Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:40:23 -0500 (EST) From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> Subject: Re: BHA: Re: causal criterion of existence Hi Tobin, Thanks for that. Really. But, okay, so de-onts are powerful particulars. And they (all of the infinite number of "things" that don't exist) exercise the powers that they do in virtue of what each one is like - their individual "characters" (mostly relational, you suggest). But a few things (at different levels of argument): First, granting for a moment this INSANE position (!), shouldn't we say that the basis for de-onts' powers is different from that of onts' powers? I.e., since de-onts are things that don't exist, it is unlikely that the basis for their powers is material. Second, if everything that exists AND everything that doesn't exist is a powerful particular, then what is the status of things that are *not* powerful particulars? Or is it that everything that exists and only some of the things that don't exist that are powerful particulars? Either way is potentially a problem, I think. If everything, existent and non-existent alike is a powerful particular, then the term doesn't mean much, and the causal criterion for existence (we need a new word - this category of "existence" includes things that don't exist) loses its force I think. On the other hand, if only SOME de-onts are powerful particulars, then I suspect that the reason why they are powerful and others are not is going to lead back to onts; it will be onts that actually determine whether a given de-ont is or is not a powerful particular. Which brings me back to my original question: Jan's list is lovely. But it doesn't tell me WHY I should think of the absence of a thing as itself a thing. It still seems like so much creative re-description, rather than a compelling case for an ontology that includes an infinite numbers of non-existent "things," a substantial portion of which aren't even "things" in the first place, but rather states of affairs, rendered thing-like. (Or "de"-thing-like.) Again, I know that I can, but why SHOULD I think of the fact that David is downstairs rather than in my study as a thing, called a de-ont? Sorry if my continuing cold is making me cranky, Ruth --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005