But is there, in all of Heaven and Earth, a domain of Lord of the Rings, containing hobbits? — bongo fury
There are no fictive folk? — Banno
You seem to be denying that existential generalisation applies to fiction. — Banno
So, talking about historical or literary facts about Pegasus, isn't as misleading as stating that Pegasus both exists and doesn't. — Shawn
A flying horse or species? — Cheshire
No difference. — bongo fury
Two words will suffice: 'real' and 'exists'; — Wheatley
pretending that its usual meaning is other than it is: which is that certain words are or aren't succeeding in referring to certain objects. — bongo fury
Either way, this puts him in a category along with lies, deceptions and hallucinations: things we can refer to because we have the ability to encode (recall, describe, perhaps agree about) symbols that resemble signifiers but aren't. — Kenosha Kid
So, to avoid contradiction, you will refrain from denying that 'Pegasus' refers? — bongo fury
Ah, I think I see. Facts not things? Because Tractatus? — bongo fury
Btw I'm confused by your employment of "referent", "denotes" and "denoting fact"... please clarify? — bongo fury
I'm denying that such an application creates a new species of existence, any more than it creates actual unicorns or hobbits. — bongo fury
That doesn't imply that we have two sorts of existence, but that existence can be used for different cases. — Banno
The cop-out is to allow the meaning by disrespecting the usual implication, and instead multiplying allowable senses of "exist". E.g. "exists mythically", "exists in the fictional domain", etc. — bongo fury
Here be dragons.
Notice that existential generalisation takes Q(a) and concludes that there are things which have the property Q. You want to take Q(a) and conclude that (a) exists. It's not the same.
(a) is assumed in setting up the domain... (a, b, c,...)
SO that (a) exists is an assumption of the system, not a conclusion. — Banno
slowly and carefully... — Banno
The existence of Pegasus is taken as granted in setting up a discussion of Pegasus. — Banno
we all know precisely well what we mean by saying they do or don't exist, and no one is confused. — Snakes Alive
The problems only come in when we try to formalize languages talking about these things — Snakes Alive
I tend to think the issue was definitively settled by the Lewisian analysis from the 70s that made use of Kripkean modal logics, — Snakes Alive
The existence of Pegasus is taken as granted in setting up a discussion of Pegasus.
— Banno
Neither slow nor careful. — bongo fury
Hard to see how you got that impression. Quine very deftly traces the problem to ancient puzzles of ordinary language. — bongo fury
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.