Existence as an Attribute

[Eryk]

But they do have the attribute of existence.

Fictional things exist in the imagination, not as anything as absurd and contradictory as "nonexistent things". That is why we refer to them as "imaginations, visions, utopias, anticipations, hopes, etc". They exist as such things, they simply happen to be mental phenomena.

It's important not to get these confused with nonexistence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Rapunzel has long hair. But mental phenomena do not have spatial extension or color. If they did, Rapunzel would be real. But she isn't.

 

[quatona]

I'm not saying they exist. I'm saying that there are important things that do not have the attribute of existence.

IOW, you are talking about imaginations, concepts, hopes, visions, plans etc.
These aren´t things - or, if you insist on calling them "things" - you must be very cautious not to equivocate them with actually existing objects/things/beings/entities. (As, for example, the ontological argument does).

 

[Eryk]

These aren´t things - or, if you insist on calling them "things" - you must be very cautious not to equivocate them with actually existing objects/things/beings/entities. (As, for example, the ontological argument does).

If I didn't say "things" I would be using some other semantic realization and it wouldn't make a difference. And I am distinguishing these things from the objects of our shared, everyday reality.

These well-known problems in ontology have been debated since antiquity. I think the present discussion has a lot more merit than pointless solipsism or pseudo-scientific references to quantum mechanics. We don't live without imagining and we all talk about imaginary things. So I think this is important.

 

[quatona]

If I didn't say "things" I would be using some other semantic realization and it wouldn't make a difference.

Sure it would make a difference. It would prevent the danger of false equivocation, as e.g. employed by the ontological argument.

And I am distinguishing these things from the objects of our shared, everyday reality.

Cool.

These well-known problems in ontology have been debated since antiquity.

Yes, so?

I think the present discussion has a lot more merit than pointless solipsism or pseudo-scientific references to quantum mechanics.

Like, what merits, for example?

We don't live without imagining and we all talk about imaginary things. So I think this is important.

The importance of imagination isn´t in dispute.

 

[Chesterton]

No, but it does mean meaningless. The attribute "exists" essentially has no meaning. And as the only objects that don't have that attribute don't actually exist... How can it meaningfully be said to be an attribute at all?

Yo shoutouts to Saturday afternoon, AKA the perfect time to chug a bottle box of wine.

If the redundancy renders it meaningless, I hope you didn't pay much for the wine, because I suspect non-existent wine is much cheaper, maybe even free.

 

[Chesterton]

Then there isn´t a thing or an it, to boot. "A thing that doesn´t exist" has no referent.

"This thing doesn´t exist" can never be true.

Mr. Clinton, you need to refresh yourself on the definition of "is". "Is" means "is" means "exists" (or "be" for any of our 300-year-old English pirate friends).

The problem is: "red is red" carries no information whatsoever. It is meaningless. As such, it can´t be true or untrue.

Let the record reflect that the poster has denied the redness of red, and/or the red of redness, and is therefore unfit to further debate. He must be delivered at once to the looney bin, do not pass "Go", etc.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Rapunzel has long hair. But mental phenomena do not have spatial extension or color. If they did, Rapunzel would be real. But she isn't.

Rapunzel has long hair in narrative. She and her hair have a narrative existence. They have color and spatial extension in the imagination, or whatever counts for that in the mind

I agree that Rapunzel is not "real" in that the concept does not refer to a flesh and blood woman. It's a "broken reference". However, Rapunzel certainly does exist as precisely what she is... a story character.


eudaimonia,

Mark