"[Meinong] argued, if you say that the golden mountain does not exist, it is obvious that there is something that you are saying does not exist -- namely the golden mountain; therefore the golden mountain must subsist in some shadowy Platonic world of being, for otherwise your statement that the golden mountain does not exist would have no meaning. I confess that, until I hit upon the theory of descriptions, this argument seemed to me convincing."-- Bertrand Russellu wot, mate?
The Golden Mountain exists in concept, but not physically.
This guy makes pseuds seethe.
>>23624891>reads last sentence of quote>laughs at you
It means that "The Golden Mountain" is an element of the set of not-existing things. Thus it does not exist, as existence is limit to the things that are the case.
>>23624817Bertrand Russel was a well-known bitch and bad the physiognomy of an ostrich
>>23625006He was a British Yoda through and through.
>>23624817>this argument seemed to me convincing."lollmao
>>23624886>>23625002
>>23625011Russell is mistaken in thinking of the Golden Mountain as a sort of shadowy form in the metaphysical realm. By using "the Golden Mountain", we are simply referring to the empty set
Why did Brits, out of everyone in Europe, seem to lack any concept of a soul? It's like they tried to invent the most boring and obtuse culture possible. Only the Germans surpass them in this respect, but, at least the Germans liked to get drunk and fuck around with savagery. Russel, every word I've read by him, it's like reading a computer or a robot speaking. No blood in those veins!And whenever a Brit came around who did have a life force, they'd run him off the island. These people enslaved the Irish because they were pissed that they liked to have sex and sing songs. Even their food, its like what an alien would eat. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
>>23625018Even when he stopped thinking of it that way, his so-called solution in his paper "On Denoting" was to muddy the waters unnecessarily and still fail to appreciate a distinction that most Nickelodeon-watching kids appreciate.
>>23625002Something that doesn't exist cannot be an element of something, or else it exists since it is being qualified as some type of entity. This is in fact not what Russell meant with his criticism of Meinong in 'On Denoting'; instead, he sought to remove any such nonsensical self-refuting talk of "non-existent entities" from his entire project, due to the obvious fact this would commit him to the absurdity of speaking of things which are non-things, or treating existence as any other kind of quality when existence is precisely what defines the ability to have any particular kind of quality in the first place. Russell devises a logical translation of definitive statements in the negative existential form that basically amounts in ordinary language to "there is nothing such that it is a golden mountain", which has the unique virtue of dropping this ridiculous pretense of treating "the golden mountain" as the subject, by simply saying there is nothing that *is* a golden mountain. It is just a negation of the relevant claim, not a classification of a kind of entity as you see it - an entity which by its own rules cannot be an entity, because in order to be an entity, it must exist, since to speak of something as having the quality of non-existence is paradoxical. How can something be which is literally no-thing?
>>23625028>to speak of something as having the quality of non-existence is paradoxical.Not him, but it's paradoxical in only the midwit's mind. "On Denoting" was much ado about nothing.
>>23625028Dualism is the white man's cancer
>>23624886What does it mean for something to exist in concept but not physically? Are the objects, like the non-existent golden mountain, that are seemingly contained within concepts really objects, or is the concept itself the object? If we think that all objects we can conceive of are ones we can actually refer to because of this conceptual eye we have for them, then what am I referring to when I say "the golden mountain that is outside of my bedroom window" when there is no golden mountain outside of my bedroom window? Am I referring then to my real bedroom window or a conceptualization of it? Am I saying a concept is outside of my window in this statement, should it even be treated that way?
>>23624817Why is Meinongs books so out of print or expensive?
>>23625040Physical things don't even exist like you think they do. And every non physical thing exists more than you think it does. Infinity implies certain things
>>23625028>>23625040
>>23625032truth bomb, existence presupposes logic, not non-existence. >>23625028There is no "golden mountain", the speaker is merely saying that nothing is not existing. It is not a negation of a thing, as there is no such thing as the golden mountain. The confusion is created by referring to non-existence using words that create imagery/feelings which the subject relates to existing things (in this case, a mountain and gold)This is different from the situation in which a physical mountain of gold, has stopped existing, and one refers to the negant of its state of being. (i.e. it now does not exist)
Do you guys realize that you're arguing about nothing
>>23625064ontology bros...
>>23625058It's a negation of a statement not a negation of a thing, you misread the post. To simply negate a "thing" wouldn't be controversial anyway, and it doesn't require that thing to exist like you seem to think for some insular and demented reason. >It is not a negation of a thing, as there is no such thing Yeah no shit retard, why would you negate, i.e.d deny that something *is*, when there is some entity that satisfies the positive statement. If I say "there is no monster under your bed son", that is I NEGATE that there is some monster under my son's bed poised to kill him, you'd think I'm wrong because I have to refer to the monster?
This thread disgusts me
>>23625058>It is not a negation of a thing, as there is no such thing as the golden mountainare you saying a golden mountain would need to exist in order for someone to deny it?
>>23625071the statement is not a negation either, as one can only refer to non-existence in the negative grammatically, and subject is different. "The Golden Mountain does not exist", is not the negant of "The Golden Mountain does exist."The former has no referent (it does not exist), the latter does.>>23625080to deny something, it needs to have existed. Otherwise, you are just using speech to refer to non-existence.If one says of a golden mountain which has been destroyed: "The golden mountain does not exist", one means that the golden mountain (which existed) does not exist anymore. The referent stays the object that existed, not some platonic non-existing object.
>>23625089that's just wrong, something clearly doesn't need to have existed for someone to deny it. are you esl? i can deny that zeus exists without also believing that at one point he controlled lightning in greece.
>>23625089What is the referent of "The non refererring object exists"?
for russell (and frege i think) existence isn't a predicate of objects so whether you're saying that something exists or doesn't exist doesn't predicate existence or nonexistence of an x but rather implies a negation of a quantified expression "there is one and only one x such that x is a king of france" and just opaquely stating that this is not the case in other words negates the whole expression
>>23625089>to deny something, it needs to have existed.Based Russell retard.
>>23625011What does a clock actually measure?
>>23625158historically clocks measured the angle of the sun from the horizon, the words minute, second, and hour are actually trigonometric terms meaning arcminutes arcseconds from the horizon etc.
>>23625184Those words are just shadowy forms made into widespread agreement.
>>23625189HOKAY BIG FELLA
>>23625197It's alright anon, I'll go back to keeping that sort of thing to myself, I know how important clock watching is to some of you.
>>23624817The scholastics already solved this and CS Peirce had just resurrected their work to give an account of semiotics. But Russell and Wittgenstein were allergic to a deep study or history and so they go off making theories from scratch which in turn end up having gigantic holes in them.
>>23625096The referent is a concept of a "non referring object". The sense (i.e. words) before the creation of the concept was meaningless, as the referent had not been created.>>23625093You can deny Zeus for he exists as myth. The referent need not exist physically. Only the subject doing the referring, needs to exist spatio-temporally, for the act of referring presupposes time (act) and space. (agent)>>23625105How can you refer to that which does not exist? If there is no referent, no reference is possible.
>>23625397>How can you refer to that which does not exist? If there is no referent, no reference is possible.So you would say if someone says "I am referring to a non-referential object." they are actually referring to something like that? But if they are referring to such an object, then they cannot be, since it wouldn't be non-referential anymore. If the ability to refer is sufficient to believe an object exists, then do unmarried bachelors and squared triangles exist because I can refer to them? You seem to be under the insane impression that whenever someone speaks of something that something must exist in some form because someone is able to speak of it.
>>23625035White man's cancer is sunburn-induced skin cancer
I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch. Numbers exist in the same sense, being a relation btn material and quantity, which is a relation btn one thing and many things. Golden mountain is a relation btn colour, or gold and mountain, etc.
>>23625577>btnFucking faggot.
>>23625585lmao, seethe at, these, unnecessary commas, faggot
>>23624817retroactively refuted by descartes, which is fucking embarrassing considering how much of a hack he was
>>23625158They measure the movement of one thing relative to the movement of another thing. E.g. the cesium atom wobbles X times for every one rotation of the Earth.
>>23624886No it doesn't, 'golden mountain' refers to nothing, it has no referent, no differently than 'square-circle' or any random doodle."It" exists nowhere, it's pointing/signification of a signifier without the signified.>though obviously there are definitely planets with lot's of gold and a mountain of mostly gold
>>23625006Always looked like a pureblood tortoise to me.
>>23625485If the referent does not exist, then all that has been said through speech is nonsense. This creates problems as people will try and interpret the nonsense as some sense with a referent.Unmarried bachelors do not exist in the world, but the referring to a logical paradox is possible using those words together. So, to say "I saw some unmarried bachelors" is utter nonsense.
>>23626207Are you under some sort of impression that increasing the sophistication by which you are arriving at the same base unit of measurement makes it real and tangible?
