• Arne
    416
    he is obviously talking about existence as a universal property of all objects. Because one property may have to be a property of all objects does not necessitate that all properties be a properties of all objects. and you already know that.
  • Terrapin Station
    11.7k
    he is obviously talking about existence as a universal property of all objects. Because one property may have to be a property of all objects does not necessitate that all properties be a properties of all objects. and you already know that.Arne

    If we're saying that existence is a special case here, we need to justify why it's a special case.
  • Arne
    416
    You seem to be going in the same circle. If existence is a real predicate that applies to all actual objects, then it is by definition a universal predicate of all actual objects. And if there are no other predicates universal to all actual objects, then we are "justified" [your word] in calling existence a "special case".

    And I am not even saying I agree with the proposition, I am simply saying "existence" as a special case is inherently justified within the proposition.

    For the most part, I tend to agree with Kant in that "existence" [at least in the way it is generally used] is not a real predicate.
  • Terrapin Station
    11.7k
    You seem to be going in the same circle. If existence is a real predicate that applies to all actual objects,Arne

    You wrote a sentence constructed like this: "If we formulate F as a property of objects, then we must either admit that all objects have property F, or we must allow objects that have property not-F into our ontology."

    "If we formulate F as a property of objects" is different than stipulating that all objects have property F, " as you seem to be trying to sneak in with "If existence is a real predicate that applies to all actual objects."
  • Terrapin Station
    11.7k
    Actually, by the way, there's a reading on which "If we formulate F as a property of objects, then we must either admit that all objects have property F, or we must allow objects that have property not-F into our ontology" is innocuous for all properties, but typically in a philosophy context folks are suggesting something Meinong-like for the second half.
  • Arne
    416
    again, you are in the same circle. I consistently used the word "ALL" each and every time I used the word object.

    So again:

    1. if existence is a predicate of ALL objects; and
    2. if existence is the only predicate that is a predicate of ALL objects;

    THEN we are necessarily "justified" in calling existence a special predicate. (it is the only predicate that is a predicate of ALL objects).

    The argument is not that complicated.

    Your resistance is futile.

    There is nothing more I can do.
  • Terrapin Station
    11.7k
    again, you are in the same circle. I consistently used the word "ALL" each and every time I used the word object.Arne

    No. Pause for a moment. Dusty wrote, "If we formulate existence as a property of objects."

    I confused you and Dusty, but I was responding to a comment that began, "If we formulate existence as a property of objects."

    If he had instead written, "If we formulate existence as a property of all objects," then there's no either/or to it. Very noncontroversially, "all objects exist," because we just stipulated as much in our formulation.
  • alcontali
    295
    > If we formulate existence as a property of objects, then we must either admit that all objects exist

    In the real world, you cannot visit all objects. You do not have enough energy for that. You can only visit a sample.

    "All X", i.e. ∀x can only be visited in abstract, Platonic world, and not in the real, physical world.

    You can visit (by induction) all integers, or all odd numbers, or something like that; because it is does not require energy to visit them in their abstract, Platonic world.

    "Existence" is about the real, physical world.

    Enumerating "all" physical objects in the real world, is simply not allowed. It is never done anyway. Experimental testing (empirical investigation) is about visiting just a few of these objects.

    It is strictly forbidden to use the universal quantifier ∀ in the realm of science or any other empirical domain. You may only use it in an abstract, Platonic domain.

    (all->Platonic) objects (exist->empirical) => forbidden mixing of domains
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.