@fast,
fast;142529 wrote:
To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties. Now, let me explain what that means. That is not meant to be a how-to guide on how to determine whether something exists, nor is it a how-to guide on how to determine whether something has properties. It is an explanation that expounds upon the meaning of the word "exist."
Quite simply, it tells us that if X has properties, then X exists, and yes, it works conversely; if X exists, then X has properties. It does not tell us that something exists, and it doesn't tell us that something has properties. It only tells us that if (if, I say) something exists, then it (whatever it is) has properties, and it tells us that if something has properties, then it exists.
Consider a unicorn, and no, I don't mean an imaginary being. Imagine a real live walking equine with a horn protruding out of its head. Now, suppose you find one. If you find one, then it exists. Because it exists, and because I know what it means to say of something that it exists (aka, because I know what "exists" means), I therefore know that what you found has properties. An example of a property of what you found would be that it has a horn. A unicorn that actually exists would actually have actual properties. Nothing has been assigned-in this case, only discovered.
This is all fine and good when it comes to real objects that exist in the world. But we have been talking about imaginary creatures. When someone thinks up or creates such an imaginary creature she decides what properties she wants it to have. In that situation she is not discovering properties, she is making them up. For example, Superman has the property of being harmed by Kryptonite. That is a completely imaginary property that does not exist in the world. Nor does any sane, rational adult expect to find it in the world.
Perhaps it would be better for me to use the term 'criteria of identity' instead of 'properties' when it comes to imaginary creatures since you seem to be rather unhappy with the notion of saying such creatures have properties.
We know who Superman and Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote are and are able to distinguish between them because we have established criteria of identity for each one.
---------- Post added 03-23-2010 at 06:52 AM ----------
kennethamy;142533 wrote:if someone doesn't know whether something (say) a giraffe exists in a zoo, I suppose the way to find out is whether there is anything in the zoo that has the properties of a giraffe. If there is, then there is a giraffe in the zoo, and, if not, then there is no giraffe in the zoo. Isn't that helpful? The same would, of course, go for Wiley. Apparently Wiley does not exist, although there is, of course, a cartoon character who is Wiley. But that does not count, since the question is whether Wiley exists, not whether a cartoon character who is Wiley. If the question were whether there is a cartoon character, Wiley, the answer would be yes, since there is a cartoon character what has the properties of Wiley.
There is no question of Wile E. Coyote existing. Everyone knows he is an imaginary character. The person(s) who created him know that. The children and adults who watch him on tv know that.
I find it interesting and a little perplexing that you and Fast keep insisting that we have to talk about imaginary creatures in the same way that we would about real creatures.
