numbers vs. words

@fast,

There is a cartoon character Scooby Doo.
Scooby Doo is not a cartoon character.

Do I have that right, fast?

@Egregias,

Egregias;138975 wrote:

There is a cartoon character Scooby Doo.
Scooby Doo is not a cartoon character.

Do I have that right, fast?

Right, because Scooby Doo does not exist.

---------- Post added 03-12-2010 at 10:48 AM ----------

Does Exist:
1. The fictional character Scooby Doo (abstract object?)

Does NOT Exist:
1. Scooby Doo

Related-Concepts (mind-dependent):

1. The concept of the fictional character Scooby Doo
2. The concept of the representations of the fictional character Scooby Doo
(?)
1. The concept of Scooby Doo
2. The concept of the representations of Scooby Doo

Which exist?

Representations (drawings, movies, etc.):
1. Representations of Scooby Doo
2. Representations of the fictional character Scooby Doo

Which exist?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;138973 wrote:

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that you believe that an abstract object, Lincoln, former US president, exists?

Abstract? Lincoln is a former US President. Lincoln is not an abstract object.

---------- Post added 03-12-2010 at 11:24 AM ----------

Zetherin wrote:

Does Exist:
1. The fictional character Scooby Doo (abstract object?)

I'm thinking concrete because of the temporal predicate.

@cws910,

Why is it not clear that: Scooby Doo is the name of the cartoon character. ie. they are one and the same.

The name exists in reality. The character does not exist in reality.
The character exists only within the cartoon.

@cws910,

fast wrote:

I'm thinking concrete because of the temporal predicate.

And why is the number three an abstract object, then? Why do you think the number three is atemporal, and not temporal?

Owen wrote:

The character does not exist in reality.
The character exists only within the cartoon.

Huh? Aren't you contradicting yourself here? The character either exists, or does not exist.

@fast,

fast;138986 wrote:

Lincoln is a former US President.

"Lincoln" is the name of a former US president.
Lincoln doesn't exist.

(sorry, Zetherin; I'll try to type slower and think faster.)

@Egregias,

Egregias;138994 wrote:

"Lincoln" is the name of a former US president.
Lincoln was a former US president.

Lincoln and Scooby Doo also have something in common: Neither exist.

Wow, look how fast I'm advancing philosophically. Boy, these thoughts of mine are just pure genius.

@fast,

fast;138986 wrote:

Abstract? Lincoln is a former US President. Lincoln is not an abstract object.

There certainly isn't any physical Lincoln, so if Lincoln exists, is neither physical nor abstract, what on Earth is it?

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;138972]You just indirectly gave me a bruise. Yes, I blame you for why I just punched myself in the face.

Do we have a concept of Scooby Doo, or a concept of the fictional character Scooby Doo, or a concept of the character Scooby Doo, or just a concept of the representations of the fictional character Scooby Doo (or is it representations of Scooby Doo?!)? Scooby Doo is not the fictional character Scooby Doo. Right, that makes sense. All you're saying is that Scooby Doo does not exist... I agree. There is no confusion, like you think. I think everyone here has established that Scooby Doo does not exist. We should be competent enough to get that down, haha.

But now you just brought in "Scooby Doo character" What is this now?[/QUOTE]I was distinguishing between A and B where A is Scooby Doo and B is the character Scooby Doo, but because you kept saying the character, Scooby Doo, I decided to switch B from the Scooby Doo character to the Scooby Doo character. What's important is that we distinguish between the character and what the character is a character of, and saying what you were saying, "the character, Scooby Doo," (notice the comma) comes across (to me) as if you are not making the distinction. I do think that you are making the distinction at times, but that comma is really bothering me because it can be interpreted to mean that the character is Scooby Doo, but as I keep saying, Scooby Doo is not a character. The only character being discussed at the moment is the Scooby Doo character.

@fast,

fast;138999 wrote:

it can be interpreted to mean that the character is Scooby Doo, but as I keep saying, Scooby Doo is not a character. The only character being discussed at the moment is the Scooby Doo character.

Thanks for clearing that up.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;138992 wrote:

And why is the number three an abstract object, then? Why do you think the number three is atemporal, and not temporal?

Huh? Aren't you contradicting yourself here? The character either exists, or does not exist.

Not so. fictional characters only have properties within the fiction/story.
There are no real properties that fictional characters have.

Real characters have properties within reality.

Scooby Doo barks within the story, implies Scooby Doo exists within the story. But, the story is fiction which by definition is not real.

Scooby Doo barks in reality, is false, ie. Scooby Doo has no properties in reality.

@cws910,

Egregias wrote:

sorry, Zetherin; I'll try to type slower and think faster.)

I wasn't poking fun at you, I was poking fun at myself. After hours of reading not only this thread but other related sources (like Stanford's), I still cannot come to much clarity on the issue.

---------- Post added 03-12-2010 at 11:49 AM ----------

Owen wrote:

Scooby Doo barks within the story, implies Scooby Doo exists within the story.

But Scooby Doo does not exist within the story. Scooby Doo does not exist anywhere. You mean that the fictional character Scooby Doo exists within the story. This distinction is important, I think.

@ughaibu,

Me, as quoted by Zetherin, before I edited it out wrote:

Lincoln was a former US president.

Lincoln never was a former president. After he was a president, he didn't exist.

@cws910,

fast wrote:

I was distinguishing between A and B where A is Scooby Doo and B is the character Scooby Doo,

Hm, I thought I made it very clear I understood that distinction. Wittgenstein was so right, "Philosophy is the battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language".

This is such a difficult topic to discuss, because the wording must really be precise. And we often use one phrase to mean another when it comes to this particular example. For instance, most people when they say "Scooby Doo" mean "The fictional character Scooby Doo". Sigh. We're just talking in circles here, no clarification whatsoever. :nonooo:

---------- Post added 03-12-2010 at 11:57 AM ----------

Egregrias wrote:

Lincoln never was a former president. After he was a president, he didn't exist.

Lincoln was a former president. What on earth are you using language for now? Goddamnit, language.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;139006 wrote:

I wasn't poking fun at you, I was poking fun at myself. After hours of reading not only this thread but other related sources (like Stanford's), I still cannot come to much clarity on the issue.

Maybe there's something wrong with the questions being asked.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;138995 wrote:

Lincoln and Scooby Doo also have something in common: Neither exist.

Wow, look how fast I'm advancing philosophically. Boy, these thoughts of mine are just pure genius.

When you say Scooby Doo does not exist, you are correct, but when you say Lincoln does not exist, you are mistaken.

My how the plot thickens! I'm going to take a bit of a break now. You can ask Kennethamy for the assorted details of why I am correct. Just don't let the fact that Lincoln is dead alter your understanding of what it means to say of something that it exists. Gotta stay focused!

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;138713 wrote:

In other words, the fictional character Scooby Doo is an abstract object?

If Scooby existed he would be a concrete object. I don't know what kind of objects fictional characters are. I rather doubt they are any kind of object at all. There are characters in fiction, but that doesn't mean that there are fictional characters. As Quine might have said, that there are characters in fiction does not oblige us to quantify over the term, "fictional character". Which is to say, does not oblige us to infer that there is something which is a fictional character.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;139010 wrote:

Lincoln was a former president.

Reagan was a former president. Ford was a former president. There was never a time when "Lincoln is the former president" was true. Lincoln was a president.

@Egregias,

Egregias;139017 wrote:

Reagan was a former president. Ford was a former president. There was never a time when "Lincoln is the former president" was true. Lincoln was a president.

Who was the former president when Andrew Johnson was the president?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;139016 wrote:

If Scooby existed he would be a concrete object. I don't know what kind of objects fictional characters are. I rather doubt they are any kind of object at all. There are characters in fiction, but that doesn't mean that there are fictional characters. As Quine might have said, that there are characters in fiction does not oblige us to quantify over the term, "fictional character". Which is to say, does not oblige us to infer that there is something which is a fictional character.

That is what I initially thought.

Zetherin post #331 wrote:

That is why it doesn't make any sense to me to say (3) exists. The fictional character Scooby Doo does not exist. The representations (paintings, movies, etc.) of him do, and we have a concept of him, but that is all he is.

I don't think fictional characters exist, like I said in many of my posts (but then I did make a post assuming they did exist for sake of argument, sigh). I don't know. I am confusing myself, and probably others. I just need to take a break.

And oddly fast thanked your post, even though I thought he thinks the fictional character does exist! Man, my head is spinning.

Philosophy Forum

numbers vs. words

Quick Links

My Account

able2know