{"id":8955,"date":"2013-02-23T16:45:17","date_gmt":"2013-02-23T16:45:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/02\/23\/scollay-square-no-longer-exists\/"},"modified":"2013-02-23T16:45:17","modified_gmt":"2013-02-23T16:45:17","slug":"scollay-square-no-longer-exists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/02\/23\/scollay-square-no-longer-exists\/","title":{"rendered":"Scollay Square No Longer Exists"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">London Ed sends me a puzzle that I will formulate in my own way.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">1. Boston&#39;s Scollay Square no longer exists. Hence &#39;Scollay Square no longer exists&#39; is true.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">2. Removing &#39;Scollay Square&#39; from the closed sentence yields the open sentence, or predicate, or sentential function, &#39;____ no longer exists.&#39;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">3. If a subject-predicate sentence is true, then its predicate is <em>true of, <\/em>or<em> is&#0160;satisfied by,<\/em>&#0160;the referent of the sentence&#39;s subject term.&#0160; <\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">4. If x is satisfied by y, then both x and y exist.&#0160; (Special case of the principle that if x stands in a relation to y, then both relata exist.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">5. What no longer exists, does not exist. (An entailment of presentism.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">6. The referent of &#39;Scollay Square&#39; does not exist. (from 1 and 5)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">7. The referent of &#39;Scollay Square&#39; exists.&#0160; (from 1, 3, and 4)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">How do we avoid the contradiction?&#0160; As far as I can see we have exactly three options.&#0160; The first is to&#0160; posit an haecceity property that individuates Scollay Square &#0160;across all possible worlds, and then construe the original sentence as saying, of that haecceity property, that it is no longer instantiated.&#0160; Thus the original sentence is not about Scollay Square, which does not exist, but about an ersatz item, an abstract deputy that does exist., and indeed necessarily exists.&#0160;About this ersatz item we say that it now fails of instantiation.&#0160; The second option is to reject the principle that if a relation obtains between x and y, then both&#0160;x and y exist.&#0160; One might say that past objects are Meinongian nonexistent objects.&#0160;&#0160;&#0160; The third option is to reject presentism and say that what no longer exists exists alright, it just doesn&#39;t exist now.&#0160; (Analogy: the cat that is no longer in my lap exists alright, it just doesn&#39;t exist here.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">None of these options is palatable.&#0160; I should like London Ed to tell me which he favors.&#0160; Or&#0160;does he see another way out?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#0160;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>London Ed sends me a puzzle that I will formulate in my own way. 1. Boston&#39;s Scollay Square no longer exists. Hence &#39;Scollay Square no longer exists&#39; is true. 2. Removing &#39;Scollay Square&#39; from the closed sentence yields the open sentence, or predicate, or sentential function, &#39;____ no longer exists.&#39; 3. If a subject-predicate sentence &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/02\/23\/scollay-square-no-longer-exists\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Scollay Square No Longer Exists&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[142,408],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-existence","category-language-philosophy-of"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8955","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=8955"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8955\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}