I've been suspecting that some problems of ontology can be solved nicely if we practise a little therapeutic philosophy first.
I'm claiming that when we talk about existence, for instance "X exists", then we should always qualify it with base set Y as in "X exists in Y". And that unqualified use, as done in metaphysics (and in the subject of this group), is an ontological fallacy - existence "in the general sense" is meaningless. This reduces the nebulous question "does X exist?" to the problem of finding a suitable base set Y. Thus a seemingly fundamental question is resolved to a logical/linguistic misstep. People often seem to think that to exist, X has to have the quality of existing, but we can get rid of that in this way, simplify our thinking and gain some peace of mind. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
