Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:27:48 +0000 From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: BHA: Re: causal criterion of existence Hi Ruth, >de-onts >are things that don't exist, On the contrary. What is being claimed is that deonts do exist. >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. None of us in the Devil's party has claimed that absence is a thing. The reification is all on your part, not ours. This, together with your emphasis on 'powerful particulars', looks to me like a residue of an atomistic, positivisitic, billiard-ball ontology. Mervyn Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> writes >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 --- -- Mervyn Hartwig 13 Spenser Road Herne Hill London SE24 ONS United Kingdom Tel: 020 7 737 2892 Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005