[lit-ideas] Re: Movies without Guns, deliaf@netvision.net.il
- From: Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:48:12 -0700
Michael Chase wrote:
Le 16 sept. 05, à 14:27, Eric Yost a écrit :
M.C. Was ist ein Ding?
[Eric's quip snipped.]
Thing, Ding—ils sont la même chose, n'est-ce pas?
Now:
Seriously, though, folks. When R. Paul says "When I say that I don't
believe (and surely, on reflection, neither do you) that every noun has
as its referent something that subsists by itself as a separate and
distinct thing, I'm trying to point out that just because we can talk of
knowledge, love, hope, and anger, these are not independently existing
'things,'"
Instead of trying to define the English word 'thing' (which Mike knows
perfectly well how to use) I'll suggest that instead of saying what
I did, I might have just said, 'these do not exist independently (of the
doings, feelings, and states of affairs which illustrate what we mean
by, e.g. 'fairness'). But this won't satisfy Mike, who then wants next
to ask what I mean by 'existence.'
Then I don't know what he means, because I don't know what he means
by "thing". Is a thing equivalent to an existent? If so, is there only
one kind of existence ? I notice R. Paul uses the word "subsist" on at
least one occasion : is this different than "exist"? Are non-existent
things "things"? If not, why not? What about ideas? Do they exist? Are
they things? If not, why not?
I've said a bit about the Mike's first worry, above. 'Is a thing
equivalent to an existent?' I don't even know what this question means,
so maybe I could be let off trying to answer it. 'Subsist' means a
number of things (see Webster) but I'll take it to mean something like
'to continue to exist,' which one can take or leave or dismiss as
question-begging. It's usually thought that the items in the list of
examples hang around for awhile, even to the extent that love (Love),
and not just the word or concept 'love' would be there even if no one
were now or ever had been in love (and so with Fairness, Anger, etc.)
This I deny.
If Mike likes, I'll give him the word 'existence,' with the
understanding that when I use it, I use it this way: To say that
ourang-outangs exist is to say that there are ourang-outangs; to say
that ideas exist is to say that there are ideas; and so on. The last
quarrelsome question, 'Do [ideas] exist? Are they things? If not, why
not?' is just silly. There are ideas. Are they things? Well, do you
understand the sentences 'There are, after all, such things as ideas,'
and 'Ideas are things which are implanted in us by hypnosis,' or do you
only understand them when the word 'things' is removed, as in 'There are
ideas'? ('And what sort of thing is an idea?')
When the child says, 'Something frightened me,' does the child have to
have an essentialist (or any other) kind of definition of the word
'something' before we understand what he or she is saying? Is this a
theory (of meaning, of existence, of reference)? I think you owe me at
least a few answers, Mike, and not just some scatter-gun responses. I'd
like to hear your own thoughts.
'What is there?'
'Everything.'
Robert Paul
etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
