[Wittrs] [C] Re: Sense of "Is"
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:39:19 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>
> Kant said that being is not a 'real' predicate, which in Kantian
> jargon means a predicate that adds determinations to the subject.
> 'being' remains a logical predicate --- it is a 'real' (in the
> sense of genuine) predicate but not a 'real' (in the sense of
> determining) predicate.
As to exactly what Kant did or didn't say about "is", or the German
equivalent, I will have to trust y'all.
But your example here shows two different games in which it can be
used. One is an ontological game, the other is a linguistic game.
It explains why one might want to use "to be" predicates for,
say, unicorns - or existential predicates, at all.
Is "is" the same word, across games?
Josh
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
