It looks tautological to me. What does "exist" mean (once again)? Telling me that you are confident that something exists doesn't tell me what you are confident about-except that something exists. So we are back at square 1.

Hmmm. Okay, I'm not looking for an answer key at the back of the book here, but I need some sort of base to work from, so I need to ask this:

Is what I need to be able to do then, is define the term "exist" while simultaneously analyzing the meaning of the proposition that contains it? Is that about right?

I think that one way of defining the term, "exist" is to define it in the context of using it in a proposition. For example, "God exists" = There is someone who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-just, etc.
That is, God exist just in case there is someone with the properties associated with God. And the same would be true of the proposition that unicorns exist: namely, there is something with the properties associated with unicorns.

Okay. So would it be correct to say then that the meaning of the proposition is also the definition, by default, of the term?

That is, if one ask me, "what does it mean to say X exists," I could respond, "It means there is something with all the properties associated with X." Is that correct?

On the other hand, if one were to ask me, "what does it mean to say that X does not exist," I could correctly answer, "There is not something with the properties of X." This, to me would seem to circumvent the problems associated with trying to talk about something that does not exist, as would would only be talking about properties (alleged or otherwise).

In this discussion, trying to define what it means "to exist" became a bit of a red herring, hence your earlier remark about philosophizing about existence.

Am I getting closer?

Or have I wandered afield?

TTM

What do you mean by, "in this discussion, trying to define what it means "to exist" became a bit of a red herring, hence your earlier remark about philosophizing about existence"?

I am glad you think so. Here we are philosophizing about existence. What could be more philosophical? That we exist is not in question. What is at issue is what is meant by saying that X exists (or does not exist).

On the other hand, if one were to ask me, "what does it mean to say that X does not exist," I could correctly answer, "There is not something with the properties of X." This, to me would seem to circumvent the problems associated with trying to talk about something that does not exist, as would would only be talking about properties (alleged or otherwise).

I was referring back to this comment (boldface mine):



Perhaps the term "red herring" is incorrect, as that would mean that you were purposely trying to be deceptive, which I do not believe.

I meant that, at least in my case, I think I became overly focused on philosophizing about existing, as opposed to analyzing the statement "X exists." Or, perhaps, that I was overcomplicating things again.

TTM

No, you said "unicorn" fails to refer and you said "extraterrestrial" fails to refer as far as we know. You made the distinction here:





I don't know what any of this nil-X stuff is.



I see. So, all common nouns are referential terms? And I specify common nouns, because some proper nouns don't refer to anything, do they? "Chair" refers to the object we call a chair, but what does "Joe" refer to? "Joe" doesn't refer to anything on it's own - it needs context. "Quito" does refer to a city, though. Quito does not need context, neither does chair. They both refer to things on their own. Didn't Wittgenstein argue some names (like Joe) weren't even a part of language (I may have him confused with someone else)?



It's not that "The present king of France is bald" is neither true or false. On the contrary, it is technically false. But, I would label it nonsense, and not false. If I just labeled it false, it would bring confusion, at least for me, because it does not attempt to describe any feature of the world. It's fantastical.

Arguments can be valid and still be full of nonsense. This is an example of such a thing, as premise #2 is nonsense.



"However, against the Russellian theory itself Strawson made the important point that the theory implies that a sentence of the form 'The F is G' must count as false when used in circumstances where there is no F. It must do so because, according to theory, part of the role of 'The F' is to say that there is an F. Contrary to this, Strawson claims that we would not always regard a saying of 'The F is G' as false in such circumstances. We would not react by saying 'That is false' but would rather say something like 'What do you mean?' or 'You must be under a misapprehension'. He suggested that in such circumstances the use amounts neither to saying something is true nor to saying something false."

Yes, you are correct. This is also my stance.

So to say to an argument that it is valid is to suppose that the premises are true. And, if the premises are true, they cannot be nonsense.

Nil-X just means impossibly unlikely. Absolutely no reason to believe it, and all the reason in the world to disbelieve it.

I did not know this. I thought for an argument to be valid, it simply had to logically follow. I did know not know that truth had anything to do with validity. I thought that's what the quality of soundness had to do with arguments. If a premise is sound, that means the premise is true.

Even wikipedia backs me up:

"The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusions, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form"

Or by "suppose" did you mean that that is what I should think, not what a valid argument implies? Why would I suppose the premises are true? I would not. I would evaluate the premises for their soundness and not suppose anything initially. That would be too presumptuous.



Is this some sort of official scale? I've never heard of this. Who is evaluating what "impossibly unlikely" is, or what "nil-1" or "nil-1/2" mean?

I don't know what is supposed to be the difference

The difference, as I saw it, was that I was becoming sidetracked from the original issue of what is meant by saying that X exists (or does not exist) by pursuing the question of whether or not we exist as opposed to analyzing what we mean when we say that we (or X) exist.

I suppose this could be stated as," kennethamy and TickTockman exist" (which would be analyzed to mean, "there are two individuals with the properties associated with kennethamy and TickTockMan").

In the end though, I suppose there really isn't a difference, as once we understand what is meant by saying that we (or X) exist, the conclusion that we exist which, as you pointed out, was not in question seems to become self-evident.

At least that's the way it seems to me at this point. I'm still wondering how far off I was with my comments in post #63 prior to my ill-advised "red herring" remark, or if I'm just painting myself farther into a corner . . .

Tick "What else did I leave on the coatrack" TockMan

I like that. So a thing is defined by its properties?

Existence itself is ABSOLUTE it REFERS to EVERYTHING !!!
By the contrary Objects or Entities have a RELATIVE existence...
they must relatively relate in order to be...
Same is to say Everything EXISTS...now, what we have to do is to stablish the relative terms in witch it/something exits (CONCEPTUALIZE)...
...and the HARD FACT is they are all relative...
...:brickwall::brickwall::brickwall:...

...Mermaids exist, but not in the same way I experience anyone around me...
...They are abstract entities...just like numbers for instance...


...the funny thing is that they are, in every meaningful aspect, very similar to everything else...
-they were at some point brought up...created...
-they also developed and evolved in Social imaginarium from generation to generation...
-they replicate in different cultures Cosmogonies...
-they operate in tails and stories in a adequate way...
( i could go on all night long, but i have made my point...)

...so what the hell does it mean that they are not real ???
...I really wonder, what actually intelligent people will think of this Thread around the World, who happen to trump on this nonsense...
...is it the permanent obsession with OBJECTIFICATION in West ?

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Just why do you think that mermaids exist? I don't know anyone else who does. Certainly, if a mermaid did exist, she would not be an abstract entity, but a concrete entity in time and space. When sailors thought they saw mermaids, they did not think they we seeing abstract entities, did they. In fact, no one can see an abstract entity.

To say that something is not real is usually to say that it is only imagined, or hallucinated. At least that is true in English.

The question of what it means to say that we exist is different from the question of how we know that we exist. Just as the question of what it means to say that there are ETs is different from how (or whether) we know there are ETs.

I'm confused as to what we're still discussing. What it means to say that we exist, we have discussed. How we know that we exist, we have discussed.

Can someone summarize now, five pages later, what our dilemma still is? I believe I lost it in all that writing.

Have we done discussing what it is to exist, or not to exist? I argued that to exist is just to have properties. So that elephants do exist, but mermaids do not.

But please define "properties" again. If you mean physical corroboration of some sort, am I wrong when I say an idea exists? Is your argument that ideas do not exist? Do words exist? If so, what are their properties?

Properties are features of some thing, like redness, or height, or intelligence, or beauty. Ideas do exist, for instance, the idea of a unicorn, or the idea of democracy. Words certainly exist. The properties of words are, how they are spelled, pronounced, what they mean, and so on.

Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The question of what it means to say that we exist is different from the question of how we know that we exist. Just as the question of what it means to say that there are ETs is different from how (or whether) we know there are ETs.