read the OP?Being cold is "a criterion" of snow, but it doesn't mean that if it's cold, it's snow. — Metaphysician Undercover
And I challenged you to demonstrate this absolute fruitlessness - or be quiet. Obviously you can write what you like, but it's a waste of time if you're non-responsive and off-point.The process tim wood and the others are engaged in is absolutely fruitless, — Metaphysician Undercover
By doing it. What, exactly, is your problem? What makes you think a noun is subject to your restriction? Where did you even get that? And please identify something that exists that is not in some way encounterable. Or even something that does not exist?If "encounterability" is a noun, then it is used to refer to a thing, or class of things. So how do you propose to use this word such that it describes what all existent things have in common, existence? — Metaphysician Undercover
If some things exist necessarily,... it does not follow that they always existed. — Mww
If its negation is impossible, it must exist, ...
— Mww
Yes abstractions; not states of affairs. — 180 Proof
But I do! — tim wood
Do you not think about what you write? Being cold is an encounterable. You encounter it, and you feel, think, maybe say, "That's cold." Being cold in itself means nothing more than that. Are you going to argue that because something has some characteristic it must be (or alternatively, cannot be) some particular thing? — tim wood
By doing it. What, exactly, is your problem? — tim wood
And please identify something that exists that is not in some way encounterable. — tim wood
No, you have not.but I've already explained why "encounterability" is insufficient. — Metaphysician Undercover
And why is that? I say it's cold because it's cold, and thereby aver that cold exists. What's the insufficiency?Correct, that's exactly why "encounterability" is insufficient. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, you have not. But let's try this: you disqualify encounterability. Did you ever encounter anything? At all, in any way? Are you going to here argue that those things did not, do not, exist?I've already explained why I believe encounterability is insufficient. Now I'm waiting for you to attempt to demonstrate that it is sufficient. — Metaphysician Undercover
Did you read the OP? Do you remember the category of ideas/mental constructs? A hallucination exists as an idea/mental construct, subspecies hallucination. You appear to be confused about all this. .non-existent things are encountered through hallucinations — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps, but what of it?And, it is highly probable, due to the deficiencies and physical limitations of the human being, that there are existents which are not encounterable. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is your problem, not mine. My usage is that if it is encounterable (then it must have the quality of encounterability) then it exists. If you wish to talk about unencounterable existents, go ahead, but I have to wonder just how you're going to go about that.How will you demonstrate that all existents are encounterable, and all encounterable things are existents? — Metaphysician Undercover
I say it's cold because it's cold, and thereby aver that cold exists. — tim wood
Did you read the OP? Do you remember the category of ideas/mental constructs? A hallucination exists as an idea/mental construct, subspecies hallucination. You appear to be confused about all this. — tim wood
This is your problem, not mine. — tim wood
If you wish to talk about unencounterable existents, go ahead, but I have to wonder just how you're going to go about that. — tim wood
We say that they do not exist, because we cannot give them a spatial location. That's why I suggested location as a condition of "existence". The things within an imaginary scene, are clearly encountered, but they do not exist, and we do not call them existents.
Yes I am confused by all this. Your use of "exist" in a way which is inconsistent with common usage has left me confused. — Metaphysician Undercover
I've been talking about unencounterable existents for quite a few posts. Now I've succeeded in getting you to talk about them as well. What's the problem? I've explained that all I have to do is demonstrate that such a thing is logically possible and it makes sense to talk about them. What doesn't make sense is to exclude this possibility as "impossible" just because it is, by definition, beyond your capacity to encounter it. — Metaphysician Undercover
1) If something necessarily exists, it exists necessarily, yes? — tim wood
If yes, than non-contingently, yes again? — tim wood
Then how can it ever not be? — tim wood
If its negation is impossible." Is this propositional negation? Or is it an existential impossibility to be? — tim wood
I cannot think of anything that necessarily exists — tim wood
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.