Posted by mbstevens on 07/07/05 05:44

dorayme wrote:
>>From: mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com>
>>
>>Once specified clearly, the thing we specified
>>_is_. Just not in a physical sense.
>>
>
>
> I don't think existence has different senses. If a and b exist, then they
> exist in exactly the same sense.

Some have given up arguing about 'existence' altogether because the word
has been beaten to death during the last 200 years. If you look back
through the thread you'll notice I never used it once. I was using
"is". That was more than semantic sugaring -- it is a word less closely
tied to ontology/metaphysics. But I probably should have said
"it just doesn't have any physicality" instead of "is... Just not in a
physical sense."

>It is tempting to suppose that a cup of
> coffee can exist in a physical sense whereas a ghost or god or number or
> class can exist in a non-physical sense, but this is not so. Things either
> exists or they don't.

You're definitely leaning toward Quine's camp.
"To be is to be the value of a bound variable."
These waters are too muddy to be thrashed out here.
But have a look at the old analytic/synthetic distinction
just to be sure you agree with yourself:
http://www.mbstevens.com/hume/index.html#ideafact

> ............
> By the way - because this would really be getting too far off the OP's
> original question and I am a firm believer in sticking to topic - this is
> partly why God does not exist ...

What?
Your wetware is missing the slavery-circuit?
;)

[Back to original message]