[Wittrs] [C] Re: Sense of "Is"
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:43:10 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jrstern" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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
Not hardly if one game is amounting to willful abuse of word meaning for some
effect or another.
But I don't see that any answer to your question will be really deep, yet.
Budd
>
>
> =========================================
> Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
