Defining of Is/Am
September 14th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Defining of Is/Am** :: Defining of Is/Am :: Intransitive Use of ‘Is/Am’ :: Syntactic Role vs Semantic Meaning of Is/Am
>>_Saicho@aol.com_ (mailto:Saicho@aol.com) wrote:
>>>it is typical in dealing with math to say things like: There exists
>>>an X such that … etc.
>>do you then *define* ‘exists’ to mean ‘exists as a physical object’?
>Joe, absolutely and in all ways possible: NO, in the case of all things
>mathematical and in many other areas as well.
if we can’t define ‘exists’ to mean ‘exists as a physical object’; then,
it seems to me, we can’t define ‘is’ or ‘am’ to mean ‘is a physical
object’ or ‘exists as a physical object’. the true statement ‘there is
an even prime number’ would ‘prove’ something we know to be false.
similarly, we can’t define ‘is’ to mean ‘is a phenomenological reality
only’. such a definition might make you happy by giving you a rhetorical
advantage over Penrose — the true statement ‘there is an even prime
number’ would ‘prove’ that you were right and Penrose was wrong.
however, such an argument would hardly be convincing.
finally, we could not define ‘is’ to mean ‘is an ontological
reality’ (where ‘ontological reality’ referred to a metaphenomenal
non-physical reality that somehow ‘accounted for’ the corresponding
phenomenal reality the way that the perfect triangle in Plato’s heaven
of Ideal Forms accounted for all the imperfect triangles that partook of
the Ideal triangle). such a definition would ‘prove’ Penrose was right
and you were wrong; and, that seems equally unacceptable.
IMHO, it follows that ‘is’ and ‘am’ must be defined so that ‘it is’
asserts only that it is (not what it is) and that ‘I am’ asserts only
that I am (and not what I am).
would you not agree?
Richard:
Joe, IMO you are overcomplicating what for me is a very simple matter. Why
do we need all these terms for this discussion? Some things are real, such
as this keyboard, my piano, the waffles I had for breakfast, etc, and other
things, that have names, are not real – they have no physical reality. The mere
fact of giving something a name does not confer reality on it – though Plato
and Penrose would disagree. When you say *I am* IMO you say nothing, and one
is tempted to ask: You are what? I defer completely to Juds response to your
comments.
Regards,
Richard
