|
|
Owen wrote:
> Paul Holbach wrote:
> > > Owen wrote:
> > > > Roberto Vescarelli wrote:
> >
> > > > (a) there are in common language such words like 'Father Christmas'
> > > > used to
> > > > denote non-existing objects
> >
> > > I don't agree that 'Santa Clause' or 'Father Christmas' denote
> > > anything at all.
> > > They are referred to only by the predicates that describe them. They
> > > have no objectual reference.
> >
> > There are two competing theories of reference, both of which are
> > coherently defensible:
> >
> > (1) If a does not exist, then "a" refers to nothing (i.e. then "a" is
> > irreferential).
> >
> > (2) If a does not exist, then "a" refers to something, but to something
> > nonexistent.
> >
> > #PH
>
>
> > (2) If a does not exist, then "a" refers to something, but to something
> > nonexistent.
>
> What kind of things are 'nonexistent'?
>
> Why do you assume that nonexistent things exist?
There is some x such that it is non-existent, is nonsense at best.
|
|