• Frank Apisa
    1.9k
    Now I think you're playing with me. Anyway, below is an excerpt from a more reputable philosophy resource:

    To be red (or even to be an apple) it must already exist, as only existing things instantiate properties. (This principle—that existence is conceptually prior to predication—is rejected by Meinongians.)
    — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosiphy (SEP)

    As only existing things instantiate properties translates as:

    1. If properties are instantiated then something exists that instantiates those properties

    What does "properties are instantiated" entail other than detectability through senses/instruments?

    In other words, existence is based off of detectability. No detectability, no existence.
    TheMadFool

    Okay. Wow!

    Very complicated way of answering my question to you.

    You could just as easily said...YES.

    Of course I disagree. There are fundamental flaws with that "definition" that I am sure you can see.

    "Detectable through senses/instruments!"

    But, since your answer to my question reduces to YES...I guess you mean HUMAN senses and HUMAN instruments.

    Things that can be detected by non-humans (if such being exist) or detected by non-human instruments...do not exist?

    To me that not only sounds unscientific...it also sounds profoundly unphilosophiical.
  • EricH
    152

    It looks to me like we're basically saying the same thing in different ways

    the foundation of semantics is ostensive definitions i.e. all definitions can be traced back to a set of objects or a set phenomena that can be perceived directly.TheMadFool

    perhaps the way out of the definitional loop is somehow to point to realityEricH

    Ostensive definition
    Hah! Was not familiar with that term. Hope I can remember that if I ever need it. :smile:
  • TheMadFool
    6.3k
    :up: What I say must be taken with a grain of salt.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment