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 <sami.per...@gmail.com>

> 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<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> 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 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.

Reply via email to