tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post5437966170138898666..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: On an existential problem suggested by AnthonyEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-66851680135932194482011-12-12T16:18:03.688+00:002011-12-12T16:18:03.688+00:00>> And whether or not [to] exist-simpliciter...>> And whether or not [to] exist-simpliciter is a verb in the present [tense] is a good question.<br /><br />I have concluded that it is. X exists-simpliciter is a statement about our present state of knowledge.<br /><br />It is similar, it seems, to Brentano's "All A are B", which can apply even when no A presently-exist (e.g. "All dinosaurs are animals").Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-118830169150498202011-12-12T12:50:24.145+00:002011-12-12T12:50:24.145+00:00I'm a bit puzzled that Brentano is formulated ...I'm a bit puzzled that Brentano is formulated in terms of two concepts, A and B. I suspect that some of the present confusion arises because it's not clear what things fall under the concept 'man', which fills in for 'A'. Can we not simplify Brentano as 'some individual is a B' <---> 'some individual that is a B exists'? If we are being careful about tense we need to augment Brentano with a past tense version: 'some individual was a B' <---> 'some individual that was a B existed'. Otherwise we need to read the is/exists rendering as tenseless, and I think the notion of 'tenseless existence' just adds more chaos and confusion. Applying this to the present example we get 'some individual, viz Caesar, who was a man now no longer is a man'. By augmented Brentano we get 'some individual, viz Caesar, who once existed now no longer exists.' Does this not dissolve the problem?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-60278732512067395512011-12-12T01:37:43.673+00:002011-12-12T01:37:43.673+00:00I'll buy 'Someone who once was a man in no...I'll buy 'Someone who once was a man in now no longer a man'. Likewise 'Some event that was a present event is now no longer a present event.' <br /><br />But:<br /><br />>> We agreed that 'Caesar is not a man' is true<br />Hmm, I think you merely stipulated this in the post.<br /><br />>> So why not 'some man is not a man'<br />Because 'Caesar is not a man' implies 'Caesar is not one of the men'. You haven't produced the someone among the men who is not a man. It's certainly not Caesar.<br /><br />>> Here, the first 'man' means something like 'someone who was a man'<br />Fair enough, but unless we can make this quite clear on all occasions (which will be messy and ugly) we will drown in equivocation.<br /><br />Surely we have a choice. In this instance where we are focusing on issues of past and present either<br /><br />1. We take 'some man' to mean 'someone who was a man or who now is a man' <br />Or<br />2. We take 'some man' to mean 'someone who is now a man.'<br /><br />More generally we just stipulate in advance which men we propose to quantify over and this bounds what 'some man' may refer to. It could be men alive, dead or alive, living in Midsomer, ever been married, whatever is appropriate, as long as we make it explicit and make appropriate adjustments elsewhere. Example: if we quantify over all men dead or alive then 'Caesar is a (ie, some) man' comes out true; if over inhabitants of Midsomer then false.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-87785636014899767272011-12-11T18:17:38.043+00:002011-12-11T18:17:38.043+00:00>> We agreed that 'Caesar is not a man&...>> We agreed that 'Caesar is not a man' is true, although Caesar was a man. So why not 'some man is not a man'.<br /><br />Because if Caesar is not a man, then Caesar is not some man.<br /><br />>> Here, the first 'man' means something like 'someone who was a man'.<br /><br />You mean it means "someone who was, is, or will be a man", right?<br /><br />Otherwise, "Some man is a man" is false.<br /><br />>> So, if you accept that, you can't quarrel with 'some present event is not a present event'<br /><br />Well, personally I think I see what you're getting at, but I can't say I accept it.<br /><br />But my question was about whether or not "Some present event is a present event" is true, not about whether or not "Some present event is not a present event" is true.<br /><br />Though, after this explanation, I'm also wondering whether or not you agree that "Some man is a man" is true.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-55569222715325382412011-12-11T16:58:26.397+00:002011-12-11T16:58:26.397+00:00EB >> Thus, some present events are no longe...EB >> Thus, some present events are no longer present, in the same way that some living men (Socrates) are no longer living. <br /><<<br /><br />DB>> Yerwot?!?! <br /><br />Why not? We agreed that 'Caesar is not a man' is true, although Caesar <i>was</i> a man. So why not 'some man is not a man'. Here, the first 'man' means something like 'someone who was a man'. So, if you accept that, you can't quarrel with 'some present event is not a present event', meaning, something which <i>was</i> a present event (Caesar crossing the rubicon) is not a present event.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-54109585470603252442011-12-11T16:34:54.459+00:002011-12-11T16:34:54.459+00:00>> and did we come to any conclusion?
No ag...>> and did we come to any conclusion?<br /><br />No agreement, at any rate. As usual the discussion petered out in mutual incomprehension. One of the stumbling blocks for the Phoenicians was the question of a relation between an existing thing and a no longer existing thing.<br /><br />>> Perhaps we can say that to be a past event, is to have been a present event.<br /><br />Sure. I see no problem in saying with the present tense 'Caesar's crossing the Rubicon <i>is</i> a past event.' The 'past' takes precedence over the 'is'. Equally we could say 'Caesar's crossing the Rubicon was an event in the past.' Compare 'Socrates is dead' or 'Socrates is one of the philosophers we talk about'.<br /><br />>> Thus, some present events are no longer present, in the same way that some living men (Socrates) are no longer living. <br /><br />Yerwot?!?!David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-23753876127934080392011-12-11T16:22:28.436+00:002011-12-11T16:22:28.436+00:00>> Is your point that 'exist-simpliciter...>> Is your point that 'exist-simpliciter' is a verb in the present tense?<br /><br />That wasn't my point. And whether or not [to] exist-simpliciter is a verb in the present is a good question. I'm going to take your suggestion and give it some thought before I attempt an answer.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-51616865719285793612011-12-11T15:57:27.402+00:002011-12-11T15:57:27.402+00:00>>If we're going to do that, we might as...>>If we're going to do that, we might as well say that to exist-simpliciter is to have existed in the past, to exist-presently, or to exist in the future, no? <br /><<<br /><br />Interesting. Is your point that 'exist-simpliciter' is a verb in the present tense?Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-43251766472463324912011-12-11T15:26:37.164+00:002011-12-11T15:26:37.164+00:00>> Perhaps we can say that to be a past even...>> Perhaps we can say that to <i>be</i> a past event, is to <i>have been</i> a present event.<br /><br />If we're going to do that, we might as well say that to <i>exist-simpliciter</i> is to <i>have existed in the past</i>, to <i>exist-presently</i>, or to <i>exist in the future</i>, no?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-82734127622815223522011-12-11T10:58:33.771+00:002011-12-11T10:58:33.771+00:00>>Some past-events are past-events? No?
Hmm...>>Some past-events are past-events? No?<br /><br />Hmm. Perhaps we can say that to <i>be</i> a past event, is to <i>have been</i> a present event. Thus, some present events are no longer present, in the same way that some living men (Socrates) are no longer living. Solved.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-50134102145283568752011-12-11T10:52:13.966+00:002011-12-11T10:52:13.966+00:00>>We have been here before, and probably mor...>>We have been here before, and probably more than once!<br /><br />Yes, and did we come to any conclusion?Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-24007774382576742432011-12-10T22:25:47.155+00:002011-12-10T22:25:47.155+00:00Some past-events are past-events? No?Some past-events are past-events? No?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-4895054727645695722011-12-10T22:25:41.278+00:002011-12-10T22:25:41.278+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-78283848448579508492011-12-10T15:47:21.408+00:002011-12-10T15:47:21.408+00:00St. Thomas hisself, between his mystic generation ...St. Thomas hisself, between his mystic generation discussion (su leche es sacro, hermano!) asserts <br />relation is a quantity, ie geometric (as Russell treats it). Temporality...another issue.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-6799953725525615702011-12-10T14:33:59.186+00:002011-12-10T14:33:59.186+00:00We have been here before, and probably more than o...We have been here <a href="http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/05/presentism-and-existence-entailing-relations-a-question-about-earlier-than.html" rel="nofollow">before</a>, and probably more than once!David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-3855962627302354892011-12-09T14:56:40.047+00:002011-12-09T14:56:40.047+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com