Which is exactly what you still have given me no reason to accept.

But that's not true.

1. Abstract objects have properties.
2. Fictional objects have no properties.
3. Something exists if, and only if, it has properties.

Therefore, 4. There are abstract objects, but no fictional objects.

You cant possibly be serious!!??

I've played around with that idea, and I'm still up in the air on it, but I still hold that abstract objects exist since they have properties.

It's not the claim but rather the fact they have properties. When I claim that the number three has properties, I'm not mistaken am I?

By the way, I've enjoyed this conversation with you. It's been rather pleasant, but as I turn to Ughaibu's objection, I hope to keep it pleasant even if it entails him wishing to throw a chair at me.

At any rate, let me start by throwing out a couple arguments:

1. That which has properties exists.
2. The number three has properties
Therefore 3, the number three exists.

4. That which doesn't have properties doesn't exist.
5. Rudolph does not have properties.
Therefore 6, Rudolph doesn't exist.

Gee, I hope I worded that right.

Ughaibu apparently believes that number five above is false, and when asked to list the properties he thinks Rudolph has, he tries (as do others) to pawn off fictional properties as if they're real, and when called on it, he reverts back and attacks my claim regarding number 2. This may be a strawman (sorry Ughaibu), but I'm trying to get a grip on what the problem is.

It's almost as if he is mistakenly regarding fictions as abstract objects, and from a previous post of his, I'm gathering that has a lot to do with it.

ETA: a fiction isn't abstract, and that is true whether fictions exist or not. If it doesn't exist, then it's neither concrete nor abstract, and if it does exist, then it's concrete. Remember, a fiction (if it exists at all) is temporal, and nothing that is temporal is abstract.

I recall that either you or Kennethamy mentioned that this principle of "what exists has properties' originated with Descartes. If possible, I'd like to learn the context within which he invoked that principle. Was he talking about the substances that exist in the world around us? Was he talking about abstract objects?

To say of the character in fiction that the character is fictional is not to say (or at least I hope it isn't to say) that the character in fiction does not exist. Of course there are characters in works of fiction. So, if you're saying that the character in fiction has the property of being fictional, then I suppose I could agree, but when I say that Rudolph doesn't exist, I'm not saying there is no character in fiction. I'm saying there is no real reindeer with the property of being able to fly.

ETA: and THAT reindeer does NOT have the property of being fictional. It has no properties AT ALL.

The exact quote is, "Nothing has no properties". I forget where that is, though.

You are right. fast is very polite. A southern gentleman. (South Carolina).

It is my understanding that when we say a character is a fictional character we are saying that it is an imaginary person. That accords with the dictionary definition of 'ficitional character'.

If there is a character in a work of fiction whom we know exists or once existed, then usually we will call that character an 'historical character'.

I would say that a fictional character does not exist because I know it to be imaginary: somebody created that character in his imagination.
Sorry but it still seems to me that you don't really understand what an imaginary person is. An imaginary person is not a real person who has been found not to exist. An imaginary person is a creation of the imagination. Don't you see the difference?

There are characters, fictional characters, historical characters, mythological characters, etc.

It is my understanding that when we say a character is a fictional character we are saying that it is an imaginary person. That accords with the dictionary definition of 'ficitional character'.

If there is a character in a work of fiction whom we know exists or once existed, then usually we will call that character an 'historical character'.

I would say that a fictional character does not exist because I know it to be imaginary: somebody created that character in his imagination.
Sorry but it still seems to me that you don't really understand what an imaginary person is. An imaginary person is not a real person who has been found not to exist. An imaginary person is a creation of the imagination. Don't you see the difference?

---------- Post added 03-26-2010 at 09:21 AM ----------



Thanks.

Isn't that statement saying the same as "Everything has properties?"

Hopefully, it was Descartes who said it. As I've read over the comments in the threads on Berkely, I've become acutely aware of how little I know regarding some of these philosophical issues.

Just picked up copies of Desmon Clarke's two books Descartes's Theory of Mind and Descartes: A Biography.

[QUOTE]Speakpigeon--If you hold that the notion of abstract object should not be confused with the notion of idea, as I think you do, then you should regard as necessary that abstract objects not only should have properties but have real properties, i.e. properties that can be measured.
And then, what of the particular case of numbers?
EB

(snip)I still hold that abstract objects exist since they have properties.(snip)
At any rate, let me start by throwing out a couple arguments:
1. That which has properties exists.
2. The number three has properties
Therefore 3, the number three exists.

We speak as if ideas are in our mind, and I'm okay with speaking like that, but that we speak as if ideas are in our mind is no grand reason for thinking that ideas have an actual location like a piano in a room could be located as being somewhere in particular. Sure, the idea is in the mind, but where might I ask is your mind?
A neurosurgeon would have about as much luck finding your mind as would a podiatrist (a foot doctor).
The mind has no location, and oh yes, you heard that right, so where might it be? That's the whole point. The question assumes something that is false. It has no location, so it is nowhere.

When I hear it said, "Winnie the Pooh is a fictional character," a couple things come to mind. First, I immediately think A) there is a character in fiction that we call Winnie the Pooh, and because all characters in fiction have properties, I think the character exists ... in a work of fiction, in fact.

Secondly, and even though I think the character in fiction exists, I do not therefore think that there is B) a real Winnie the Pooh walking around with Tiger looking for honey.

Hence, I have made the distinction between A) the character in fiction named Winnie the Pooh and B) Winnie the Pooh, which is not a character in fiction.

I'm not positing Winnie the Pooh as if he is or was ever real. When asked, "does Winnie the Pooh really exist(?)," I would be forced to say yes if I actually thought that was being asked is if there is A) a character in fiction named Winnie the Pooh.

Instead, when asked that question, I'm inclined to say no, for to me, the question is asking whether or not there is B) a real Winnie the Pooh walking around with Tiger looking for honey.

I do not think characters in fiction are imaginary. There really are characters in fiction; they exist, and they exist in the only way they can: in works of fiction. To say of something that it's imaginary is to deny that something exists, but I don't want to deny that characters in fiction exist, especially when I believe that they do exist.

Quote:

Speakpigeon--If so can you explain how we can possibly know about abstract objects that only have abstract properties which are not ideas?.

I gather from your question that maybe you think ideas are abstract objects. I want to give you a reason to think otherwise.

The word 'imaginary' can be used to deny the existence of something. But in this context, I think it is being used to indicate that the being in question is merely a product of someone's imagination.

And thus does not exist. Imagining something doesn't bring anything new into existence. It's not like there's actually something new with actual properties by the mere fact someone has imagined something.

A mind is a product of a brain (and CNS). A mind isn't a brain, and a mind isn't in (or within) a brain, and a mind isn't in the neurons of a brain. But, it is so that a brain gives rise to a mind. A mind is brain-dependent. Only because we have a brain can we have a mind, and only with a mind can we have ideas, concepts, thoughts, fantasies, and memories. So, although a concept is not physical, what gives rise to it is. There is a physical basis for the fact we have concepts and ideas, but our actual concepts and ideas, however, are anything but physical.