I guess you're not going to bother to explain the different senses of "exist"/"there is" that you're employing?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:44 amNo, we've done all this many times already.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:42 amYour views are in a mess because you are grounding your claims based on an assumption of Philosophical Realism,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:45 pm Do you understand equivocation? Using a word in two or more different ways? If you do, you can see why your question is incoherent, as I explained with the example of mathematical objects. The premise 'if there are mathematical objects, then mathematical objects exist' is a conceptual mess, given a physical use of the word 'exist'.
If, as a physicalist, you say that mathematical objects - or any other abstract things, such as meanings - exist, then you must clarify your use of the word 'exist' in that context. In other words, if you think they exist in a non-physical way, you must, as a physicalist, justify that claim.
Try these claims:
1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist.
2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist.
3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.
4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist.
You've said that I may be deaf to the use of language in these contexts. But if you really can see no difference between the uses of 'exist' in 1 and 2, and its uses in 3 and 4, then I suggest the problem is yours.
which is grounded on a psychological impulse driven by an existential crisis.
'Exist' or existence is not a predicate.
"Exist" or "is" is merely a copula that joins the subject to the predicate.
Whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Whatever the proper meaning of any term it must be conditioned by the Semantics FSK and whether the term and its meaning say 'cat' exists as real, it must be conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
- 1 There are what we call cats; therefore cats exist as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
2 Cats have what we call claws; therefore claws exist, as conditioned by the Scientific [biology] FSK.
3 There are what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
4 Sentences have what we call meanings; therefore meanings exist, as conditioned by the Semantics FSK.
So, whatever "exist" or "is" must be predicated or conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Objective moral principles exist as conditioned by the Moral FSK which is a near equivalent to the credible Scientific FSK.
A description of a real thing is a truth-claim, and a description is always contextual.
But, as you say, existence is not a predicate; a thing either does or doesn't exist. So the existence of a thing is not 'conditioned' or dependent on a descriptive context. That a thing exists has nothing to do with how it is described.
We have empirical evidence for the actual existence of cats, claws and sentences. But, to my knowledge, we have no evidence for the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness.
An opinion - even one held by everyone - is still an opinion, which is subjective. But a fact - such as the existence of cats, claws and sentences - even one acknowledged by nobody - is still a fact, how ever we name and describe it.
Re this, by the way:
"Do you think mathematical objects, such as numbers, exist? Are you a Platonist? Mathematical language exists, of course. But what and where is the number one?"
Mathematical objects, numbers, etc. exist as brain states--as ways of thinking about relations. I'm not using "exist" in any different sense there. There's just one sense on my usage. So no I'm not a platonist. But yes, mathematical objects exist as brain states in the individuals thinking about relations in a mathematical manner.
"Okay. Does the meaning of a sentence exist in the same way that a sentence exists?"
Yes. There aren't "different ways of existing." I don't know what the heck that would refer to.
"If not, what and where is the meaning of a sentence, and in what way does it exist? "
Again, meaning is a brain state that an individual can be in. Meaning is an associative way of thinking.
"a noun must be the name of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow."
The idea of anything existing without having a location is incoherent, as I mentioned above. You'd need to explain how you'd think that could be the case for anything, if that's what you're thinking. You'd have to explain how that's supposed to work ontologically on your view.