Re: Platonism

From: Eray Ozkural exa (examachine_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: 28 Nov 2004 16:39:19 -0800

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message news:<8dchq0hkp2mikidl0d8nssil16gb3fb5t1@4ax.com>...
> On 27 Nov 2004 06:16:09 -0800, examachine@gmail.com (Eray Ozkural
> exa) wrote:
> >> > Otherwise, it is nonsense. If I am allowed to
> >> >distort the meaning of "exists" every now and then, I will be able to
> >> >talk of God and angels as if they existed, and that will be heresy for
> >> >me: I am a physicalist.
> >>
> >> Well, me too, I think, but my physicalism relates only to the
> >> sub-domains of philosophy that I care about, those of cognition and
> >> language and computation. As far as cognitive agencies go, they may
> >> assume that things exist and make the appropriate ontological
> >> commitments, and then we can get on with the internal matters that we
> >> need to deal with, about how agencies do what they do, in a material
> >> world.
> >
> >I think I understood this when I first read it, but I'm not sure. Do
> >you mean you don't care what somebody assumes to exist? :)
>
> Well, sure I *care*! My friend Fred, he assumes green dragons exist.
> I have to take this into consideration when I parse any sentence that
> I get from Fred, because I know that only blue dragons really exist.
> Then again, perhaps (!) neither of us is much of an ontological
> authority, no matter how handsome we may be otherwise.

Yes, but in the end what matters is whether what you wanted to refer
to by "dragons" exists at all. Or you are both talking nonsense
(lying, deluded, etc.). That reminded me of some articles in
pragmatics, naturally. You may have mistaken something else for a
dragon, but you may still be referring to "that".

Still, your existential idea matters. Doesn't it?

Doesn't it bother you when somebody talks about the devil?

"I'm looking for the devil"

Would not you like him to have a determinate reference? Wouldn't you
like to know if what he talks of really exists? Wouldn't you like to
*know* what he means? Maybe he is referring to his pet, affectionately
called "the little devil". Or maybe he's just an ordinary religious
person, looking for the sign of devil. Now, I think if he's looking
for the sign of something that doesn't exist, you must tell him.

  "Well, if the devil doesn't exist, how could you possibly find him?"

> >Yes, I can see that my claim was much closer to Russell than Meinong,
> >and for the most part I've found Russell to be a very reasonable
> >philosopher. But I surely hope I am not becoming a logical positivist
> >or anything like that. I should watch my steps. :)
>
> Indeed, for many faults are built in at the very beginning. But I am
> not arguing for Meinong, either.

His solution was the worst. And Russell's solution might not be the
best.

> I'm arguing Turing, and Fodor, some
> Dennett and Millikan, some Wittgenstein and a little revionist Quine,
> some axiomatics that may be more Hilbert than Tarski, a little
> Berkeleyian abhorence of abstraction, and a modern nominalism that is
> all my own, mine and about three million practicing software
> developers who don't know that they're doing it, too.

You know that I find some of that agreeable. But my bases could be
quite different. I find a lot of inspiration in AI I think, more than
philosophy.

> >What do you mean by unsoundly combining several domains of philosophy?
> >You mean combining metaphysics, language philosophy, method of
> >philosophy (logic, etc.), philosophy of science like the logical
> >positivists did? Do you think these should be taken as separate
> >inquiries? (Your meta-philosophy? :)
>
> 42.

You mean logical positivism is as absurd as thinking 42 is the meaning
of life?

Regards, 

--
Eray Ozkural

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Platonism
    ... because I know that only blue dragons really exist. ... Doesn't it bother you when somebody talks about the devil? ... >>You mean combining metaphysics, language philosophy, method of ... You mean logical positivism is as absurd as thinking 42 is the meaning ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... The devil put man in the middle of the angelic ... God is smarter. ... (When they aren't asking him to kill somebody and send him to hell) ... John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I think that dragons are rather lame creatures!!!
    ... a devil or an extraterrestrial super ... monster; they're much better than a dragon!!! ... Dragons suck!!! ...
    (rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons)
  • Re: The latest of Matsui is 52m - 4y
    ... > overvaluing mediocre talent. ... >> the devil you know may be better than the devil you don't know. ... pitchers in the pen, instead of helping Columbus. ... their philosophy. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)