Abstract objects are not in space or time. Abstract concepts (which are concepts of abstract objects) are, like all other concepts, in time (and maybe, soace-depending on your ontology of concepts).

There is a blue marble on the table, and there is a red marble on the table. Nothing else is on the table. Then, someone comes along and puts another blue marble next to the other blue marble and puts another red marble next to the other red marble. The blue marbles are not near the red marbles. So, not only are there four marbles on the table, but isn't it true that there are two groups of marbles on the table? Of course, that doesn't imply that there are more than four objects on the table, but then again, we're talking about what exists, and that includes more than merely the concrete objects that are on the table.

Not only do the four individual marbles on the table exist, but it's also true there are two groups of two marbles, but none of this has to do with what I mean by class-although it's not too far off. Think of taking away the article "a" or the article "the" from either term, "a marble" or "the marble" and what we are left with is the term, "marble." It refers to the class of all marbles. It exists. That's not to say it's concrete, so it's not like I'm saying there is some physical entity we call the marble class. This stuff is abstract folks. All we need to legitimately say it exists is for it to have properties.

I didn't say you were creating a physical entity. You are creating an abstract one. And that is in accordance with your theory that a referent has to be an existing object.

I don't like the way you throw "object" in on the end.

This is what I say:

"To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties."

That is my impression too. It is like someone saying, "There is a group of marbles on the table." and then concluding that there is another independent entity that exists that is called "group".

Regardless of whether Fast is correct or not, he certainly has one of the richest ontologies that I've ever encountered.

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 08:39 AM ----------



I've never claimed that we shouldn't try to seek clarification. Or that people can't misuse language. What has this to do with my point that Fast is relying on a theory of reference, a theory which stipulates that a word can only succeed in referring if the referent is an existing object?

Well, things which do not exist do not have properties. But imaginary characters can have properties. So, at the least, it seems we are stating the concept of X imaginary character exists. Isn't that so?

There is a blue marble on the table, and there is a red marble on the table. Nothing else is on the table. Then, someone comes along and puts another blue marble next to the other blue marble and puts another red marble next to the other red marble. The blue marbles are not near the red marbles. So, not only are there four marbles on the table, but isn't it true that there are two groups of marbles on the table? Of course, that doesn't imply that there are more than four objects on the table, but then again, we're talking about what exists, and that includes more than merely the concrete objects that are on the table.

Not only do the four individual marbles on the table exist, but it's also true there are two groups of two marbles, but none of this has to do with what I mean by class-although it's not too far off. Think of taking away the article "a" or the article "the" from either term, "a marble" or "the marble" and what we are left with is the term, "marble." It refers to the class of all marbles. It exists. That's not to say it's concrete, so it's not like I'm saying there is some physical entity we call the marble class. This stuff is abstract folks. All we need to legitimately say it exists is for it to have properties.

We have the capacity to imagine things that don't exist. And it is quite natural for us to attribute properties to those non-existant things. Otherwise, how could we even think about them?

Well I certainly don't think Superman exists. Do you think he exists?

We draw pictures of Superman and tell stories about and make movies of Superman. Those pictures and stories and movies exist. But they are representations of Superman.

But as far as your theory of reference goes you only think a referent can be something that exists. Is that correct?

But what is the need to say the abstract class exists?

I didn't say you were creating a physical entity. You are creating an abstract one. And that is in accordance with your theory that a referent has to be an existing object.

Well, not that it is wrong because it is contrary to how people ordinarily speak, since I think that it is not contrary to how people ordinarily speak, but only your theory as to how people ordinarily speak. What makes you think that in ordinary language people refer to non-existing objects?

Well, we don't have to say it. It's just a matter of whether or not it's true. The question (I think) is whether or not a class exists, and the answer to that question squarely depends on whether or not a class has properties, and if they do (which I guess they do), then like it or not, I'm forced into the conclusion that they exist--be there a need to say it or otherwise.

I object to your use of the term, "representations." The fictional character Superman is not a representation of Superman. Recall what you just correctly implied: Superman does not exist.

So, not only are there four marbles on the table, but isn't it true that there are two groups of marbles on the table? Of course, that doesn't imply that there are more than four objects on the table, but then again, we're talking about what exists, and that includes more than merely the concrete objects that are on the table.

Let's try this.

Give me a property of:

a.) The number three
b.) The concept of the number three
c.) The class of threes

What I was saying was that perhaps we are applying properties to our concept of those imaginary things. How are we to assign properties to something which doesn't exist? Unless, of course, we just call them imaginary properties.

If the four marbles are on the table and the two groups of marbles are on the table, you have just clearly stated that six objects on the table. You contradict yourself. Are the groups of marbles perhaps abstract objects and thus not really on the table?

c) It has both a superclass and a subclass.

We imagine a unicorn to have four legs. It is not wrong to call that an imagined property.

Sorry, I'll stick with the dictionary definition:

fictional character
noun
an imaginary person represented in a work of fiction (play or film or story); "she is the main character in the novel"