3 ms·
>existence is logically presupposed in any description of state Then please explain how you can write and I can understand the phrase "A thing which does not e
by treis 4y ago
>existence is logically presupposed in any description of state
Then please explain how you can write and I can understand the phrase "A thing which does not exist".
- dragonwriter 4y agoIts convenient linguistic shorthand for a common case which would be more properly be described as “a concept of a thing which does not correspond to any actual thing”. While the equivalent linguistic shorthand has been present in most languages for quite a long time, the recognition that the confusion it can sometimes produce between concepts and concrete things is a category error is, while not nearly as old, also fairly old; it is central to Kant’s argument against the ontological argument for God’s existence, for instance.
- treis 4y agoAnd why shouldn't we go with the convenient linguistic shorthand instead of the esoteric ontological argument?
- dragonwriter 4y ago> And why shouldn't we go with the convenient linguistic shorthand Who said you shouldn't? The shorthand is convenient. But it doesn't mean what other statements with the same shape mean. A thing which isn't doesn't have a state or representation.