Saying reality is all does not mean everything is real. A unicorn is real only because of the role he or she plays in reality. Reality has no borders -- it is everything. Without an everything to designate with a word we are prey to binary or dualistic thinking which might be fine for some things but not for reaching ethical judgments and particularly not for actions that require years to develop and implement. A Trump lie is very real though it may be merely air and false and have no real object.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Clark, List: > > Right, that ambiguity surfaces in the two sentences that I initially > mentioned a few days ago. > > - A unicorn has one horn. > - Unicorns are real. > > The object of "unicorn" in the first sentence is the *idea *of a unicorn, > and that is what makes it true, along with the fact that a universal > proposition does not assert the *existence *of anything. The object of > "unicorns" in the second sentence is the collection of *actual *animals > that are unicorns, and that is what makes it false. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> A Replica of the word "unicorn" is thus a Rhematic Indexical Sinsign that >> calls up the *idea *of a unicorn because, although no unicorn really >> *exists*, real *descriptions *of the unicorn are well known to the >> speaker and his/her auditor. >> >> >> This is why I said I thought things depend upon equivocation. When we say >> “phoenix” it’s not clear if we’re intending to refer to the idea of the >> phoenix (and thus a real general) or the phoenix in the world (which is >> false and thus has no referent). >> >> The question is what type of object we’re referring to. Of course if I >> refer to the existing object of say “trucks” I’m also referring to the idea >> of them since that is partially how I refer. I refer by giving hints since >> the indexical link can’t be directly shared. Instead I share replicants of >> icons or indices or gesture to indicate indexically. >> >> I’m of the opinion much of this is an artifact of language simply because >> our words are often ambiguous regarding the sense in which we intend them. >> By simply making clear how we intend to use a word a lot of the problems >> disappear. I wouldn’t go so far as to say all of them do of course. There’s >> always that gap between dynamic and immediate object and immediate object >> and interpretant. Not to mention ambiguity over how the sign-vehicle >> functions. >> > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
