{"id":9866,"date":"2012-03-12T05:44:21","date_gmt":"2012-03-12T05:44:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/03\/12\/another-stromboli-logic-problem\/"},"modified":"2012-03-12T05:44:21","modified_gmt":"2012-03-12T05:44:21","slug":"another-stromboli-logic-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/03\/12\/another-stromboli-logic-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Expressibility of &#8216;Something Exists&#8217;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Surely this is a valid and sound argument:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">1. Stromboli exists.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Ergo<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">2. Something exists.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Both sentences are true; both are meaningful; and the second follows from the first.&#0160; How do we translate the argument into the notation of standard first-order predicate logic with identity? Taking a cue from Quine we may formulate (1) as<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">1*.&#0160; For some x, x = Stromboli. In English:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">1**. Stromboli is identical with something.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">But how do we render (2)?&#0160; Surely not as &#39;For some x, x exists&#39; since there is no first-level predicate of existence in standard logic.&#0160; And surely no ordinary predicate will do.&#0160; Not horse, mammal, animal, living thing, material thing, or any other predicate reachable by climbing the tree of Porphyry.&#0160; Existence is not a <em>summum genus<\/em>.&#0160; (Aristotle, Met. 998b22, AnPr. 92b14) What is left but self-identity?&#0160; Cf. <a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2011\/07\/being-as-the-apotheosis-of-the-copula-freges-eliminativism-in-his-dialogue-with-p%C3%BCnjer-on-existence.html\" target=\"_self\">Frege&#39;s dialog with Puenjer<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">So we try,<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">2*. For some x, x = x.&#0160; In plain English:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">2**. Something is self-identical.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">So our original argument becomes:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">1**. Stromboli is identical with something.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Ergo<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">2**. Something is self-identical.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">But what (2**) says is not what (2) says.&#0160;&#0160;&#0160;The result is a murky travesty of the original luminous argument.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">What I am getting at is that standard logic cannot state its own presuppositions.&#0160; It presupposes that everything exists (that there are no nonexistent objects) and that something exists.&#0160; But it lacks the expressive resources to state these presuppositions.&#0160; The attempt to state them results&#0160;either in &#0160;nonsense &#8212; e.g. &#39;for some x, x&#39; &#8212; or a proposition other than the one that needs expressing.&#0160; <\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">It is true that something exists, and I am certain that it is true: it follows immediately from the fact that I exist.&#0160; But it cannot be said in standard predicate logic.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">What should we conclude?&#0160; That standard logic is defective in its treatment of existence or that there are things that can be SHOWN but not SAID?&#0160; In April 1914. G.E.&#0160;Moore travelled to Norway and paid a visit to Wittgenstein&#0160;where the &#0160;latter dictated some notes to him.&#0160; Here is one:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">In order that you should have a language which can express or <em>say<\/em> everything that can be said, this language must have certain properties; and when this is the case, <em>that<\/em> it has them can no longer be said in that language or <em>any<\/em> language. (<em>Notebooks 1914-1916<\/em>, p. 107)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Applied to the present example:&#0160; A language that can SAY that e.g. island volcanos exist by saying that some&#0160;islands are volcanos or that Stromboli exists by saying that Stromboli is identical to something must have certain properties.&#0160; One of these is that the domain of quantification contains only existents and no Meinongian nonexistents.&#0160; But THAT the language has this property cannot be said in it or in any language.&#0160; Hence it cannot be said in the language of standard logic that the domain of quantification is a domain of existents or that something exists or that everything exists or that it is not the case that something does not exist.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Well then, so much the worse for the language of standard logic!<\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">&#0160; That&#39;s one response.&#0160; But can some other logic do better?&#0160; Or should we say, with the early Wittgenstein, that there is indeed the Inexpressible, the Unsayable, the Unspeakable, the Mystical?&#0160; And that it shows itself? <\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\"><em>Es gibt allerdings Unaussprechliches.&#0160; Dies zeigt sich, es ist&#0160;das Mystische. <\/em>(<strong>Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus<\/strong> 6.522)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Surely this is a valid and sound argument: 1. Stromboli exists.Ergo2. Something exists. Both sentences are true; both are meaningful; and the second follows from the first.&#0160; How do we translate the argument into the notation of standard first-order predicate logic with identity? Taking a cue from Quine we may formulate (1) as 1*.&#0160; For &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/03\/12\/another-stromboli-logic-problem\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;On the Expressibility of &#8216;Something Exists&#8217;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[142,408,108,275],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-existence","category-language-philosophy-of","category-logica-docens","category-wittgenstein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9866","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=9866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9866\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}