Philosophy Now Forum

Definitions first:

is ~ the third person singular presnt indicative of the verb be

be ~ to exist in actuality; have reality or life

How odd then, to say, "He is dead."

aloysius wrote:Definitions first:

is ~ the third person singular presnt indicative of the verb be

be ~ to exist in actuality; have reality or life

How odd then, to say, "He is dead."

Exactly! Check this out!

In parts of my country and in the past "He be dead" is acceptable.

Arising_uk wrote:In parts of my country and in the past "He be dead" is acceptable.

I think you might still get away with it in Last of the Summer Wine.

Oo! Arr!!

Pirates say "He be dead".

aloysius wrote:Definitions first:

is ~ the third person singular presnt indicative of the verb be

be ~ to exist in actuality; have reality or life

How odd then, to say, "He is dead."

THe question is, does language affect the way we think about the reality of life? Is the fact that we tend to suggest a state of existence to "being" dead, make us avoid the real problem of ceasing to be? Does it encourage thought of an afterlife- a passing over, a passing away, rather than a full termination.
Or is it the case that because we tend to believe in an afterlife that we allow such wooly thinking to effect our language?

It is very much the same question you can ask when people use "WHY" when "HOW" is more appropriate to ask scientific questions; when the "why" asserts intentionality in nature.

shmell wrote:

aloysius wrote:Definitions first:

is ~ the third person singular presnt indicative of the verb be

be ~ to exist in actuality; have reality or life

How odd then, to say, "He is dead."

Isn't death real? You can paraphrase it in "He exists in a state of death"

You can say that death is a thing that happened. But the whole point of death is that it is definable as the cessation , the termination of the existence of a person, so no there is no existence in death.

But you've simply taken one of the many definitions of "be" and applied it where it doesn't belong. Another definition from Merriam-Webster is "to have a specified qualification or characterization". So there's nothing weird about saying "He is dead".

How can you "have" anything when you don't exist, as in death?

aloysius wrote:Definitions first:

is ~ the third person singular presnt indicative of the verb be

be ~ to exist in actuality; have reality or life

How odd then, to say, "He is dead."

Yes but "concepts" can be "alive". The word is a metaphor.

language is double plus good

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:language is double plus good

-Imp

No it is not. It is triple plus excellent, with meritorious extras.