-----Original Message----- From: 1Z
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:04 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Probably I should just say that every word has a referent.
Clearly  not, e.g unicorn.


I invite you to read a good book on Semiotic Theory, such as that of Umberto Ecco. The point is that even the word "unicorn" has a referent, even if that referent is some imagination. Is a cartoon drawing of a horse with a single horn protruding from its head not recognized as a unicorn? If we are going to literally and seriously argue that only nouns can refer to actual physical entities, then we are disallowing for any conversations regarding the dearly departed or anything that is out of sensory range of the conversants (among many more). Referents do not need to be autonomously instantiated as physical beings to be referents. Following the same reasoning numbers do not need to exist as autonomous entities either, all that is really required is that interlocutors can comprehend each other's implied meanings. We seem to be having another instance of the debate between nominalism and universalism... Parenthetically, what does this have to do with the subject of Maudlin and COMP's veracity?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to