numbers vs. words

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;138104 wrote:

Then there are no cubes in actuality. I dont accept that, do you?

I think it's a category error to debate whether cubes (or numbers) exist. Not a mainstream view, I realize.

@ughaibu,

[QUOTE=ughaibu;138094]But how do you know that? Everyone, who knows what Ahab means when he talks about Rudolph, knows that Rudolph has a red nose. So, apparently, there is a well known property of Rudolph, and under your paradigm, this entails that Rudolph does exist.[/QUOTE]If Rudolph did exist; hence, if the term, "Rudolph" was a referring term, Rudolph would not be a fictional character. In fact, he wouldn't even be a character. He would be a reindeer--a mammal.

People talk in short-hand, and when you say, "Rudolph", you actually mean, "the fictional character Rudolph," which by the way is not a deer. Rather, it's a fictional character depicted as a reindeer with a red nose and that can fly.

By the way, it's because people are seldom explicit in such matters that contributes to the confusion.

Consider the George Washington example. When the child points to the picture and says that it's George Washington (and not Abraham Lincoln), we do not scold the child for being mistaken, as it's clear to us in context that the child really means that it's a picture of George Washington.

When the child says, "hey mom, I see Rudolph on television," both know that it's really not Rudolph but rather a depiction of what Rudolph would really look like if there really was a flying red-nosed reindeer.

@fast,

fast;138106 wrote:

If Rudolph did exist; hence, if the term, "Rudolph" was a referring term, Rudolph would not be a fictional character. In fact, he wouldn't even be a character. He would be a reindeer--a mammal.

But I'm not going to accept that, because you have stated that if a thing has properties, then that thing exists, and as Rudolph has one well known property, then the existence of Rudolph is established by a simple syllogism. How do you justify claiming that Rudolph doesn't exist?
Further, why should Rudolph be a mammal? Why does his status have to be concrete, when you allow nebulous entities like groups and classes existence?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;138109 wrote:

Further, why should Rudolph be a mammal? Why does his status have to be concrete, when you allow nebulous entities like groups and classes existence?

Your position has the same weakness as fast's. If I were to tell a child that the tooth fairy did not exist, would you really argue that I was mistaken, and not merely mean-spirited?

@ughaibu,

[QUOTE=ughaibu;138109]But I'm not going to accept that, because you have stated that if a thing has properties, then that thing exists, and as Rudolph has one well known property, then the existence of Rudolph is established by a simple syllogism. How do you justify claiming that Rudolph doesn't exist?
Further, why should Rudolph be a mammal? Why does his status have to be concrete, when you allow nebulous entities like groups and classes existence?[/QUOTE]Rudolph does not have one well known property. Some people may think that, but they are mistaken. Rudolph does not exist.

Neither do unicorns by the way. Oh yes, there are statues depicting unicorns, but there are no unicorns. There are drawings depicting unicorns, but there are no unicorns. There are movies with unicorn characters, but guess what, no unicorns actually exist-although the unicorn characters do.

Unicorns do not have horns. They don't have horns. They don't have horns. And you know how I know this? It's because they don't exist. Things that don't exist don't have horns. If they did exist, then guess what, they would have a horn, except for those that lost their horn, but let's not overcomplicate the issue.

Unicorns are depicted as having a horn, but that is different, and until we get a handle on the differences between those things that have properties and those things that do not, we will continue to go in circles.

@Egregias,

Egregias;138111 wrote:

Your position has the same weakness as fast's. If I were to tell a child that the tooth fairy did not exist, would you really argue that I was mistaken, and not merely mean-spirited?

I dont have Fast's problem, because I'm not trying to claim that mathematical objects exist but fictional objects dont.

@fast,

fast;138106 wrote:

If Rudolph did exist; hence, if the term, "Rudolph" was a referring term, Rudolph would not be a fictional character. In fact, he wouldn't even be a character. He would be a reindeer--a mammal.

People talk in short-hand, and when you say, "Rudolph", you actually mean, "the fictional character Rudolph," which by the way is not a deer. Rather, it's a fictional character depicted as a reindeer with a red nose and that can fly.

And why is Rudolph depicted as having a red nose and not a green one? It's because Rudolph has a red nose. It would be incorrect to depect him as having a green nose?

I don't understand why you object so strenuously to my claim that a fictional character is a representation of an imaginary being when you then go on to use the word "depict"

depict means:
1. to represent by or as if by painting; portray; delineate.
2. to represent or characterize in words; describe.

@fast,

fast;138116 wrote:

And you know how I know this? It's because they don't exist.

You haven't offered any justification for this. As I pointed out earlier, your claims appear to be vacuously circular. How is it that you are not appealing to both of the following:
1) numbers have properties, therefore numbers exist
2) Rudolph doesn't exist, therefore Rudolph doesn't have properties?

@fast,

fast;138116 wrote:

Rudolph does not have one well known property. Some people may think that, but they are mistaken. Rudolph does not exist.

Neither do unicorns by the way. Oh yes, there are statues depicting unicorns, but there are no unicorns. There are drawings depicting unicorns, but there are no unicorns. There are movies with unicorn characters, but guess what, no unicorns actually exist-although the unicorn characters do.

Unicorns do not have horns. They don't have horns. They don't have horns. And you know how I know this? It's because they don't exist. Things that don't exist don't have horns. If they did exist, then guess what, they would have a horn, except for those that lost their horn, but let's not overcomplicate the issue.

Unicorns are depicted as having a horn, but that is different, and until we get a handle on the differences between those things that have properties and those things that do not, we will continue to go in circles.

If unicorns don't have horns then why are they depicted as having horns?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;138126 wrote:

I dont have Fast's problem, because I'm not trying to claim that mathematical objects exist but fictional objects dont.

What are your criteria for deciding whether any posited entity exists? Are we stuck now with Rudolph the Green-nosed Reindeer?

@Egregias,

Egregias;138137 wrote:

What are your criteria for deciding whether any posited entity exists?

I think existence is a vague term, so it needs to be made precise for whatever entity it is that's being posited. How about you?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;138145 wrote:

I think existence is a vague term, so it needs to be made precise for whatever entity it is that's being posited.

Quite right. In common usage, usually the context makes it more or less clear what the question is when you ask if something exists.

When it comes to universals and abstract or fictional objects I really don't get what is being claimed when their existence is asserted or denied.

@Ahab,

Ahab;138130 wrote:

If unicorns don't have horns then why are they depicted as having horns?

Let me say this then:

If unicorns did exist, they would have horns, but because there are no unicorns, there are no unicorns with horns.

Perhaps it is true to say that the unicorns in the meadow have horns. I do not believe such a statement necessarily implies that unicorns exist.

Every yellow truck you currently own has a reindeer in it.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;138094 wrote:

But how do you know that? Everyone, who knows what Ahab means when he talks about Rudolph, knows that Rudolph has a red nose. So, apparently, there is a well known property of Rudolph, and under your paradigm, this entails that Rudolph does exist.

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 01:02 PM ----------

You must mean that having a red nose is a property of the cartoon character, Rudolph, not Rudolph. We all know that there is no Rudolph, so he cannot have a red nose. The cartoon character does, of course. But that is not a reindeer.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;138235 wrote:

We all know that there is no Rudolph, so he cannot have a red nose.

How do you know?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;138237 wrote:

How do you know?

That there is no Rudolph? What has that to do with the issue? You were not saying that Rudolph has the property of having a red nose because you thought there was a living breathing reindeer with a red nose called Rudolph. Your point (such as it was) was that the cartoon character Rudolph existed, so Rudolph existed. It clearly does not follow that because the cartoon character exists that a real live reindeer. Rudolph exists. . How I know there is no living reindeer, Rudolph is just a red herring, and a most boring subject. Whether we know that anything does not exist already has a thread of its own. You might want to post on that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;138235 wrote:

You must mean that having a red nose is a property of the cartoon character, Rudolph, not Rudolph. We all know that there is no Rudolph, so he cannot have a red nose. The cartoon character does, of course. But that is not a reindeer.

Are you saying that the red nose is a property of the depiction of Rudolph and not of Rudolph? If that is the case, then it is not an accurate depiction of Rudolph.

For if my depiction of Uncle Harry has the property of having yellow hair and Uncle Harry does not have yellow hair then it is not an accurate depiction of Uncle Harry.

@Ahab,

Ahab;138243 wrote:

Are you saying that the red nose is a property of the depiction of Rudolph and not of Rudolph? If that is the case, then it is not an accurate depiction of Rudolph.

For if my depiction of Uncle Harry has the property of having yellow hair and Uncle Harry does not have yellow hair then it is not an accurate depiction of Uncle Harry.

First of all, it does not follow that because having a red nose is a property of the cartoon character, that a real Rudolph could not also have a red nose. Second of all, there is no accurate depiction of what does not exist, so there is no accurate depiction of Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, the hero of story and song.

How could there be an accurate depiction of what does not exist?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;138242 wrote:

What has that to do with the issue?

Fast claims that if a thing has properties, then he has to say that thing exists, whether he likes it or not. Yet he claims that some things dont have properties because they dont exist. If you have a more lucid system of allowing mathematical objects to exist, while denying the existence of fictional objects, what is it?

kennethamy;138242 wrote:

a most boring subject

Then dont stick your oar in.

kennethamy;138242 wrote:

Whether we know that anything does not exist already has a thread of its own. You might want to post on that.

And you might want to answer some of the outstanding posts that you've so far ignored.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;138248 wrote:

.And you might want to answer some of the outstanding posts that you've so far ignored.

As for instance? ...............

Fictional objects exist. But they are not real objects. There is the cartoon and song character Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, but he is not a reindeer.

Philosophy Forum

numbers vs. words

Quick Links

My Account

able2know