From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 11:11 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Are irrational numbers supernatural? "Paul Holbach" wrote > > > you first need to know whether > > > there is a real O named X, for if there is no O, there cannot be any > > > O-properties. > > > > I favor an opposing view called Bundle Theory: a thing is nothing > > more than the bundle of its essential properties. > > I never said a word about wolly and obsolete metaphysical notions like > "substance" or "essence"! Does this mean you agree with Bundle Theory? > "to exist" is a pseudo-predicate, i.e. it is not a > first-order predicate such as "to sit" but a second-order or > meta-predicate predicating of a predicate (or its metaphysical > equivalent "property") that the latter is in fact "instantiated" by a > real thing. I agree that this is the logical sense of "exist". There is a separate ontological sense that indeed is a first-order predicate: "having a causal relationship with the rest of the universe". > If there werenīt any > animals possessing all sheep-typical properties (as subsumed under the > concept of "sheep"), statements such as eg "sheep Paula is 10 years > old" could never be true. Thatīs all Iīve intended to demonstrate. This is a long way from "we cannot know what we cannot know". :-) > a statement like "X has two legs" cannot > be verified as long as there is no object which is known to be X. It can if "has two legs" is an implication of the properties that constitute being X. > once there is direct acquaintance with the X-object, > you can start examining it for its real properties by means of which > it can be described and thereby successfully identified by someone who > hasnīt made any personal acquaintance with the X-object before. This is indeed how meaning is elaborated for words that are basically extensional, like 'water'/'wetness'. However, this is not how meaning is elaborated for words that are basically intensional, like 'God'/'supernatural'. > > > We simply cannot know what we cannot know, so we cannot > > > even SAY what we cannot know, as Wittgenstein would put it! > > letīs simply forget about this quotation...! ... and continue our search for a Wittgensteinian insight *not* worth forgetting... :-) > There are myriads of other NON-nonsense-or-banal-truism statements by > Wittgenstein which prove that he is justifiably considered to be the > most important analytic philosopher of the 20th-century! What would you say is his greatest insight or best theory? His picture theory of meaning is lame. His critique of absolute certainty is banal. His view of metaphysics is wrong. His notion of language "games" is hopelessly over-burdened. Being clever or good-looking or influential is not the same thing as producing good philosophy. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net