Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Being & Time Part 2


--0-2069757405-1049151506=:97516


 
 GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:
Jud: Previously 
You can now see that by the a priori nominalisation or referentialisation the entity which corresponds to the word "leaf" it is existentialised for the purposes of making the proposition that it "is green." Hence the role of the "is" can be seen as indicating this modalic information [its greenness] and not that of existentialising the entity which corresponds or is referentialised by the word "leaf," because that has already been accomplished. 

I don't understand why you're insisting on this distinction; speaking philosophically or not, languages are redundant.  The use of any form of "to be" indicates existence as much as it indicates any supposed "modality."  Just because a word indicates one meaning doesn't mean it can't indicate another.  
JS
 
 



!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------!

 "...even if he recopied them later, as I suspect he sometimes did, he marked his card or cards not with the date of his final adjustments, but with that of his Corrected Draft or first Fair Copy. I mean, he preserved the date of actual creation rather than that of second or third thoughts. There is a very loud amusement park right in front of my present lodgings."



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
--0-2069757405-1049151506=:97516

HTML VERSION:

 GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:

Jud: Previously
You can now see that by the a priori nominalisation or referentialisation the entity which corresponds to the word "leaf" it is existentialised for the purposes of making the proposition that it "is green." Hence the role of the "is" can be seen as indicating this modalic information [its greenness] and not that of existentialising the entity which corresponds or is referentialised by the word "leaf," because that has already been accomplished.

I don't understand why you're insisting on this distinction; speaking philosophically or not, languages are redundant.  The use of any form of "to be" indicates existence as much as it indicates any supposed "modality."  Just because a word indicates one meaning doesn't mean it can't indicate another. 

JS

!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------!

 "...even if he recopied them later, as I suspect he sometimes did, he marked his card or cards not with the date of his final adjustments, but with that of his Corrected Draft or first Fair Copy. I mean, he preserved the date of actual creation rather than that of second or third thoughts. There is a very loud amusement park right in front of my present lodgings."