Santa is a person that ascribes a jolly old man over at the North Pole. He is known by two names, both "Santa Claus" and "St. Nicholas".
— Shawn

No. This is where it gets complicated. Can you demonstrate that Santa Clause is identical with those others? I would suggest to you that Santa Clause, St Nick, Kris Kringle and Father Christmas are four separate figures who work together over Christmas. — Tom Storm

Since all of these people are imaginary, they cannot be either really separate or really identical. (Imaginary objects cannot have real properties.) @Shawn imagines them as identical, you imagine them as separate. Therefore in his context of supposition they are identical, in yours they are separate. End of story.

'Fictitious supposed entity' does not accurately capture my meaning. — Herg

Ok, what does? What form of words is satisfactorily not an oxymoron?

Since all of these people are imaginary, they cannot be either really separate or really identical. — Herg

At last one of those in that list was a real man. :wink:

'Fictitious supposed entity' does not accurately capture my meaning.
— Herg

Ok, what does? What form of words is satisfactorily not an oxymoron? — bongo fury

I know you claimed that 'fictional entity' is an oxymoron. I don't agree. It would be an oxymoron if calling something an entity implied that it was real, but it doesn't, because you can refer to something as an entity in a work of fiction. (There's a Star Trek episode in which there's something called the Crystalline Entity. It isn't real.) Calling something an entity does not amount a claim of real existence, only of existence in either the real world or a context of supposition. My mistake was duplication: I shouldn't have used both 'fictitious' and 'supposed'.

Since all of these people are imaginary, they cannot be either really separate or really identical.
— Herg

At last one of those in that list was a real man. :wink: — Tom Storm

I'd forgotten that there was a real St Nicholas. He can't either be identical to, or work with, three imaginary people, because a real object and an imaginary object can't have relations with each other — neither real relations nor imaginary relations. However, an imaginary St Nick — who is an analogue, in a context of supposition, of the real St Nick — can be identical to these other three people in Shawn's context of supposition, and can be separate from them and work with them in yours.

There are many concepts, especially in fiction and mythology, that have no actual or real existence or referent. The only thing that's real is the concept, or conceptual idea.

Walmart and the North Pole both really exist — Herg

Davidson's T-Sentence such as "schnee ist weiss" means snow is white uses a word in inverted commas to refer to something in language and a word not in inverted commas to refer to something in the world.

Therefore, there are two possible interpretations - i) "Walmart" and "The North Pole" both really exist and ii) Walmart and The North Pole both really exist

"Walmart" and "The North Pole" exist in language, otherwise I wouldn't be able to write this sentence.

But how do you know that The North Pole really exists? If by description, then it is knowledge by language. But if knowledge by language, then how does one know whether "The North Pole" refers to The North Pole, something that only exists outside language, or is self-referential, referring to something that only exists in language.

My mistake was duplication: I shouldn't have used both 'fictitious' and 'supposed'. — Herg

Ok, but now you've done it again, with 'real' and 'existent'.

There are many concepts, especially in fiction and mythology, that have no actual or real existence or referent. The only thing that's real is the concept, or conceptual idea. — Sam26

Do you mean the brain shiver?

What? What's the brain shiver?

What? What's the brain shiver? — Sam26

The thought. The neurological activity.

Oh, no, I mean the way we use the concept is real, but not all concepts have referents in reality, i.e., they're not veridical. The only referent they might have is a fictional one, their ontology is real, but only as a fiction or myth.

but not all concepts have referents in reality, — Sam26

Well we were talking about words failing to refer to things in reality. I'm interested to hear about other kinds of things failing likewise. Just wondered what they are, if not words.

The only referent they might have is a fictional one, — Sam26

So they do have a referent or they don't?

So they do have a referent or they don't? — bongo fury

It depends on the context. If you're talking about a fictional character, the referent is the character in the story. If you're referring to what's veridical, then they have no referent.

If you're referring to what's veridical, then they have no referent. — Sam26

Can we talk veridically about fiction?

Again, it's about context. What's veridical is not a fiction, or myth, or a hallucination, etc. Although, within a fictional story one could talk about what's veridical in relation to the story. However, it's still a fiction.

However, it's still a fiction. — Sam26

So, false?

In what sense does Santa Claus exist?

As an unregistered trademark that execs at Disney have wet dreams about owning the rights to.



Or would more appropriate be the Coca-Cola company?



It sure ain't this saint:

My mistake was duplication: I shouldn't have used both 'fictitious' and 'supposed'.
— Herg

Ok, but now you've done it again, with 'real' and 'existent'. — bongo fury

Nope. I know you'd like to nail words like 'real', 'entity' and 'existent' to the world we live in, so that they can't be applied to fictional or imagined objects, but it can't be done. Any word at all can be used of either real or imaginary objects. Any concept instantiated in the real world can be imagined to be instantiated in this world or some merely imagined world. 'Real' does not always mean actually real; 'existent' does not always mean actually existent. That's just the way things are.

Walmart and the North Pole both really exist
— Herg
But how do you know that The North Pole really exists? — RussellA

I don't. I was taking a bet. The odds of me winning are proportional to the amount of evidence I have that the North Pole exists. The odds of me losing are proportional to the amount of evidence I have that it doesn't. I think my bet is fairly safe, but nothing is guaranteed.

There are many concepts, especially in fiction and mythology, that have no actual or real existence or referent. The only thing that's real is the concept, or conceptual idea. — Sam26

I'd like to focus on this a little bit more, as this opens up a can of worms and I'm not too sure if Wittgenstein would have agreed with this. What do you think, @Banno?

"Concepts". The term is fraught with problems. Folk treat them as if they were the furniture eof one's mind, metal things we can push around and rearrange - reified.

I've sometimes found it useful to replace the notion of a concept with thought of the way we use a word. Instead of attempting to ponder the concept of 2, think of the way we use the word "2"; in the place of wondering about the concept of democracy, consider the way we use the word "democracy".

So consider

There are many concepts... that have no actual or real existence or referent — Sam26

Try instead "there are many ways we use words that have no actual or real existence or referent..." Well, a way of using a word is not the sort of thing that we would expect to be actual or to really exist... We can use words pretty much as we chose. We might say that the word "democracy" exists, but the way we use the word "democracy"... doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that we talk of as existing or not, nor does it quite work to say that the way we use "two" has a referent.

Such considerations lead me away from talking of concepts existing - avoiding their reification. And looking at the use of a word rather than it's meaning is straight out of the Wittgenstein cookbook.

...especially in fiction and mythology... The only thing that's real is the concept, or conceptual idea. — Sam26

This qualification perhaps shows Sam was using "concept" somewhat loosely. So if we consider a fictional character, what is real - again replacing "concept" with "the use of the word" - is the use of the word. Well, this is so - what is 'real' about Santa is the way we use the word "Santa" in our Christmas antics. I don't think Sam would disagree.

Try instead "there are many ways we use words that have no actual or real existence or referent..." — Banno

Don't you think it's rather obvious that if we're talking about concepts, in this context, we're talking about how we use them, which is why I gave examples of different uses (fiction, mythology, etc.). Concepts have an ontology within various language-games. So, there is no need to replace concept with the use of the word.

The concept democracy exists, which is why we are able to use it. Moreover, I surely wouldn't say that the number two has a referent, but it does have a use, and within that use it has an existence of sorts. It exists as an abstraction.

We can say that what gives a concept life, is the way we use it in a language. So, again, the concept has existence within our various forms of life, or language-games.

"Concepts". The term is fraught with problems............in the place of wondering about the concept of democracy, consider the way we use the word "democracy".. — Banno

I agree with @Sam26, and also that the concept of "concept" is fraught with problems.

However, how would it be possible to use the word "democracy" in a sentence without having a concept of what the word meant ?

Without language, we wouldn't have the concept of democracy, in that our concept of democracy has come from language, yet without the concept of democracy we wouldn't be able to use "democracy" in language.

For example, thinking about a foreign language, "theluji" means "maji, waliohifadhiwa, nyeupe na ardhi". I may know how every word in a foreign language is defined, but if I have no concept of the meaning of any word, how can I meaningfully use these words in sentences.

If we had no concept behind the words we use in language, we wouldn't be able to meaningfully use them in language.

I never understood Wittgenstein - all I know is he found holes in the up-to-that-point understanding of meaning (has something to do with essence apparently). I'm also not certain about the ramifications/consequences of Wittgenstein's claim. :confused:

'Real' does not always mean actually real; 'existent' does not always mean actually existent. That's just the way things are. — Herg

Does 'actual' always mean 'actually actual'? Perhaps Santa is the first but not the second?

Santa Claus, alas, doesn't exist.

Santa Claus, alas, doesn't exist. — Agent Smith

How do you know, as it's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Are you inferring that the Mariana Trench, for example, doesn't exist because you haven't seen it.

Are you saying that only those things that you have seen exist, and everything you haven't seen doesn't exist?

Good questions. As far as I can tell, we can't also do the opposite of what you said we can't do.

it's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. — RussellA

Is that true? I thought I had £20 in my wallet. I looked and there was £0. I think I just proved something doesn't exist. The 'something' was £20. Its non-existence was proved by inspection.