There is the commonly held principle (does it have a name? "EPP" if not) that existence is conceptually prior to predication, prior to it having any property at all. — noAxioms
We don't ever just perceive the color red..............Judgements involve integrating all percepts into a consistent whole experience of the world. — Harry Hindu
What does a direct realist do when they say the chocolate ice cream is delicious but someone else says it is disgusting? Is the direct realist talking about the ice cream or their mental state when eating it? — Harry Hindu
A raw assertion without even a definition of what sort of 'exists' is being presumed. I am looking for justified statements, not opinions. — noAxioms
So things that are non-mythical determines what exists?............This uses an anthropocentric definition of 'mythical'....................Being nonexistent and being currently extinct are very different things. — noAxioms
Maybe we should let them (in their copious numbers) defend the position then. — noAxioms
Perhaps we are speaking past each other. I break my leg. That causes 1) pain, 2) doctor work 3) financial troubles 4) missed days at work 5) cancelled ski trip. — noAxioms
You seem to be interpreting the word 'prior' to mean 'at an earlier time', which is not at all what the principle is saying — noAxioms
Actually, I care little about Meinong's actual views since for one he presumes a classical 'reality'. I was just interested in the implications of the denial of EPP, and all these classification details seem irrelevant to that, a derailment. — noAxioms
If a rock broke the window, the effect is not only that the window is broken but also the location of the object that broke the window. — Harry Hindu
It is not the case that the indirect realist may never know the cause because we actually do get at the cause on a great many things. If we didn't we wouldn't be able to accomplish tasks with the degree of success that we do. — Harry Hindu
Actually, for a direct realist there is no causal process. The red apple on the table is the same red apple they perceive - the cause and effect are one and the same with no intervening process in between. — Harry Hindu
As such, I find that most direct realists seem to be religious in some way or another as their God created them in a way (with a soul) that allows them to perceive the world as it is. — Harry Hindu
Quite the naive view. Does it have significant support? — noAxioms
Why are not the direct realists in charge of the court system? — noAxioms
A cause typically has many effects — noAxioms
Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.
How do we know that horses exist and not just subsist? — noAxioms
Horse = a large solid-hoofed herbivorous ungulate mammal (Equus caballus, family Equidae, the horse family) domesticated since prehistoric times and used as a beast of burden, a draft animal, or for riding
Unicorn = a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiralled horn in the middle of the forehead
What objects belong to the EPP? — Corvus
I was just interested in the implications of the denial of EPP — noAxioms
For example, if we say that this is a leaf and is green, we are attributing the properties leaf and green to it, and, if the predication is veridical, the thing in question exemplifies these properties.
Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.
Oh, I thought it was one of the three things, and not a heirarchy where 'exist' is just a special case of the other two. This contradicts your statement just below.................. For Meinong, as I understand it, numbers are objects that subsist, rather than exist or absist. — noAxioms
We directly experience some things but not others seems to show that the distinction between direct and indirect is simply one of causal complexity - how far removed the effect is from its causes, not a difference in the ontology of perception as we can experience things directly and indirectly. — Harry Hindu
Red is a property of minds. Ripeness is a property of apples — Harry Hindu
What does it even mean to say something is prior to properties? — Harry Hindu
None of it explains the difference between direct and indirect, which is what I expressed confusion about..On the surface, it seems to ask if I am a realist about mind dependent experiences..................Unlike red and pain, the brick has a potential of being a thing in itself, not just an ideal. So not so similarly.................... whether the pain of another is in the same world as you...........................To say something (apple) is red is seemingly to say that the apple (ding an sich) is experience, quite the idealistic assertion, and realism only of experience, not of actual apples. — noAxioms
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. Conversely, direct realism postulates that conscious subjects view the world directly, treating concepts as a 1:1 correspondence.
When I see someone in pain, are they and their pain not in this same shared world my mind exists in? — Harry Hindu
There is the commonly held principle (does it have a name? "EPP" if not) that existence is conceptually prior to predication......................Meinong rejects this principle, allowing properties to be assigned to nonexistent things such as Santa — noAxioms
As for the three classifications, subsist and absist seem identical except for the whole 'logically possible' distinction — noAxioms
What is "has a negation"? — noAxioms
Where does combustion fit in? — noAxioms
The target may or may not be an object (doing arithmetic is not an object target) — noAxioms
An object to instantiate the thought. Kind of presumptuous, but I'll accept it. The wording above suggests that the thought itself is an object and is not simply implemented by one. — noAxioms
Whatever can be experienced in some way, i.e., be the target of a mental act, Meinong calls an object [Gegenstand or Objekt].
I never really got the distinction between direct and indirect realism. Sure, I know what the words mean, but 'direct' makes it sound like there's not a causal chain between the apple and your experience of it. — noAxioms
By what definition of 'exist' does the horse exist?......................Does an absisting thing need to be contradictory? If not, then why not pick a less contradictory example such as Tom Sawyer?...............................More to the point, he also says that there are things not in reality that nevertheless have properties. A square circle is round for instance.....................Meinong seems to confine the usage of the word to things designated as 'objects' that have a property (among others) of location. — noAxioms
It originates from our experiences, which in turn originate from what has caused them. This wording presumes that our experiences are caused, already a bias. — noAxioms
Yes, I want a definition consistent with a model, and not based on the knowledge that led to the model. — noAxioms
The "brick" is a total mental abstraction. The brick isn't, and the abstraction lets us know something about the latter, but hardly all of it. — noAxioms
You brought up 'thoughts', a good example. They're not objects, nor are they distinct. They do have properties. — noAxioms
Good, We agree on that. — noAxioms
Properties can be assigned to nonexistent objects such as Santa, God and time. — Corvus
Can there be existence of properties where there is absence of object? For instance, time? — Corvus
It is said that reality is stranger than can be conceived, and I get that. I am after a consistent model, not proof of any ding-an-sich. — noAxioms
1) a brick hits me in the head. The brick does not depend on our mental abstractions, yet I know about the brick (presuming I'm not knocked out cold). — noAxioms
Subsist: Seems mostly abstract: Numbers, mathematics, and such. Meinong seems to give them a sort of being of their own, mind-independent, so the word isn't idealistic in nature. Still, is subsistence prior to mathematical truths? What would he say?.................................He allows predication on nonexistent 'objects' such as Santa. — noAxioms
Anything requires predication, since a lack of properties is itself a property, and a contradictory one at that...self-referencing properties have always had the potential for paradox — noAxioms
This presumes EPP. — noAxioms
But in UK, the public and the law seem to regard them as just usual perks of the job. Would it be the case? — Corvus
The issue that has emerged with these particular glasses in recent days is that they were not bought out of Starmer’s own pocket. He received a donation in May — while still in opposition — to the tune of £2,485 from Waheed Alli, a businessman and Labour peer, for “multiple pairs of glasses”.
Genuine practice of democracy is rare. Due to the fact, most preachers of democracy give impressions of false pretense and their ignorance. — Corvus
No. I say to all my fellow politicians – Labour and Tory – to change Britain, we must change ourselves. We need to clean up politics. No more VIP fast lanes. No more kickbacks for colleagues. No more revolving doors between government and the companies they regulate. I will restore standards in public life with a total crackdown on cronyism.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer received an additional £16,000 worth of clothes from Labour peer Lord Alli, it has emerged. The donations, first reported by the Guardian, external, were initially declared as money for his private office as leader of the opposition. The gifts - of £10,000 in October 2023 and £6,000 in February this year - were declared on time, but will now be re-categorised as donations in kind of clothing.
Hence the reason why you should keep distance from the fallacy of authority or majority — Corvus
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.
The contents and states of one's subjective and private mental experience cannot be presented as the basis of the objective evidence in the arguments — Corvus
A thing having a property is an entirely different subject than something's knowledge of a property. Whether the property is conceived of or not seems off topic. — noAxioms
Going down this path is once again why the disclaimer is there in the OP. I see no productivity to it. — noAxioms
So, it is not bad thing to have the strict legal system in some aspect, would you not agree? — Corvus
Hallucination is not extreme case. It is a subjective case. — Corvus
Anything requires predication, since a lack of properties is itself a property, and a contradictory one at that. — noAxioms
It wouldn't be accepted as valid or meaningful arguments on the basis of either non relevant or highly unlikely example. — Corvus
Again, the other party can reject the arguments on the basis of highly unlikely example or irrelevant example for the main point. — Corvus
Appealing to Extremes is a formal fallacy. — Corvus
Isn't the law formally accepted legal system by the people of the society? — Corvus
Isn't this an appeal to extreme case fallacy? — Corvus
Good point, so long as 'properties' isn't confined to your experience. — noAxioms
Morality only judges the moral actions of the folks. Legality judges the acts and also hand down the punishments according the law, hence legality precedes morality. — Corvus
Isn't it itself an act of moral wrongness to break the law, revolt and overthrow the system? — Corvus
You have options to get adjusted to the system whatever system you live in, and flourish under the system knowing it and abiding by it — Corvus
There is the commonly held principle (does it have a name? "EPP" if not) that existence is conceptually prior to predication, prior to it having any property at all. So an apple is red only if the apple exists Santa is not meaningfully fat — noAxioms
There are two sets of reasons for denying that existence is a property of individuals. The first is Hume and Kant's puzzlement over what existence would add to an object. What is the difference between a red apple and a red existing apple? To be red (or even to be an apple) it must already exist, as only existing things instantiate properties
The thing's existence is prior to any predication to it and so it is incoherent to think of existence as a property had by the thing. This thought is behind Aristotle's thesis that existence is not a further feature of a thing beyond its essence.
Hume argued (in A Treatise of Human Nature 1.2.6) that there is no impression of existence distinct from the impression of an object, which is ultimately on Hume's view a bundle of qualities.
Humans are more important. — Patterner