|
|
Roberto Vescarelli wrote:
> Dear Owen,
>
> your opinions are expression of classical logic. I know that classical logic
> have a lot ef existential presupposition:
>
> a) every constant symbol denotes
>
> b) if Pa is true, then is true 'exist an x such that Px'
>
> etc.
>
> My aim is to improve a logic grounded on the distinction beetwen being and
> existence (Meinong, Russell [Princ. of Math. par. 427]) and the findings of
> contemporary free logics (Lambert, etc.). So I want to search a logic free
> of existential presuppositions.
There cannot be a logic that is without existential suppositions.
>
> You can see that this logic is coherent as classical logic, but is
> alternative to it.
No it is not.
>
> If you don't want to help me in developing this logic, because you are a
> defenser of classical views, you can not help me.
There is no help to be given, your persuit is silly.
Clearly, non-existent things have no properties, that's it!
>
> Greetings
>
> --
> Roberto Vescarelli
> http://www.faberbox.com/roby/
|
|