Now what does this mean in your own words? You pulled this from somewhere.
Like **** I did. Do some internet searches and find a source for this other than me.
Which statement is nonsense, a thing can not be said to be non-existent because it is what it is! x=x, therefore x doesn't exist?!?
Hmm. I thought that contradictions cannot exist because they are contradictions. Of course, if X=X, then it must be that X exists. In fact, that is one way to express the proposition that X exists. So, that cannot be what Extrain is saying. Don't you agree?
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of the intellect by means of language." Wittgenstein.
---------- Post added 05-01-2010 at 12:03 PM ----------
Whatever it means to say that fictional entities do not exist, the expression cannot imply that something is a fictional entity. In fact, it implies that the proposition something is a fictional entity, is false. It is for that kind of reason that Quine advocated abandoning the expression that X exists (does not exist) to the metaphysicians, and to retain for ourselves the expression, "There is (are)...." and, "There is (are) no....".
you need to clarify what "numbers have no foundation with probability one" means and how that is relevant to thinking numbers don't exist.
Of course, if X=X, then it must be that X exists. In fact, that is one way to express the proposition that X exists. So, that cannot be what Extrain is saying.
The meaning is quite clear, perhaps a comma after "foundation" would improve it. My argument is a demonstration that numbers are not abstract sets.
Nevertheless, it's what he did say.
First off, "x=x" is statement of numerical identity, not existence, nor kind. Second, saying "it is what it is" presupposes something already exists. I presuppose no such thing. Third, "it is what it is" is a reference to a difference in kind, not a difference in existence anyway. The "what it is" tells us what kind of thing it is. The "that it is" tells us that it exists. So you are confusing the "is" of existence with the copula "is" of predication. "is red" is not the same thing as "there is something x, such that..."
"Santa" is an empty name. It refers to nothing. These statements can be formulated logically with ~(Ex)
"It is not the case there exists an x, such that x has the name 'santa'" is true.
"It is not the case there exists an x, such that x is a category with an extention that ranges over fictional entities" is true.
---------- Post added 05-02-2010 at 02:21 PM ----------
Nevertheless, it's what he did say.
What he wrote was,
But fictional entities don't exist because they are fiction.
I don't see that means, that fictional entities don't exist for the reason that they are fictional. What I think Extrain means is that to say that something is fictional is to say that it does not exist, which is, of course, true. Philosophy is tricky (as I don't have to tell you) and it is easy, when swimming in this sea of abstraction, to word matters in a way that they can be unsympathetically understood, which is to say, misunderstood. Fictionality is no more a property of things than is existence. And for much the same reason. Therefore, to assert that X is a fictional entity is not to imply that something is an entity, and it is fictional. But Extrain can take care of himself. He does not need me to defend him.
Nothing is fictional.
Everything that exists is not fictional.
That should quell U-'s confusions. If it doesn't, then there's nothing more I can do.
Yes, I am free to do so, but I am not doing so, for my usage is in accord with standard usage. I am not using a stipulative definition and trying to pawn it off as if it's a lexical definition. What I am doing is using it as fluent users of our language collectively use it, and because of that, I am using it as it's used in our lexicon.
Now, you may have a case to show that the word is ambiguous.
Yes, you are correct in stating that your usage is in accordance with standard usage. I was mistaken to say that you were stipulating a new usage. Sorry.
You and I both use proper names to refer to real people. And that is in accord with correct usage.
I also use proper names to refer to fictional characters. And that is in accord with correct usage. I take it that you would legislate against such usage, but I see no good reason for doing so.
I don't think there is a case for ambiguity here.
It says, "numbers have no foundation of probability one."
No one is so dense to mistake the limitations of natural language use for a philosophical theory except you...lol.
Absolute rubbish.You're the most irritating twit, I've encountered to date, on this board.
Doesn't it seem to you that although a little gentle sarcasm might be appropriate on these boards, vicious vituperation goes too far?
And. . . . . . . ?
And I think that posters ought to refrain from being viciously vituperative. What would you suppose? Not that I think you should try a little tenderness, but that you might try a little gentle sarcasm rather than viciously vituperative. I always thought that the English were such gentle-folk, but good with an epee' or, at least, with a rapier.
And. . . . . . . ?
Of course, fictional characters are not people. They are not anything at all. No more than non-existent things are things. So when you talk about referring to fictional characters, that is just a way of speaking; like talking about referring to non-existent things. You should not take a "way of speaking" as genuine speaking. After all, when my son has finally cleaned up his room, and I say (in relief and a bit of sarcasm) "Mr Clean has finally entered (your room)!" that is just a way of speaking. No one should take me as literally saying that someone, Mr. Clean, has entered my son's room. No one should think I am really referring to a Mr. Clean (as I might really be if I had hired a person whose name was Mr. Clean) to clean up my son's room. Even philosophers should not take ways of speaking literally. And the same goes, ceterus paribus, for "Santa Claus".
Not sure what you mean by 'a way of speaking'.
When I use the name 'Sherlock Holmes' I am using it to refer to Sherlock Holmes and not to Santa Claus.
"Only that, and nothing more". (Quoth the raven).
Is that also true of "Mr Clean" when I say, "Thank goodness that Mr.Clean has gone into my son's room"? I really don't mean that any person has cleaned up my son's room, do I? And I am not referring to any Mr. Clean. So, when I say that Sherlock Holmes believed Dr. Moriarty was dead, I am not referring to Sherlock Holmes or to Dr. Moriarty. It is just a manner of speaking about the Sherlock Holmes stories.