{"id":9663,"date":"2012-05-30T16:57:27","date_gmt":"2012-05-30T16:57:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/05\/30\/the-thin-theory-is-circular\/"},"modified":"2012-05-30T16:57:27","modified_gmt":"2012-05-30T16:57:27","slug":"the-thin-theory-is-circular","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/05\/30\/the-thin-theory-is-circular\/","title":{"rendered":"The Thin Theory is Circular!"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">London Ed demands that I reduce my circularity objection&#0160;to a sound bite.&#0160; No can do.&#0160; But at least I can combat this travesty <a href=\"http:\/\/ocham.blogspot.com\/2012\/05\/its-not-obvious-whats-obvious.html\" target=\"_self\">he ascribes<\/a> to me:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">The thin conception of &#39;exists&#39; is that &#39;An F exists&#39; means the same as &#39;The concept *F* is instantiated&#39;<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">But if *F* is instantiated, then it is instantiated by an individual that exists<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Therefore the thin conception of &#39;exists&#39; is circular.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">So let me try once more.&#0160; I will try to be succinct.&#0160; But there is no way I can get my point across in just a few sentences.&#0160; Philosophy cannot be reduced to sound bites!<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">1. On the thin theory, &#39;An F exists&#39; means the same as &#39;The concept *F* is instantiated.&#39;<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">2. If a first-level concept such as *F* is instantiated, then it is instantiated by an individual.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">3. Let the arbitrary constant &#39;a&#39; denote an individual that instantiates *F.*<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">We now ask whether <em>a <\/em>exists, does not exist, both, or neither.&#0160; These are the only options.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">4. By LNC, <em>a<\/em> cannot both exist and not exist.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">5. By LEM, <em>a<\/em> must either exist or not exist.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">6. If <em>a<\/em> does not exist, i.e., if <em>a<\/em> is a Meinongian nonexistent object, then the link expressed in (1) between existence and instantiation is broken.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Therefore<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">7. If&#0160;&#0160;*F* is instantiated, then&#0160;*F* is instantiated by an individual that exists.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Therefore<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">8. On the thin theory, &#39;An F exists&#39; means the same as &#39;The concept *F* is instantiated by an individual that exists.&#39;<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">9. A definition (analysis, account, theory, explanation ) is circular iff the term to be defined occurs in the defining term.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">10. &#39;Exists&#39; occurs both in (8)&#39;s <em>definiendum<\/em> and its <em>definiens<\/em>.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Therefore<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">11. The thin theory is circular.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\"><em>Summary<\/em>:&#0160; Our question is: What is existence?&#0160; The thin theory maintains that existence reduces to instantiation.&#0160; The whole point of the theory is that existence is in no sense a property of individuals; what it is is a property of concepts, the property of having an instance.&#0160; But if a first-level concept is instantiated, it is instantiated by an individual&#0160;that exists. Therefore, the attempt to reduce existence to instantiation ends up presupposing what was to be reduced, namely existence, and is a failed theory for this reason.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\"><em>Objection<\/em>.&#0160; (5) is&#0160;false. Individual <em>a<\/em> neither exists nor does not exist.&#0160; To exist = to be instantiatiated, and no individual is either instantiated or not instantiated.&#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\"><em>Reply<\/em>.&#0160; This objection begs the question.&#0160; The question is whether existence can be reduced to instantiation.&#0160; One cannot just assume that it can be so reduced.&#0160; Furthermore,it is a plain fact that individuals exist.&#0160; I exist. This cat exists.&#0160; And of course the existence of this cat is not its being instantiated.&#0160; Since I exist, and my existence is not my being instantiated, existence cannot be reduced to instantiation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">The point could be put as follows.&#0160; The thin theory tries to reduce singular existence to general existence.&#0160; But general existence presupposes singular existence: there cannot exist cats in&#0160;general unless this or that individual is a cat and exists.&#0160; Therefore, singular existence cannot be reduced to general existence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">It may &#0160;that what London Ed is doing is simply stipulating that &#39;exist(s)&#39; shall mean &#39;is instantiated.&#39;&#0160; But an arbitrary stipulation gratuitously made can be gratuitously rejected.&#0160; That individuals exist is a plain fact, innocent until proven guilty.&#0160; The question about existence cannot be answered by any mere stipulative definition.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>London Ed demands that I reduce my circularity objection&#0160;to a sound bite.&#0160; No can do.&#0160; But at least I can combat this travesty he ascribes to me: The thin conception of &#39;exists&#39; is that &#39;An F exists&#39; means the same as &#39;The concept *F* is instantiated&#39;But if *F* is instantiated, then it is instantiated by &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/05\/30\/the-thin-theory-is-circular\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;The Thin Theory is Circular!&#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],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-existence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9663","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=9663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9663\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}