Trimecular narkeltonabras.
Does that mean no thing doesn't exist? Would the opposite then have to be true, that all things do exist?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For example? What is there that doesn´t exist?
It was very honest of you to put the second "things" in quotation marks - because "things that don´t exist" is an oxymoron.
Well... Yeah. Things exist. "Things that don't exist" aren't things. Even if you insist that they must be things because we think of them, you are confusing the concept of a thing for an actual thing.Seriously, I think the only way you can prevail here is to deny that some things exist and some "things" don't exist.
You've offered a sequence of words here that are not defined and therefore have no meaning. If this is meant to define a "thing", then the thing you have is a concept. The fact that you can conceptualize something does not make it real, or even mean that it could possibly exist.Trimecular narkeltonabras.
That´s a thing?Trimecular narkeltonabras.
If you want to word it that clumsily.Does that mean no thing doesn't exist?
There is no such thing as a non-existing thing.Would the opposite then have to be true, that all things do exist?
I have other things to do right now, but I'll leave you with a link for further reading. I'll return later.
http://www.johnpiippo.com/2008/01/easy-explanation-of-kants-objection-to.html
I'm not interested in following such a silly diversion into solipsist la la land.
Concepts are not some sort of game one plays all in one's mind. If one loses sight that concepts about chairs, bands, and similar things are about entities that do not have a mind-dependent existence, then one has ceased to think clearly on the subject.
Well... Yeah. Things exist. "Things that don't exist" aren't things. Even if you insist that they must be things because we think of them, you are confusing the concept of a thing for an actual thing.
You've offered a sequence of words here that are not defined and therefore have no meaning. If this is meant to define a "thing", then the thing you have is a concept. The fact that you can conceptualize something does not make it real, or even mean that it could possibly exist.
And I promise that you do.I promise I'm not confusing things with concepts of things.
A thing that's not a thing.
That´s a thing?
If you want to word it that clumsily.
There is no such thing as a non-existing thing.
Plus they aren´t there. So they aren´t an example of "what is there that doesn´t exist".I don't know. You didn't ask for a "thing", you asked what is there that doesn't exist. I don't think that/those exist(s).
But apparently this stops when it comes to things - "things that aren´t things".Yes, and red is red, and zero = zero.
Well, "it exists" and "it is there" is a tautology - it´s not my making. And "a thing" and "a thing" is not even a tautology - it´s the exact same.It seems you're just giving tautologies to try and avoid the fact that some things exist, therefore they have that attribute.
They aren't where?Plus they aren´t there.
Would you like some examples of "what is there and does exist" with which to contrast the non-existent? I have an encyclopedia here. I'll begin at the beginning with "aardvarks."So they aren´t an example of "what is there that doesn´t exist".
Not sure what you mean.But apparently this stops when it comes to things - "things that aren´t things".
I agree, but how can we even discuss things then? Classify all things into two sets of things and non-things? Of course not, because things can't not be things. Yet I insist that 1) there are things and 2) the fact that there are things absolutely requires that they have the attribute of being things.Well, "it exists" and "it is there" is a tautology - it´s not my making. And "a thing" and "a thing" is not even a tautology - it´s the exact same.
Thus, when you try to establish an idea that requires me to accept that "things aren´t things" and that "there are thing that don´t exist" it´s certainly not me who has a problem with logic and tangles himself up in absurd semantics.
But an attribute that applies to everything in the universal set is completely redundant.Yet I insist that 1) there are things and 2) the fact that there are things absolutely requires that they have the attribute of being things.
You introced the term "they are there".They aren't where?
No, I want an example for something that is there and does not exist (because you talked about such).Would you like some examples of "what is there and does exist" with which to contrast the non-existent?
Good. Then, fortunately, I am not the only one who has no idea what you mean when saying "A thing that´s not a thing."Not sure what you mean.
Where´s the problem? We can discuss things quite fine.I agree, but how can we even discuss things then?
There you go again with the semantic absurdities. There isn´t a class of things that are non-things.Classify all things into two sets of things and non-things?
Then why do you keep using this proposition?Of course not, because things can't not be things.
That´s undisputed.Yet I insist that 1) there are things
Yeah, they also have the attribute of having the attribute of being things. We can pile redundant words upon redundant words and tautologies upon tautologies, if you wish to make a tasty word salad.and 2) the fact that there are things absolutely requires that they have the attribute of being things.
But an attribute that applies to everything in the universal set is completely redundant.
I hope that makes some sense, I'm a little tipsy.
But redundant doesn't mean untrue.
Hey it's a Saturday afternoon. I'm working towards that myself.
You introced the term "they are there".
No, I want an example for something that is there and does not exist (because you talked about such).
Good. Then, fortunately, I am not the only one who has no idea what you mean when saying "A thing that´s not a thing."
Where´s the problem? We can discuss things quite fine.
There you go again with the semantic absurdities. There isn´t a class of things that are non-things.
Then why do you keep using this proposition?
Yeah, they also have the attribute of having the attribute of being things. We can pile redundant words upon redundant words and tautologies upon tautologies, if you wish to make a tasty word salad.
Then there isn´t a thing or an it, to boot. "A thing that doesn´t exist" has no referent.If a "thing" doesn't exist, we say it doesn't exist.
"This thing doesn´t exist" can never be true.You can call it attribution or call it whatever you want, but you can't deny that "exist" and "not exist" are valid conceptions in the mind which can possibly be true or untrue.
The problem is: "red is red" carries no information whatsoever. It is meaningless. As such, it can´t be true or untrue.It may not be useful to say "red is red", but neither is it untrue.
The actual question is: Do there exist objects that don´t exist?
I rise to the defense of non-existing things (for a non-existing retainer, so I guess this is pro bono).There is no such thing as a non-existing thing.
I agree that imaginations, visions, utopias, anticipations, hopes etc. are important for us. This does not, however, support the notion that non-existing things exist. (I do understand that in colloquial language saying this can be a useful and tolerable crutch, but once people start building philosophical arguments upon this paradox terminology, we have to be very suspicious.)I rise to the defense of non-existing things (for a non-existing retainer, so I guess this is pro bono).
Hypothetical, possible, and future things are important things to talk about. How impoverished we would be if our minds were limited to what is actual. There would be no art, no growth in technology, no progress in culture without imagining what it is like to live in a better world. Novelists and actors feel themselves haunted by their characters - they aren't mad, they know what is real, but non-real things can have realistic qualities. We have to make a distinction between things with the attribute of existence and things without it to talk about this strange, wonderful, useful, essential part of our humanity.
I'm not saying they exist. I'm saying that there are important things that do not have the attribute of existence.I agree that imaginations, visions, utopias, anticipations, hopes etc. are important for us. This does not, however, support the notion that non-existing things exist.
I'm not saying they exist. I'm saying that there are important things that do not have the attribute of existence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?