At base, they are physical objects in the world. — AmadeusD

Franky, that's shoehorning. A company, a marriage, a mortgage, a promise - these are not physical. Destroy the building, the company continues. Burn the certificate, the marriage remains. Shoot all the bankers, the mortgage is still owed. But that you can't see this helps explain why you think you have no obligations. Humans build a world of purpose and intent around them. You live inside that world, and deal with it every day, but like the allegorical fish in water you can't see it.

Meh. Not my problem, except that it prevents you seeing the solutions to these philosophical issues.

Did I claim anything about what - exactly - establishes a state of affairs?

Burn the certificate, the marriage remains. Shoot all the bankers, the mortgage is still owed. — Banno

That’s because they also exist in a register which is a physical thing also.

But if the records are destroyed those things do not persist. They are the record of “promise” as you put it.

Meh. Not my problem, except that it prevents you seeing the solutions to these philosophical issues. — Banno

Suffice to say, no, it’s not. But it’s not my problem if you ignore things either. Such as the physical nature of a mortgage.

Trouble is, "a state of affairs" traps folk into thinking about how things are, nti how they ought be. One of the issues with taking a substantive view of truth.

Did I claim anything about what - exactly - establishes a state of affairs? — creativesoul

You seem to be trying quite hard to avoid this, which was why I changed the question.

That’s because they also exist in a register which is a physical thing also. — AmadeusD

When the Public Records Office in Dublin burned down, the various incorporations and marriages who's documents were destroyed did not cease to be.

You are mistaken.

↪creativesoul Trouble is, "a state of affairs" traps folk into thinking about how things are, nti how they ought be. One of the issues with taking a substantive view of truth. — Banno

Yeah, I'm still working through all this... for me "states of affairs" are just what's happening at some specific time and place. It's a proxy for the term "reality" and the phrase "the way things are", etc.

There's always Hume's guillotine. I see it. However, I think there's a way to render it toothless.

I'm trying very hard to 'dovetail' the substantive to the minimalist version you voice.

:razz:

You seem to be trying quite hard to avoid this, which was why I changed the question. — AmadeusD

I've no idea what you're on about. I think that you're misattributing meaning to my posts.

You are mistaken. — Banno

If there is no record of your company existing, it doesn't exist. Fact. When the company office burned down, there were still plenty of records for the vast majority of the involved entities to rely on for their existence where were not in that office. I can be sure of this, based on your claim that they remained on foot.

Tell me how you would go about enforcing a property interest if there's no record anywhere of you having any interest in the property?

Given I deal with this problem for my clients regularly - this should be quite interesting.

I've no idea what you're on about. I think that you're misattributing meaning to my posts. — creativesoul

Ok. My position is that this is another superfluous comment avoiding where you substantiate your confidence in the truth of moral statements.

Im fine to leave it there, with our differing takes.

Weird. Those words were just used by you for the first time, and yet I'm somehow avoiding something that you've just now expressed.

Odd indeed.

Do you have a question that you've asked that I've not answered clearly enough?

Tell me how you would go about enforcing a property interest if there's no record anywhere of you having any interest in the property?

Given I deal with this problem for my clients regularly - this should be quite interesting. — AmadeusD

Enforcing it is not the question. It's whether or not the agreement remains intact. The agreement is not physical. The record of it is.

I'm not speaking for Banno, although I suspect he would agree.

Those words were just used by you for the first time, and yet I'm somehow avoiding something that you've just now expressed. — creativesoul

Which words?

You haven’t answered either:

What makes the statement true; or
Where your confidence comes from.

Neither of your answers are in any way adequate.

Enforcing it is not the question. It's whether or not the agreement remains intact. The agreement is not physical. The record of it is. — creativesoul

The agreement isn’t the contract/mortgage. Are you trying to say that in some form the agreement supersedes the legal requirement for a mortgage? Because it certainly doesn’t. A mortgage is a legal instrument.

I would also suspect that’s his position - but the idea that a promise 'exists' is incoherent to me, so that explains that. A promise happened.

Let's check with the local lawyers...

@Ciceronianus, @Tobias, If you have time, could you tell us if a contract, marriage or mortgage ceases to exist if the documents on which it is written are destroyed?

Since in many cases a contract does not even need to be written down in order to be valid, it would be odd. Wills are an obvious exception.

Sorry to bother you with such trivialities.

If you have time, could you tell us if a contract, marriage or mortgage ceases to exist if the documents on which it is written are destroyed? — Banno

No. This needs to read "any record of it whatever, is destroyed" which is the case i made.

I literally work in law firm dealing with solely mortgages. IN New Zealand. So, i doubt this is going to be any help. If there is literally no record of an agreement it will not be accepted by a court.

A good eg to consider this issue, is promissory estoppel. You can be prevented from disposing a property under promissory estoppel if there is record of some intent which would have, if made 'official' prevented the sale (doesn't only apply to just.. just setting out an example). For instance, if there's say an email trail in which you agree, on certain terms, to sell a property to A, A then makes financial decisions based on that exchange, a court will (in some cases) stop you from disposing of hte property based on that promise. Because there's a record. It is extremely, extremely rare that a court will even entertain a verbal agreement on an application for promissory estoppel.

and so on are much than the physical item: — Banno

I assume you meant to say "much more" so will go with that.. The intention behind them is, for sure. The mortgage, which is merely a line on a page, will motivate someone to do certain things on the back of the agreement. Accepted. But those things aren't a mortgage. Those things are actions related to a subjective stance on whether or not to carry out hte recorded obligations that the mortgage carries.

Wills are an obvious exception. — Banno

Depends how you want to except them. Probate can be granted in what's called "solemn form" even with no written Will.

I'm not speaking for Banno, although I suspect he would agree. — creativesoul

Pretty much.

If there is literally no record of an agreement it will not be accepted by a court. — AmadeusD

Your argument is that therefore the contract is physical?

But the point is that the contract, mortgage, promises, marriages and so on are much than the physical item: at the least they include the obligations and actions therein set forth. Don't move the goal. You know this to be the case. They are more than physical.

No. This needs to read "any record of it whatever, is destroyed" which is the case i made. — AmadeusD

You made the claim that they are physical. I pointed out that they are more than just physical.

You made the claim that they are physical. I pointed out that they are more than just physical. — Banno

Ok. Amend to “physical records”. Which is my position.

But the promise which informs a mortgage is not a mortgage. Careful.

Now you are thinking.

There's more than the paperwork. There's the actions and intents that form it and are formed by it.

We do things with words.

↪Leontiskos Nice list. Yes, that's the way to proceed, looking at how the words around "obligation" are used rather than just making up a definition. — Banno

Thanks, I agree. I've lost the thread of this thread, and that's probably for the best. :grin: In any case, good posts in this thread. :up: I am reluctant to enter into the fray of these sorts of threads unless I see others arguing for sensible positions.

There's more than the paperwork. There's the actions and intents that form it and are formed by it. — Banno

Oh, i readily accept that these things are either motivated by, or done in respect of, the contract/s in question. But the resulting obligation consists in the contracts terms.

This isn't the case with plain promises though. AS far as im concerned, promises don't exist in an of themselves and confer no obligation.

Yeah, I'm still working through all this... for me "states of affairs" are just what's happening at some specific time and place. It's a proxy for the term "reality" and the phrase "the way things are", etc.

There's always Hume's guillotine. I see it. However, I think there's a way to render it toothless. — creativesoul

The explanation I gave previously, pretty much ignored by those who are still here, and so I presume not understood, is to do with direction of fit. 'I promise to give you a pie", uttered without. duress and so forth, places the speaker under an obligation to provide the pie. It brings about the obligation.

The direction of fit for making a promise is world-to-word. In loose terms it brings a previously non-existent obligation into existence. There is now something in the world that was not there previously: the obligation (or the marriage, the contract, the company, the mortgage, and so on). The notion of demanding a justification for saying there is an obligation utterly misunderstands the situation. As if someone were to demand that you produce your marriage for our inspection. It's not the piece of paper, nor anything else physical.

Hume's guillotine is explained, the direction of fit for "is" statements is word-to-world, (the words change to match the world) but for commissives and ought statements is better thought of as world-to-word (the world is changed by the words)

I am reluctant to enter into the fray — Leontiskos

Yeah, it's a bit lost, as tends to happen in the dregs of an interesting thread. I'm just drawing out a few final points.

See the above to Creative.

In loose terms it brings a previously non-existent obligation into existence. There is now something in the world that was not there previously: the obligation — Banno

What bizarre, magical thinking. As if, *poof!*, a newly minted promise, shiny and golden, floats down from The Land of Ought.

The promise exists in the mind of the promiser, and their audience. That's it.

In loose terms it brings a previously non-existent obligation into existence. There is now something in the world that was not there previously: the obligation
— Banno

What bizarre, magical thinking. As if, *poof!*, a newly minted promise, shiny and golden, floats down from The Land of Ought.

The promise exists in the mind of the promiser, and their audience. That's it. — hypericin

Among the alternatives to physicalism is the idea that thoughts are real objects in the world.

'I promise to give you a pie", uttered without. duress and so forth, places the speaker under an obligation to provide the pie. It brings about the obligation. — Banno

Indeed. I think John Searle's paper on the topic is quite good: ' How to derive "ought" from "is" ' (The Philosophical Review, Jan., 1964, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jan., 1964), pp. 43-58). (link)

Those ideas are further developed in subsequent books, and especially The Creation of Social Reality, which is about our mutual construction of our social world.

The promise exists in the mind of the promiser, and their audience. That's it. — hypericin

What is claimed here is not at odds with that. We agree that the promise now exists, where prior to the promising it did not.Take care with "that's it" A contract to build a house usually leads to there being a house, which does not exist only in someone's mind. Unless you are Joshs.

Among the alternatives to physicalism is the idea that thoughts are real objects in the world. — Joshs

I'd drop the superfluous "real", which misleads into idealism of one sort or another. Thoughts are objects in that we can predicate to and identify them. In other ways they are not like tables and chairs. Again, Austin's analysis of "real" shows how to avoid being misled.

If you have time, could you tell us if a contract, marriage or mortgage ceases to exist if the documents on which it is written are destroyed?

Since in many cases a contract does not even need to be written down in order to be valid, it would be odd. Wills are an obvious exception.

Sorry to bother you with such trivialities. — Banno

It depends.

Here in God's Favorite Country, or at least my part of it, most records concerning marriage and mortgages are duly recorded or registered with offices of the state, certified copies of which will normally serve to establish their existence and may serve as evidence in disputes landing in courts if the originals aren't available. Should events result in the destruction of those offices and other electronic records as well as the originals, then there may be problems of proof, but in that event of such a catastrophe there likely will be problems of all sorts, like finding food to eat, for example.

Certain contracts may be verbal; some must be in writing (generally in the case of the amusing named "statutes of frauds", specifically by a requirement imposed in the case of particular contracts). When they must be in writing under the law and are not, they'll usually be unenforceable. But in some cases even though there is no writing, there may be a claim in quasi-contract. For example, when one is owed money for conduct which resulted in a benefit to another, but there is no written agreement, there may be a claim for "unjust enrichment" which could require payment for the value of the services rendered.

It depends. — Ciceronianus

It involves lawyers. Of course it does.

Cheers. Happy Christmas. Or whatever.