I think he meant there is no fact regarding the existence of X. X does not show up in any way in the world. If something belongs to the set of all things that exist in our world, one expects there to be facts associated with this existence. This is not about knowledge. It's about the state of the world. — frank
With regard to a promise of which there is absolutely no evidence, you might think your memory of the making of the promise would stand as a fact. Surely your mental states are facts of the world. But let's look more closely (with Kripke's help). How would you, yourself determine if your memory was correct? How would you answer that? — frank
And on what metaphysical theory are you basing that assertion? — Tobias
No. Because I didn't intimate this was the case. You are an extremely confused interlocutor.I did not promise my brother to return the book when there is no record of it? — Tobias
Best not to take your word for anything then. — Tobias
You should care because you are violating rules of civil conduct. Last time I checked they were taken seriously on this website. — Tobias
However, if there really was such a man — Tobias
But there is such a fact, namely my assertion that I am married. — Tobias
I am simply not believed because others cannot corroborate my assertion and there are no records of it. — Tobias
It's very basic stuff. — Banno
"literally no evidence." — frank
In everyday practice we constantly end up in such situations. Let's say you told your friend you'd return him some money you owe, what do you do? I think you will return the money. Or will you think: "Well there is no written record of me owing the money and hey my memory may be wrong and so might his, so there is no need to return the money, the promise does not exist". No, of course not. — Tobias
If you're talking conceptual existence, which it seems Tobias is, that has nothing to do with what we're actually talking about and i've clarified this multiple times. — AmadeusD
Yea, I don't think he was being disingenuous. He just wasn't up for a discussion about ontology. He didn't seem to understand that his points were irrelevant. — frank
Exactly. What exists in the world is you behaving as if there are certain rules you ought to follow. — frank
As far as I can tell...
Are morals arbitrary, random, mere matter of whatever opinion? No.
Are morals existentially mind-dependent? Yes.
I'm not seeing a problem with that, though. — jorndoe
Maybe you can explain to me how they are irrelevant? I thought I was discussing ontology. The point I make and Banno agrees with is that in the posts of some people here the quality of being provable is mistakenly identified with the quality of existing or not. (Not sure if I have my analytic phil. terminology straight but you know what I mean.). That is an ontological point I would think. — Tobias
But there is such a fact, namely my assertion that I am married. I attest to it, vouch for it, — Tobias
Why though would you hold that these rules do not really exist? — Tobias
Your point seemed to be that a marriage (that is without any other kind of evidence) may be a feature of the world by virtue of your attitude: — frank
Note that what actually exists here is you demonstrating the behavior of assertion making. Compare this to the value of a currency. Literally the only fact regarding this kind of value is the way people behave. Imagine this exchange: — frank
Compare this to the value of a currency. Literally the only fact regarding this kind of value is the way people behave. Imagine this exchange: — frank
We could say value exists as part of an explanation for certain kinds of behavior. As such, it's an abstract object because it's possible to be wrong about value. It's like numbers, sets, propositions, etc. It's a resident of complex intellectual activities that bear on interactions with one another and with the world. But that's their only domain: intellectual activities. They don't exist out there with dirt and dynamos. So we have two ways of talking about existence. — frank
I might though my vocabulary may well be different stemming from a different tradition. I do not see the link to private language though because the very existence of such institutions displays that we have no private language. We actually share a public like mindedness which makes such institutions possible. They are not subjective, they are the product of interactions. That is why I think here you mistake the horse for the carriage:This would require a dive into Wittgenstein's private language argument with a little help from Saul Kripke. Is that something you're interested in? — frank
No, I think, value has come into existence because of certain kinds of behavior.We could say value exists as part of an explanation for certain kinds of behavior. — frank
Right, if I made a promise, I made a promise regardless of documentation. Even if I fail to remember making the promise, that doesn't change the fact that it was made. — Janus
Can someone stop AmadeusD from trolling about? He seems unable to discuss matters without peppering his responses with invectives on his interlocutor's mental abilities. I have not bothered to read his last post because it annoys me to be insulted. — Tobias
Odd, the reactions it elicits. — Banno
You are really not very good at this. I read the whole post, and chose the bit that was most ridiculous. Your claim is that there are no promises. That speaks volumes for your comprehension of the discussion here. It shows us why we should not pay heed to you on this topic. Your repeated vindictive and lack of substance reinforce the opinions already expressed by .If you can only read three words out of a post... — AmadeusD
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.