tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post4209038124561386489..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Van Inwagen on existenceEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-39093607877798400122011-04-22T11:13:00.143+00:002011-04-22T11:13:00.143+00:00And likewise, 'Alex Medford is a witch' is...And likewise, 'Alex Medford is a witch' is shorthand for 'Alex Medford holds the property is-a-witch.' One man's equivocating on 'to be' is another man's necessary distinction. Doesn't Russell somewhere say that having five(?) distinct meanings for 'is' in English is a scandal?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-9183757193502537992011-04-22T08:56:44.630+00:002011-04-22T08:56:44.630+00:00>>London bobbies sometimes say things like &...>>London bobbies sometimes say things like 'Holmes does not exist' as a kind of shorthand for 'no one has all the properties Sherlock Holmes holds'.<br /><br />I think that is right. But then we have the equivocation problem.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-45430565251955017572011-04-21T22:07:52.857+00:002011-04-21T22:07:52.857+00:00Having now read 'Creatures of Fiction', I ...Having now read 'Creatures of Fiction', I think we can resolve this. PVI would not accept (2). On the contrary, he would say that Holmes indeed exists, but is a creature of fiction, to which PVI is committed. London bobbies sometimes say things like 'Holmes does not exist' as a kind of shorthand for 'no one has all the properties Sherlock Holmes holds'.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-84708237603229426442011-04-20T20:15:43.821+00:002011-04-20T20:15:43.821+00:00Perhaps the 'McGinn on Existence' paper ho...Perhaps the 'McGinn on Existence' paper holds a clue. At the end PVI says that sentences like 'the shadow has reached the wall' can be true without there being any shadows. So maybe 'Sherlock holds property P' can be true without there being any Sherlock, unlike 'Sherlock has property P'. But he still has a lot of explaining to do.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com