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. — Cuthbert
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. — Herg
you cannot prove that £20 notes don't exist in the world. — RussellA
I can prove that £19 notes don't exist in the world — Cuthbert
A challenge — RussellA
If you hesitate............You know there are no £19 notes — Cuthbert
I beg your pardon, but would you prefer to splinter off the discussion you both had into a seperate thread about the distinction of concepts from ideas and use as traditionally utilized by Wittgenstein? — Shawn
Compare the following 4 entities 1. Vladimir Putin 2. Santa Claus 3. Sherlock Holmes 4. Arthur Conan Doyle — Agent Smith
people can and do use the same words or expressions for different purposes in different contexts. And after all, not existing is what distinguishes fictional characters as such. — busycuttingcrap
As you say "people can and do use the same words or expressions for different purposes in different contexts". — RussellA
That's one way to look at it. What follows if I may ask? — Agent Smith
If I may help you to grasp the point here... People can and do use the same kinds of words (e.g. names) for the purpose of referring to people or objects in some contexts and for the purpose of non-referring word-use in others. — bongo fury
In other words, language. Stories. Words. That's all. — busycuttingcrap
That's one, but here's the thing Saint Nicholas was a real person. I don't know how to deal with that (historical) fact and how it relates to Santa Claus. — Agent Smith
If I may help you to grasp the point here... People can and do use the same kinds of words (e.g. names) for the purpose of referring to people or objects in some contexts and for the purpose of non-referring word-use in others. — bongo fury
non-existent things like fictional characters don't exist. — busycuttingcrap
I agree that non-existent things don't exist, and that there shouldn't be a special category of existence for non-existent things. If we accept Bertrand Russell"s On Denoting, then I also agree that Santa Claus is not a referring expression, but rather a quantificational expression.
For Russell, existence is not a first-order property of individuals but instead a second-order property of concepts. — RussellA
Consideration of concepts (or their status) is perhaps relevant in the analysis of the existence predicate. Frege maintained that existence wasn't a first order predicate because that could entail absurdities like "There is an x such that x doesn't exist". Frege held rather, that existence is a second order predicate: a property of concepts, not individuals. This existence property can be instantiated or not.
A. Santa does not exist.
B. The property of being santa is not instantiated by any individual object — Heracloitus
Frege held rather, that existence is a second order predicate: a property of concepts, not individuals. — Heracloitus
To argue the blanket statement "fictional characters don't exist", accepting that fictional characters don't exist in the world, you must also be able to argue that fictional characters don't exist as concepts in the mind. — RussellA
Santa Claus is a fictional character, and as a fictional character doesn't exist in the world, but as we are discussing Santa Claus, Santa Claus must exist as a concept in our minds.
To argue the blanket statement "fictional characters don't exist", accepting that fictional characters don't exist in the world, you must also be able to argue that fictional characters don't exist as concepts in the mind. — RussellA
to say that something exists only as a "concept in a mind", and not in reality or the world, is just another way of saying that that something doesn't exist. — busycuttingcrap
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.