tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post670546721238662677..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Hamlet kills PoloniusEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-3844692246992943632008-06-06T17:59:00.000+00:002008-06-06T17:59:00.000+00:00PS this doesn't answer the other bit of your quest...PS this doesn't answer the other bit of your question about story operators.<BR/><BR/>An assertionists needs story operators because some statements that involve fiction seem to be true. E.g. 'Jane admires Anna Karenina', or 'Anna Karenina was more intelligent than Madame Bovary' or 'I resemble Sherlock Holmes'.<BR/><BR/>Sainsbury has a number of examples in his book and handles the subject quite well, I would recommend waiting for the book from Amazon.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-83014942746740767422008-06-06T17:50:00.000+00:002008-06-06T17:50:00.000+00:00Hi - I'll take some time over the weekend to devel...Hi - I'll take some time over the weekend to develop into a post - still haven't mastered Bill's art of managing a blog.<BR/><BR/>In brief answer to your point, no, it's not a slippery move, because a 'somethingist' holds that any sentence using the word 'exists' can be translated without loss of meaning into a sentence containing 'someone' or 'something'. <BR/><BR/>Thus 'blue buttercups exist', which contains the word 'exist', can be translated into 'some buttercups are blue'. This, according to the somethingist, asserts the existence of blue buttercups.<BR/><BR/>There is no circularity so long as the translation can be made without loss of meaning (Bill would disagree).<BR/><BR/>That's the first point. The second is how to deal with proper names. According to the assertionist, a proper name is a sort of adjective, so that 'Hamlet killed Polonius' becomes<BR/><BR/>Someone who was Hamlet killed Polonius.<BR/><BR/>This asserts existence because of the 'someone', and additionally qualifies the someone as being Hamlet.<BR/><BR/>As I say, I will try and work this into a proper blog post but it is supper time here.<BR/><BR/>The Sainsbury is tough going in places, but well worth it.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-2560531967999539962008-06-06T09:49:00.000+00:002008-06-06T09:49:00.000+00:00I'm having trouble understanding your assertionism...I'm having trouble understanding your assertionism and how it interacts with story operators. You started by telling us at BV that 'Hamlet kills Polonius' is to be interpreted as 'Hamlet exists and Hamlet kills Polonius'. When I point up a possible difficulty with this you change the formulation to 'Someone(Hamlet) kills Polonius'. Forgive me, but to someone not versed in this topic this looks like a slippery move! Perhaps, pace BV, comments boxes on blogs are not good places to introduce difficult philosophical subjects. All may not be lost, though, as I have Sainsbury's book on order from Amazon. Cordially, DBDavid Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756430578089857478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-38206166937122156522008-06-06T09:30:00.000+00:002008-06-06T09:30:00.000+00:00I'm not sure I understand either. It would help m...I'm not sure I understand either. It would help me understand your theory if you were to write down some sample statements, some involving 'story operators' and some not, and indicate the truth values that the theory assigns them. For example, 'In Shakespeare's play 'Hamlet' someone kills somebody.' I've beenDavid Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756430578089857478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-12785321288574540502008-06-06T07:36:00.000+00:002008-06-06T07:36:00.000+00:00>>Where have the existence assertions gone?Not sur...>>Where have the existence assertions gone?<BR/><BR/>Not sure I understand. The existence assertion is via the word 'someone' or 'something'. Thus "someone phi'd" is equivalent, on the somethingist view, to asserting the existence of a ph'er. <BR/><BR/>Hope I've understood your point as I thought we had already established for a long while.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-2335062285492390952008-06-05T23:27:00.000+00:002008-06-05T23:27:00.000+00:00I agree that this formulation averts the interpret...I agree that this formulation averts the interpretive regress. But let's go the whole hog: Someone(Hamlet) someverb(kill) someone(Polonius). This is true iff<BR/>1. someone someverb someone.<BR/>2. the someverb is kill<BR/>3. the first someone (the somverber) is Hamlet<BR/>4. the second someone (the someverbed) is Polonius.<BR/>In Shakespeare's play 'Hamlet' 1--4 are all true, ergo, in Shakespeare's play 'Hamlet' 'Hamlet kills Polonius' is true. But where have the existence assertions gone?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756430578089857478noreply@blogger.com