(By popular demand, I repost the following old Powerblogs entry.)<\/span><\/p>\n "The mark of a mark is a mark of the thing itself." I found this piece of scholasticism in C. S. Peirce. (Justus Buchler, ed., Philosophical Writings of Peirce<\/em>, p. 133) It is an example of what Peirce calls a 'leading principle.'<\/span><\/p>\n Let's say you have an enthymeme:<\/span><\/p>\n Enoch was a man<\/span> Invalid as it stands, this argument can be made valid by adding a premise. (Any invalid argument can be made valid by adding a premise.) Add 'All men die' and the argument comes out valid. Peirce writes:<\/span><\/p>\n The leading principle of this is nota notae est nota rei ipsius<\/em>.<\/span> Nota notae est nota rei ipsius<\/em><\/span> But is it true that the mark of a mark is a mark of the thing itself? There is no doubt that mortality is a mark of humanity in the following sense: The concept humanity<\/em> includes within its conceptual content the superordinate concept mortal<\/em>, which implies that, necessarily, if anything is human, then it is mortal. But mortality is not a mark, but a property, of Enoch. I am alluding to Frege's distinction between a Merkmal<\/em> and an Eigenschaft<\/em>. Frege explains this distinction in various places, one being The Foundations of Arithmetic<\/em>, sec. 53. But rather than quote Frege, I'll explain the distinction in my own way using a totally original example.<\/span><\/p>\n Consider the concept bachelor<\/em>. This is a first-order or first-level concept in that the items that fall under it are not concepts but objects. The marks of a first-order concept are properties of the objects that fall under the concept. Now the marks of bachelor are unmarried<\/em>, male<\/em>, adult<\/em>, and not a member of a religious order<\/em>. These marks are themselves concepts, concepts one can extract from bachelor<\/em> by analysis. Given that Tom falls under bachelor, he has these marks as properties. Thus unmarried<\/em>, etc. are not marks of Tom, but properties of Tom, while unmarried<\/em>, etc. are not properties of bachelor<\/em> but marks of bachelor<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n To appreciate the Merkmal <\/em>(mark)-Eigenschaft<\/em> (property) distinction, note that the relation between a concept and its marks is entirely different from the relation between a concept and its instances. A first-order concept includes its marks without instantiating them, while an object instantiates its properties without including them.<\/span><\/p>\n This is a very plausible line to take. It makes no sense to say of a concept that it is married or unmarried, so unmarried cannot be a property of the concept bachelor<\/em>. Concepts don't get married or remain single. But it does make sense to say that a concept includes certain other concepts, its marks. On the other hand, it makes no sense to say of Tom that he includes certain concepts since he could do such a thing only if he were a concept, which he isn't. But it does make sense to say of Tom that he has such properties as being a bachelor, being unmarried, being an adult, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n Reverting to Peirce's example, mortality is a mark of humanity, but not a mark of Enoch. It is a property of Enoch. For this reason the scholastic formula is false. Nota notae NON est nota rei ipsius<\/em>. The mark of a mark is not a mark of the thing itself but a property of the thing itself.<\/span><\/p>\n No doubt commenter Edward the Nominalist will want to wrangle with me over this slight to his scholastic lore, and I hope he does, since his objections will aid and abet our descent into the labyrinth of this fascinating cluster of problems. But for now, two quick applications.<\/span><\/p>\n One is to the ontological argument, or rather to the ontological argument aus lauter Begriffen<\/em> as Kant describes it, the ontological argument "from mere concepts." So we start with the concept of God and <\/span>analyze it. God is omniscient, etc. But 'surely' existence is also contained in the concept of God. For a God who did not exist would lack a perfection, a great-making property; such a God would not be id <\/em><\/span>quo maius cogitari non posse<\/em>. He would not be that than which no greater can be conceived. To conceive God, then, is to conceive an existing God, whence it follows that God exists! For if you are <\/span>conceiving a nonexistent God, then you are not conceiving God.<\/span><\/p>\n Frege refutes this version of the OA — not the only or best version I hasten to add — in one sentence: Weil Existenz Eigenschaft des Begriffes ist, erreicht der ontologische Beweis von der Existenz Gottes sein Ziel nicht.<\/em> (Grundlagen der Arithmetik<\/em>, sec. 53) "Because existence is a property of concepts, the ontological argument for the existence of God fails to attain its goal." What Frege is saying is that the OA "from mere concepts" rests on the mistake of thinking of existence as a mark of concepts as opposed to a property of concepts. No concept for Frege is such that existence is included within it. <\/span>Existence is rather a property of concepts, the property of having an instance.<\/span><\/p>\n The other application of my rejection of the scholastic formula above is to the logical question of the correct interpretation of singular propositions. The scholastics treat singulars as if they are generals <\/span>as I explained fully in previous posts. But if Frege is right, this is a grave logical error since it rides roughshod over the mark\/property distinction. To drag this all into the full light of day will take many more posts.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (By popular demand, I repost the following old Powerblogs entry.) "The mark of a mark is a mark of the thing itself." I found this piece of scholasticism in C. S. Peirce. (Justus Buchler, ed., Philosophical Writings of Peirce, p. 133) It is an example of what Peirce calls a 'leading principle.' Let's say you … Continue reading “Nota Notae Est Nota Rei Ipsius<\/i> and the Ontological Argument”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[126,108,271,733],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10519","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-frege","category-logica-docens","category-ontological-arguments","category-peirce"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10519","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10519"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10519\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10519"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10519"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10519"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
—–<\/span>
Enoch died.<\/span><\/p>\n
Stating this as a premiss, we have the argument,<\/span><\/p>\n
Mortality is a mark of humanity, which is a mark of Enoch<\/span>
—–<\/span>
Mortality is a mark of Enoch.<\/span><\/p>\n