Ok... But what is the ontological status of the Y ? What you're saying is that there is no universal meaning of existing... could I say then that existing relatively to Y has no meaning until Y existence is given and defined ?
Regards, Quentin 2010/8/31 Sami Perttu <[email protected]> > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<everything-list%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
