tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post7284891788232586271..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: A sound bite for circularityEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-49997657153353548172012-05-31T13:24:43.600+00:002012-05-31T13:24:43.600+00:00>> Clearly Bill means that it does.
Fair en...>> Clearly Bill means that it does.<br /><br />Fair enough. He does make this clear with 9/10.<br /><br />>> See his first statement, (1) above.<br /><br />(1) doesn't claim to be a definition either.<br /><br />If the theory is that 'An F exists' <i>is defined as</i> 'The concept *F* is instantiated.'...<br /><br />...Well, first of all, I thought we defined words, not sentences.<br /><br />Anyway, I agree with you that this is not a good argument. Though, he warned you beforehand that his argument was too complicated to be reduced to a single blog post.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-61351850852700743312012-05-31T13:03:54.511+00:002012-05-31T13:03:54.511+00:00>>8 does not claim to be a definition.
Cle...>>8 does not claim to be a definition. <br /><br />Clearly Bill means that it does. See his first statement, (1) above.<br /><br />Apart from a quibble, I agree with the other point you make. It needs to be established that 'exists' is not already embedded in 'an individual'.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-85770816034140364932012-05-31T12:52:11.720+00:002012-05-31T12:52:11.720+00:00>> If the 'that exists' bit is super...>> If the 'that exists' bit is superfluous, i.e. is already embedded in 'an individual', then it's not a proper definition.<br /><br />8 does not claim to be a definition. 9/10 claims that it is a definition. Therefore I'd say the problem is with 9/10, not with 8.<br /><br />>> I'm not sure. My only argument is that it is clear that the universal proposition above is not a definition. <br /><br />So, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it, and that isn't it"?<br /><br />Anyway, I said I'd explain, so here goes. A definition is a reduction of a concept into logically prior concepts. So "bachelor" is reduced to the concepts of "unmarried" and "man". But "exists" and "is instantiated", on the thin theory, seem to exist on the same level. So this is not a definition, it is just a synonym, for something which is undefined. The thin theory seems to be that *there is no definition*. Which is fine, if that's what is being said, since it is correct.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-22976359237280976602012-05-31T12:15:56.770+00:002012-05-31T12:15:56.770+00:00>>First of all, what special properties are ...>>First of all, what special properties are needed in order to turn a universal proposition into a definition?<br /><br />I'm not sure. My only argument is that it is clear that the universal proposition above is not a definition. Another example would be 'every human has skin'. At the very least, the defining expression has to include every essential property of the thing defined, and must not repeat any property in a superfluous way.<br /><br />>>Secondly, do you agree with 8? Not whether or not it is a definition, but whether or not "On the thin theory, 'An F exists' means the same as 'The concept *F* is instantiated by an individual that exists.'"?<br /><br />If the 'that exists' bit is superfluous, i.e. is already embedded in 'an individual', then it's not a proper definition.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-47774956680692970662012-05-31T12:07:58.680+00:002012-05-31T12:07:58.680+00:00>> The universal proposition (3a) above is p...>> The universal proposition (3a) above is perfectly true and follows from the original definition, but it doesn’t follow that we can turn any old universal proposition into a definition.<br /><br />First of all, what special properties are needed in order to turn a universal proposition into a definition?<br /><br />Secondly, do you agree with 8? Not whether or not it is a definition, but whether or not "On the thin theory, 'An F exists' means the same as 'The concept *F* is instantiated by an individual that exists.'"?<br /><br />I would say that neither 1. nor 8. is a definition. Whereas, in your example (1a) is a definition, and (4a) is not. I'll explain why after I hear your critique.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-978349460509443112012-05-31T10:59:01.751+00:002012-05-31T10:59:01.751+00:00>> In particular, Bill needs to avoid the ch...>> In particular, Bill needs to avoid the charge that he has reintroduced the term ‘exist’ in (7) in much the same way that ‘bachelor’ has been reintroduced in (3a). <<<br /><br />Very nicely put.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com