tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post6329246858307318469..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Album fuit disputaturumEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-23918582710490046082011-01-08T17:05:08.213+00:002011-01-08T17:05:08.213+00:00>>'Relation' must mean different thi...>>'Relation' must mean different things for us.<br /><br />Not now. I changed my mind after thinking about the points you raised. Before, I was thinking about causal relations (which clearly must be co-present, or very nearly co-present in some infinitessimal sense). And I am still tempted to think that co-present relations are in some sense 'real'. But then the grandfather relation you mention is equally real.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-17634058240280011802011-01-08T11:51:47.626+00:002011-01-08T11:51:47.626+00:00I continue to find this view of relations exceedin...I continue to find this view of relations exceedingly odd. My grandfather, A, died after I was born. Before he died it was true to say 'A is D's grandfather' and to say 'the grandfather relation holds between A and D'. After he died it was true to say 'A was D's grandfather' but false to say 'the grandfather relation holds or held between A and D'. After I have died it will still be true to say 'A was D's grandfather' and also true again to say 'the grandfather relation holds or held between A and D'. I find it impossible to see how the passage of time affects the fact essential to the holding of the relation, namely, that A fathered my father. 'Relation' must mean different things for us. Can we locate the difference?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-54313783275949733362010-12-30T22:09:11.847+00:002010-12-30T22:09:11.847+00:00>>I suspect you are making the same mistake ...>>I suspect you are making the same mistake that I think BV and PL are making---that of thinking that a relation is a thing in the world in addition to the things related. <br /><br />This is in fact Scotus' solution to the problem. More later.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-10412737116695681432010-12-30T21:06:53.332+00:002010-12-30T21:06:53.332+00:00Perhaps I should add that apart from this business...Perhaps I should add that apart from this business about relations everything you've said here and at BV's on these topics is spot on.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-90677013902846824542010-12-30T20:59:08.569+00:002010-12-30T20:59:08.569+00:00I suspect you are making the same mistake that I t...I suspect you are making the same mistake that I think BV and PL are making---that of thinking that a relation is a thing in the world in addition to the things related. You say <br /><br />Thus ‘Churchill met Roosevelt’ is true, since it expresses a relation which was between two things, although now between no things.<br /><br />So the relation is in time and subject to change? Likewise ‘Cameron is colleague of Clegg’ expresses a relation that came into existence a few months ago and will probably cease to exist shortly, certainly when either of them dies. So in addition to Cameron and Clegg going about their business collaboratively in the way that colleagues do for a period of time, there is also this decidedly dodgy entity that relates these two, perhaps like a piece of string that joins them together? Why else this emphasis on the simultaneous existence of the two relata?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com