DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? Biblical Ontology and the Mystery of Existence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? Biblical Ontology and the Mystery of Existence Gericke: Why is there Something…? OTE 21/2 (2008), 329-344 329 Why is there something rather than nothing? Biblical ontology and the mystery of existence J. W. GERICKE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH-WEST ‘Penetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknow- able. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops’. H. L. Mencken ABSTRACT In metaphysics, perhaps the most fascinating but also the most commonly misunderstood problem presents itself in the question, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ This is the mystery of existence and it has proved to be insoluble as long as it is properly understood. One popular misconception with regard to the problem includes the belief that biblical ontology was concerned with a similar query, in response to which it supposedly offered the ‘god- hypothesis’ as a pre-philosophical solution to the riddle of the Real. In this paper, these assumptions are critically evaluated and shown to be both anachronistic and presumptuous. Protological aetiolo- gies in the Hebrew Bible show no trace of familiarity with the pro- blem of Being and the assumed deity-reality relation was never in- tended as a solution to the mystery of why things are the way they are, or why they are at all. A INTRODUCTION Why is there something rather than nothing? This question, properly under- stood, represents what the philosopher Martin Heidegger considered the most fundamental problem of all philosophical inquiry (see Long 2000:113). It con- cerns the mystery of existence – a riddle that in some form or another has vexed thinkers in both Eastern and Western philosophy since their inception. Already in ancient Indian religious literature the puzzle concerning the origin of Being was acknowledged as essentially insoluble (see Thrower 1980:28). Since the time of Parmenides (5th century B.C.E.) a related perplexity moti- vated philosophers to begin spending a substantial amount of time arguing whether nothingness is possible (Sorensen 2006). By the time the Modern Era arrived fashionably late the question of why anything happens to exist asserted itself with a vengeance to such an extent that following its (re)formulation in the writings of Leibniz, other philosophers including Hume, Kant, Schelling, 330 Gericke: Why is there Something…? OTE 21/2 (2008), 329-344 Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Sartre all felt compelled to say something in response to it (see Sorensen 2006). In the present postmo- dern period the question of why anything exists enjoys a somewhat ambivalent reputation. While some claim it to lie at the foundations of all metaphysical in- quiry (e.g. Kolak 1994:442) others (typically dismissive of all metaphysics) in- sist that it is nothing more than language on holiday, i.e. a pseudo-problem (see Cupitt 2001:77; Rundle 2004:165). For better or for worse, the question of why there happens to be some- thing rather than nothing is something that is of interest outside the circles of professional philosophers. In the context of religious debates in particular the problematic is interpreted to involve the origins of what is understood to be ‘created reality’. On this assumption there is no mystery and the reason why there is something rather than nothing is because there is a God who created it all. Those sceptical of theism share the assumption that the question is a) about causation and b) about the origins of the world. However, the sceptics differ from the believers in denying the need for a ‘god-hypothesis’ to explain why things are the way they are, or why they are at all. The question itself is there- fore heard now and again when arguments arise with reference to creationism vs. evolution, supernaturalism vs. naturalism, theism vs. atheism, etc. Whereas the apologists intend to use the question as a knock-down argument in order to convince the sceptics of the absurdity not to believe in an ‘intelligent Designer’ as ‘first cause’ (claiming everything could not just have come about by acci- dent), the atheists in turn argue that there is no evidence to suppose that what- ever caused this Universe to be is also a divine being (cf (Hick 1993:12; Harris 2002:177; Rundle 2004:75) Interestingly, both theistic and atheistic interpretations of the question of why there happens to be something rather than nothing seem to assume that the question concerns cause and effect, that it is only about the Universe, and that some sort of answer to it is possible. In this regard, many philosophers would beg to differ and will argue that both camps have misconstrued the meaning and scope of the mystery of existence in its proper philosophical sense. For ex- ample, Kolak (1994:441) suggests that anyone who responds to the riddle of the Real by answering ‘God’ or ‘Nature’ has simply not understood the pro- blem. For the mystery of existence is not about accounting for ‘creation’ or ‘the Universe’ – instead, it concerns the existence itself as a phenomenon, i.e. Being (which is inclusive of anything and everything assumed to exist). This means that if one believes God/Nature to exist (in any sense of the word), these enti- ties are existents and therefore included in the mystery of Being. As such they cannot be called upon as any sort of explanation in response to the question since they too are ‘something’ rather than nothing. Perhaps a better understan- ding of the scope of the problematic may be obtained if the question is under- stood to mean, ‘Why is there anything (including God/Nature), rather than nothing?’ Gericke: Why is there Something…? OTE 21/2 (2008), 329-344 331 Given this all-inclusive scope the question now seems unanswerable. How does one account for the totality of the Real other than by referring to something that is itself believed to be real…and therefore ultimately willy-nilly included in the totality for which an explanation is being sought? What could possibly account for existence per se that will not itself be assumed to exist and therefore part of the problem rather than its solution? And if one cannot appeal to something that is itself real or existing, how can that which is neither real nor extant be any sort of answer? What explanatory function do fictional phenomena have? In the end, taking cognisance of this dilemma makes us realize that the mystery of existence is far more mysterious than popular theistic or atheistic interpretations of it would like us to believe. The question of why there hap- pens to be something rather than nothing has therefore not without justification understood as being concerned with ‘The Ultimate Unanswerable Unknown’ (Kolak 1994:449) Of course, the idea of an unanswerable question runs counter to both religious and scientific types of common sense. In theory at least, it seems rea- sonable to believe that if one can meaningfully ask a question then there must be an answer somewhere out there – even if we do not and cannot know it. To be sure, even some philosophers get uncomfortable (or turn ecstatic) if they come across a question like this, giving rise as it does to a sneaking suspicion that no possible answer in response to it will ever be sufficient. Not surpri- singly, frantic attempts have been made to demystify the mystery. And yet all attempts to deconstruct the riddle of the Real have failed most spectacularly as a result of the protean nature of the question itself. The mystery seems to have the ability to reconfigure itself into a problematic format relative to the onto- logical assumptions of the particular explanatory paradigm summoned to solve it. The mystery seems to rearrange its own internal structure even as one is put- ting the pieces of the puzzle together. Hence the illusion that one is on the point of completing the jigsaw only to find that there is always a piece left over. It’s like walking into a maze that changes its shape as one seeks to traverse it; like a mirror that offers different backgrounds for different objects; like someone waking up every morning as somebody else. Theistic attempts to deal with the question have in common their claim that the god-hypothesis is in fact a sufficient explanation and that God is not to be included in the mystery of Being since the ontological status of deity is al- leged to transcend the problematic. According to the first view, God is a ‘necessary being’ and therefore the question of why God exists is meaningless. The problem with this view is that it involves the nonsensical idea that existence can be predicated as logical ne- cessity. Such is not the case in as much as the denial of something’s existence does not constitute a logical contradiction. In addition, simply appealing to the existence of a necessary being does not justify the belief that there is in fact 332 Gericke: Why is there Something…? OTE 21/2 (2008), 329-344 such a being, that that there is just one necessary being, or that the necessary being has anything to do with what is meant by the concept of ‘God’ (which one?), etc. More problematic is the fact that the existence of a necessary being does not even begin to account for the phenomenon of existence per se but must presuppose it. A necessary being can necessarily exist if and only if there is something rather than nothing – Being – to begin with. The argument is therefore the result of a failure to understand that the question in the context of the assumption that God is a necessary being does not involve asking why God exists – rather, on these assumptions that question involves asking why reality per se as a state of affairs characterised by the existence of God as necessary being happens to be, rather than no reality at all.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Formal Logic: Quantifiers, Predicates, and Validity
    Formal Logic: Quantifiers, Predicates, and Validity CS 130 – Discrete Structures Variables and Statements • Variables: A variable is a symbol that stands for an individual in a collection or set. For example, the variable x may stand for one of the days. We may let x = Monday, x = Tuesday, etc. • We normally use letters at the end of the alphabet as variables, such as x, y, z. • A collection of objects is called the domain of objects. For the above example, the days in the week is the domain of variable x. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 55 Quantifiers • Propositional wffs have rather limited expressive power. E.g., “For every x, x > 0”. • Quantifiers: Quantifiers are phrases that refer to given quantities, such as "for some" or "for all" or "for every", indicating how many objects have a certain property. • Two kinds of quantifiers: – Universal Quantifier: represented by , “for all”, “for every”, “for each”, or “for any”. – Existential Quantifier: represented by , “for some”, “there exists”, “there is a”, or “for at least one”. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 56 Predicates • Predicate: It is the verbal statement which describes the property of a variable. Usually represented by the letter P, the notation P(x) is used to represent some unspecified property or predicate that x may have. – P(x) = x has 30 days. – P(April) = April has 30 days. – What is the truth value of (x)P(x) where x is all the months and P(x) = x has less than 32 days • Combining the quantifier and the predicate, we get a complete statement of the form (x)P(x) or (x)P(x) • The collection of objects is called the domain of interpretation, and it must contain at least one object.
    [Show full text]
  • First-Order Logic Part Two
    First-Order Logic Part Two Recap from Last Time What is First-Order Logic? ● First-order logic is a logical system for reasoning about properties of objects. ● Augments the logical connectives from propositional logic with ● predicates that describe properties of objects, ● functions that map objects to one another, and ● quantifiers that allow us to reason about many objects at once. Some muggle is intelligent. ∃m. (Muggle(m) ∧ Intelligent(m)) ∃ existential quantifier ∃ isis thethe existential quantifier andand sayssays “for“for somesome choicechoice ofof m,m, thethe followingfollowing isis true.”true.” “For any natural number n, n is even if and only if n2 is even” ∀n. (n ∈ ℕ → (Even(n) ↔ Even(n2))) ∀ universal quantifier ∀ isis thethe universal quantifier andand sayssays “for“for anyany choicechoice ofof nn,, thethe followingfollowing isis true.”true.” “All A's are B's” translates as ∀x. (A(x) → B(x)) Useful Intuition: Universally-quantified statements are true unless there's a counterexample. ∀x. (A(x) → B(x)) IfIf xx isis aa counterexample,counterexample, itit mustmust havehave propertyproperty AA butbut notnot havehave propertyproperty BB.. “Some A is a B” translates as ∃x. (A(x) ∧ B(x)) Useful Intuition: Existentially-quantified statements are false unless there's a positive example. ∃x. (A(x) ∧ B(x)) IfIf xx isis anan example,example, itit mustmust havehave propertyproperty AA onon toptop ofof propertyproperty BB.. The Aristotelian Forms “All As are Bs” “Some As are Bs” ∀x. (A(x) → B(x)) ∃x. (A(x) ∧ B(x)) “No As are Bs” “Some As aren’t Bs” ∀x. (A(x) → ¬B(x)) ∃x. (A(x) ∧ ¬B(x)) ItIt isis worthworth committingcommitting thesethese patternspatterns toto memory.memory.
    [Show full text]
  • Whose Existence? a Deflationist Compromise to the Fregean/Neo-Meinongiandivide
    Whose Existence? A Deflationist Compromise to the Fregean/Neo-Meinongian Divide Giuliano Bacigalupo University of Geneva Abstract The dispute between the Fregean and the Neo-Meinongian approach to existence has become entrenched: it seems that nothing but intuitions may be relied upon to decide the issue. And since contemporary analytic philosophers clearly are in- clined towards the intuitions that support Frege’s approach, it looks as if Fre- geanism has won the day. In this paper, however, I try to develop a compromise solution. This compromise consists in abandoning the assumption shared by both Fregeanism and Neo-Meinongianism, namely that the notion of existence adds something to the content of a statement. To the contrary, we should think of ex- istence as a redundant notion. In other words, I will argue that we should be de- flationist about existence. Moreover, the kind of deflationism I propose relies on what I call the existence equivalence schema, a schema which follows the blue- print of the well-known truth equivalence schema. From such a perspective, we can say that Fregean philosophers rightly deny the status of a discriminating property to existence; and, conversely, Neo-Meinongians, too, rightly reject the view that existence is captured by quantification or expresses a universal property of objects. Finally, the argument that we should take a deflationist approach to existence builds upon an analysis of natural language (general) existential state- ments and their intuitive entailment-relations. Keywords: Existence, Frege, Meinong, Deflationism 1. Introduction There are few problems in philosophy on the solution of which there seems to be an overwhelming consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • Handout 5 – the Semantics of Predicate Logic LX 502 – Semantics I October 17, 2008
    Handout 5 – The Semantics of Predicate Logic LX 502 – Semantics I October 17, 2008 1. The Interpretation Function This handout is a continuation of the previous handout and deals exclusively with the semantics of Predicate Logic. When you feel comfortable with the syntax of Predicate Logic, I urge you to read these notes carefully. The business of semantics, as I have stated in class, is to determine the truth-conditions of a proposition and, in so doing, describe the models in which a proposition is true (and those in which it is false). Although we’ve extended our logical language, our goal remains the same. By adopting a more sophisticated logical language with a lexicon that includes elements below the sentence-level, we now need a more sophisticated semantics, one that derives the meaning of the proposition from the meaning of its constituent individuals, predicates, and variables. But the essentials are still the same. Propositions correspond to states of affairs in the outside world (Correspondence Theory of Truth). For example, the proposition in (1) is true if and only if it correctly describes a state of affairs in the outside world in which the object corresponding to the name Aristotle has the property of being a man. (1) MAN(a) Aristotle is a man The semantics of Predicate Logic does two things. It assigns a meaning to the individuals, predicates, and variables in the syntax. It also systematically determines the meaning of a proposition from the meaning of its constituent parts and the order in which those parts combine (Principle of Compositionality).
    [Show full text]
  • First Order Logic Beyond Propositional Logic
    First Order Logic Beyond Propositional logic • Propositional logic not expressive enough – In Wumpus world we needed to explicitly write every case of Breeze & Pit relation – Facts = propositions – “All squares next to pits are breezy” • “Regular” programming languages mix facts (data) and procedures (algorithms) – World[2,2]=Pit – Cannot deduce/compose facts automatically – Declarative vs. Procedural Natural Language • Natural language probably not used for representation – Used for communication – “Look!” First-Order Logic • Idea: – Don’t treat propositions as “atomic” entities. • First-Order Logic: – Objects: cs4701, fred, ph219, emptylist … – Relations/Predicates: is_Man(fred), Located(cs4701, ph219), is_kind_of(apple, fruit)… • Note: Relations typically correspond to verbs – Functions: Best_friend(), beginning_of() : Returns object(s) – Connectives: , , , , – Quantifiers: • Universal: x: ( is_Man(x) ) is_Mortal(x) ) • Existential: y: ( is_Father(y, fred) ) Predicates • In traditional grammar, a predicate is one of the two main parts of a sentence the other being the subject, which the predicate modifies. • "John is yellow" John acts as the subject, and is yellow acts as the predicate. • The predicate is much like a verb phrase. • In linguistic semantics a predicate is an expression that can be true of something Wikipedia Types of formal mathematical logic • Propositional logic – Propositions are interpreted as true or false – Infer truth of new propositions • First order logic – Contains predicates, quantifiers and variables • E.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Domains of Discourse François Recanati
    Domains of discourse François Recanati To cite this version: François Recanati. Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer Verlag, 1996, 19 (5), pp.445-475. ijn_00000178 HAL Id: ijn_00000178 https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000178 Submitted on 9 Oct 2002 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Domains of discourse* François Recanati CREA (Ecole Polytechnique/CNRS) 1 rue Descartes, 75005 Paris, France I. Austinian semantics Natural language quantifiers often seem implicitly restricted. Thus when we say 'The burglar took everything', we have the feeling that 'everything' ranges over the domain of valuable objects in the house — not everything in the world. (In this case, it can be argued that there has to be some contextual restriction or other, for a totally unrestricted notion of 'everything in the world' hardly makes sense.) In the same way, someone who says 'Most students came to the party' is likely to have a particular group of students in mind, such that most students in that group came to the party. Footnotes * A decade ago I presented a first version of the theory of domains, inspired by Fauconnier's work, in a talk to the Aristotelian Society (Recanati 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • David Lewis's Neglected Challenge: It's Me Or God I
    David Lewis’s Neglected Challenge: It’s Me or God David Lewis’s Neglected Challenge: It’s Me or God Andrew Stephenson University of Oxford Abstract I begin by sketching a dialectic typical of modern discus- sions of the ontological argument and explain the underlying modal principles. I will not pursue this well-worn dialectic. Instead I will explicate David Lewis’s valid reconstruction (in first order predicate logic) of St Anselm’s argument in Proslogion-II. Lewis’s objections to this argument are based on his idiosyncratic views about modality. Implicitly, Lewis presents a challenge: either I am right about modality, or there is a sound version of the ontological argument. More specifically, Lewis claims there is no good reason to suppose there is anything special about the actual world. I suggest there is good reason to think that must be incorrect. Thus we are left with a formal version of the ontological argument for God’s existence that for all we have seen here looks eminently viable. I Modal versions of the ontological argument for Gods existence de- pend on the plausibility of their claim that some proposition p to the effect that God exists is possibly necessary (or, if they are com- fortable with de re modal ascriptions, their claim that God is such that He possibly necessarily exists). Such an argument might take the following form (sticking with modality de dicto): 55 Perspectives: International Postgraduate Journal of Philosophy (1) Possibly necessarily p (premise) (2) If possibly necessarily p then necessarily p (modal principle) (3) Necessarily p (from (1) and (2)) (4) If necessarily p then p (modal principle) (5) p (from (3) and (4)) (2) instantiates a theorem of S5, a system of modal logic in which the accessibility relation between possible worlds is one of equivalence.
    [Show full text]
  • ONTOLOGICAL TERROR Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation ONTOLOGICAL TERROR ONTOLOGICAL
    Calvin L. Warren ONTOLOGICAL TERROR Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation ONTOLOGICAL TERROR ONTOLOGICAL BLACKNESS, NIHILISM, AND EMANCIPATION TERROR Calvin L. Warren | | © Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid- free paper ∞ Designed by Matthew Tauch Typeset in Warnock Pro by Copperline Book Services Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Names: Warren, Calvin L., [date – ] author. Title: Ontological terror : Blackness, nihilism, and emancipation / Calvin L. Warren. Description: Durham : Duke University Press, . | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: (print) | (ebook) (ebook) (hardcover : alk. paper) (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: : Race — Political aspects. | Racism. | Race awareness. | Blacks — Race identity. | Nihilism (Philosophy) | Ontology. Classification: (ebook) | . (print) | . — dc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/ Cover art: Sondra Perry, still from Black/Cloud, . Courtesy Bridget Donahue Gallery, NYC. DEDICATED TO Fannie Warren, Lurene Brunson, and Jane Elven (my three mothers) For their love, patience, and unending support CONTENTS Acknowledgments ix INTRODUCTION The Free Black Is Nothing CHAPTER 1 The Question of Black Being CHAPTER 2 Outlawing CHAPTER 3 Scientific Horror CHAPTER 4 Catachrestic Fantasies CODA Adieu to the Human Notes Bibliography Index ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is born out of numerous conversations, spirited debates, no- etic experiments, and silent reflections. My intention is to reinvigorate and expand a philosophical field, one often neglected and ignored: black nihilism. The thinking here represents my attempt to center the onto- logical crisis blackness presents to an antiblack world. This is a difficult task, and many have provided intellectual and emotional support to ac- complish it. I am grateful for those who have endured my negativity, un- conventional thinking, and exasperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Logic Part Two
    Mathematical Logic Part Two Announcements ● Problem Set 2 and Checkpoint 3 graded. ● Will be returned at end of lecture. ● Problem Set 3 due this Friday at 2:15PM. ● Stop by office hours questions! ● Email [email protected] with questions! First-Order Logic What is First-Order Logic? ● First-order logic is a logical system for reasoning about properties of objects. ● Augments the logical connectives from propositional logic with ● predicates that describe properties of objects, and ● functions that map objects to one another, ● quantifiers that allow us to reason about multiple objects simultaneously. The Universe of Propositional Logic The Universe of Propositional Logic p ∧ q → ¬r ∨ ¬s The Universe of Propositional Logic p ∧ q → ¬r ∨ ¬s TRUE FALSE The Universe of Propositional Logic p ∧ q → ¬r ∨ ¬s r s p q TRUE FALSE The Universe of Propositional Logic p ∧ q → ¬r ∨ ¬s s r q p TRUE FALSE Propositional Logic ● In propositional logic, each variable represents a proposition, which is either true or false. ● Consequently, we can directly apply connectives to propositions: ● p → q ● ¬p ∧ q ● The truth or falsity of a statement can be determined by plugging in the truth values for the input propositions and computing the result. ● We can see all possible truth values for a statement by checking all possible truth assignments to its variables. The Universe of First-Order Logic The Universe of First-Order Logic The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun The Moon The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun Venus The Moon The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun Venus The Morning Star The Moon The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun Venus The Morning Star The Evening Star The Moon First-Order Logic ● In first-order logic, each variable refers to some object in a set called the domain of discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • David Lewis's Metaphysics
    David Lewis's Metaphysics The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Hall, Edwards. 2010. David Lewis's metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2010. Published Version http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/lewis- metaphysics/ Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34611680 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP David Lewis Part 1: Fundamental ontology Ned Hall §0 Introduction One of the most interesting and influential analytic philosophers of the 20th cen- tury, David Lewis produced a body of philosophical writing that, in four books and scores of articles, spanned every major philosophical area, with perhaps the greatest concentration in metaphysics, philosophy of language, philosophical logic, and phi- losophy of mind. Despite this astonishing variety, a newcomer to Lewis’s philosophy would be best advised to begin with his metaphysics (especially: 1986a, 1986e, 1999). There are several reasons. First, the majority of Lewis’s work either concerns, or sub- stantially overlaps, topics in metaphysics. Second, the metaphysical positions Lewis stakes out are strikingly original and powerfully argued. Third, there is a coherence and systematicity to this work that makes it a particularly
    [Show full text]
  • The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Iamblichus, Origen, Augustine, and the Eucharist by Jason A
    The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Iamblichus, Origen, Augustine, and the Eucharist by Jason B. Parnell A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in the University of Michigan 2009 Doctoral Committee: Professor Sarah L. Ahbel‑Rappe, Co‑Chair Professor David S. Potter, Co‑Chair Professor Victor Caston Associate Professor Arthur Mfw Verhoogt © Jason B. Parnell 2009 Acknowledgments Thanks beyond measure are due to Professor Sara Ahbel‑Rappe, my principal advisor, without whose thoughtful and timely input this project would simply have failed. What coherence is to be found here is largely due to her knowledge, experience and knack for dispensing just the right wisdom at just the right time. For their very helpful advice on constructing a larger narrative about intellectual history, I am indebted to Professor David Potter and Professor Victor Caston – as to Professor Arthur Verhoogt for his papyrologist’s eye for error and scrutinizing attention to key ideas and their proper explication. Professor H.D. Cameron is justly acknowledged as well, for believing early on that the project was alive when it appeared quite moribund. More broadly, I must express my gratitude to the Department of Classical Studies as a whole, for permitting my completion of a project that began, properly speaking, in 1996. Among my peers in graduate school, who have contributed so much charm and mayhem to my years at Michigan, I must acknowledge pre‑eminently Raji Mittal, Alex Conison, Alex Angelov, and Albertus Horsting, whose capacities for constructive idleness and distraction astonishingly dwarf even my own.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Predicate Logic
    The Syntax of Predicate Logic LX 502 – Semantics I October 11, 2008 1. Below the Sentence-Level In Propositional Logic, atomic propositions correspond to simple sentences in the object language. Since atomic propositions are the smallest elements of the system, simple sentences are the smallest parts of the object language that we can represent in our metalanguage. In this respect, Propositional Logic is a blunt instrument. It is ill-equipped to capture the valid arguments in (1) or (2). (1) Every man is mortal Aristotle is a man Therefore: Aristotle is mortal (2) Aristotle is a man Therefore: Someone is a man Our intuitions tell us these arguments are valid, i.e., the premises entail the conclusion. The reasoning is straightforward but it draws on relationships in the object language formed below the sentence-level. These relationships are sensitive to things in the world, like Aristotle, and properties they have, like being a man and being mortal. Consider (1). Suppose the first premise is true: those things in the world that are mortal include those things in the world that are men. Put another way, every thing in the world that is a man is mortal. Now suppose Aristotle is a man. It follows Aristotle is necessarily mortal. Set Theory gives us a way to represent this inference, illustrated in (3), which shows the relationship between being mortal and being a man: from the first premise, that being a man is a subset of being mortal. If Aristotle is in the set of men, he must also be in the set of mortal things.
    [Show full text]