Anthony, who occasionally asks some very good questions (I'm sorry I don't have time to address them all), asks in a comment to this post whether my position on truthmakers is inconsistent with my presentism. I'm not sure exactly where he is coming from, but I agree there may appear to be an inconsistency when I use singular terms like 'Socrates' to refer to non-present, and therefore non-existing individuals.
I explained this a while back. See this post and the posts it links back to. The verb 'refers to' is, I claim, a logically intransitive verb. This concept I have tried to explain to the Maverick on many occasions, with little apparent success (smiley face icon).
well, Ock. recall some Vienna circle ideas on the use of "Is".
ReplyDeleteAt times "is" is an identity (lawyers are attorneys). At times a copula/predicate (lawyers are greedy). In the cases you're discussing, usually a predicate. "X is fat". You seem to be denying predication itself (and the class--ie, obesity). In effect, your nominalism soon becomes nihilism .