A rant concerning the ontological dedication of the existential quantifier.
Right here’s an fascinating little philosophical puzzle.
If I say, “unicorns exist,” am I really saying that unicorns exist?
Properly, sure, one would possibly say. Clearly, that’s the which means of it.
Once I say, as a substitute, “not every part shouldn’t be a unicorn,” do I say that “unicorns exist” in the identical manner? Give it some thought: There are unicorns. Up to now, so good. After which, there are all this stuff which might be not unicorns: site visitors lights, lions, accountants, philosophy books, numbers. If every part was not a unicorn, then there wouldn’t be any unicorns. If not every part was a non-unicorn, then there certainly have to be a minimum of one unicorn; in any other case, every part would be a non-unicorn. Nonetheless with me?
The 2 statements are literally logically equal, as one can confirm by interested by the non-non-unicorns a bit of longer. Or, to provide a vegan instance: If not every part shouldn’t be an apple, then there have to be a minimum of one apple.
I can do that additionally by including a predicate to the sentence, some function that unicorns have, for instance, to love hackers. So I’d say, “there are unicorns that like hackers.” That is, as we now know, equal to: “not all unicorns dislike hackers.” Nevertheless it appears that there’s a delicate distinction between the 2 sentences. If somebody you simply met on the road advised you: “You realize, not all unicorns dislike hackers,” you’d most likely shake your head on the sorts of issues folks spend their time on, however you wouldn’t name the police. If the identical particular person mentioned: “There are unicorns that like hackers,” that may be a motive to actually fear about them. One way or the other the primary kind doesn’t really commit the speaker to the concept there actually are any unicorns round. “Not all unicorns dislike hackers,” might simply be a press release concerning the unicorn in poetry and artwork. Whereas “there are unicorns that like hackers,” appears to be severely delusional. And but, the 2 statements are logically equal.
What are we to make of this?
That is known as the issue of the “ontological commitment of the existential quantifier,” and it goes fairly a bit additional than that. “Ontological” right here means “associated to being,” so, for instance, to the precise being, the existence, of unicorns.
Once I say “unicorns exist,” I’m making an ontological dedication, I’m saying that these animals are literally standing round someplace, presumably ready for a hacker to return alongside. Once I say as a substitute that not all issues are non-unicorns, I appear to be saying one thing a few property of current issues (all these non-unicorns which no one disputes), however I’m circuitously claiming that unicorns exist.
For those who assume that every one that is nuts and a complete waste of time, personally I are inclined to agree. Nonetheless, it’s an enormous a part of what philosophers do in universities. At this time within the information I learn of a research predicting that 40% of all plant species will go extinct within the close to future. Philosophers speaking concerning the existential quantifier are like a employee making an attempt to complete a paint job on the Titanic, proper earlier than it goes beneath.
Maybe it’s time for all who should not non-philosophers, to make an ontological dedication to the existence of those 40% of all crops worldwide.
Thanks for studying and have a terrific day! (No, I imply it: have a terrific day. Simply avoid philosophers.)
Picture by Please Don’t sell My Artwork AS IS from Pixabay.
Share this:
