OK, you want to know what it is to exist? Here is one minimalist answer (Quine'): To be is to be the value of variable. Whatever one quantifies over, is.
--- ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > andie nachgeborenen wrote: > > --- ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Devine, James wrote: > >> > >>>according to many philosophers of math (according > >>to JKS), math exists outside of us whether we use > it or not. > >> > >>well, what does 'exist' mean? physical existence? > > > > Are you getting all Clinton on us, "depends on > what > > the meaning of 'is' is"? -- Why the prejudice that > > something must be a "physical" object to exist? > > > > ;-) no prejudice! you have to stop interpreting my > questions as a > statement of my beliefs (in truth, i am quite > confused about the > consistency or justification of any position other > than solipsism). my > question was only to find out what JD meant by > "exists", before i > attempt any sort of answer. for instance, one answer > could be: let us > define the number three as the property of all > "things" grouped in > three. insofar as the three rocks can be said to > exist, it can be > claimed, so does the number three. but he could cut > me off that sort of > response by saying that by 'exist', he meant only > things he can kick! > then i may have come forth with an argument quite > similar to yours about > metaphysical biases. or maybe something else... > > > > I don't see what is so problematic about the idea > of > > abstract entities. > > > abstract entities are the easier ones for me! its > "concrete" entities > that are more difficult to explain/justify. > > > > Why does everything have to be physical? > > > not true... i love you emotionally man! not because > you are a sexy hunk! ;-) > > --ravi > _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
