The Aristotelian standpoint can be summarized as stating that "universal propositions about existing things have existential import".
-This is easily proved true because it is saying that universal propositions that imply the existance of something known to exist, have implied the existance of that thing.
The Boolean standpoint states that "a universal proposition does not imply the existance of any term it contains".
I have deduced logically that these two things, while being compared on the same scale, should not be considered "different approaches". This is because of the two ways to view the proposition in question:
1. The Boolean way looks at all propositions in standard form.
Take the books example of: 'All trucks are vehicles'
This is the equivilant of saying that 'All T are V' (this means nothing - see below).
This statement in standard form, because it could be talking about anything (substitution instances), is actually implying nothing about the terms it contains because it is not looking at them.
2. The Aristotelian way then takes this proposition and removes it from the standard form we turned it into and forces us to have prior knowledge of the subject.
'All trucks are vehicles'.
From here, we are being asked to take the term given and compare it with our own personal store of information. Yes, we know that a 'truck' is a thing, because we have seen one. Therefore, we can say that the existance of 'trucks' has been confirmed (not so much implied).
Take a proposition that has no existential import:
'All unicorns are one-horned animals'
All we need to do is look at the subject term 'unicorns'. We know that unicorns do not exist, because we have prior knowledge of them being magical creatures.
Therefore, this proposition has no existential import.
On a completely unrelated note, I find the term 'unicorn' to be an ambiguous classification for a creature.
This is because I was thinking about a unicorn (the species) haveing two horns. Is it still a unicorn? I think it is, just as a unicorn with no horn would still be a unicorn.
After all, a sheep with only one horn is still a sheep.
I think you are missing the point a little bit when you say "thinking about a unicorn (the species) having two horns". It is understood by the general population that unicorns are creatures with only one horn. I mean, honestly, if you saw a sheep with only one horn, might you confuse it with something else? I think there is a possibility that I would.
ReplyDeleteJust because you might possibly confuse the one horned sheep with a turtle, doesnt mean that its anything other than a sheep.
ReplyDeleteOn the same hand, if a horse were to grow a single horn, it would just be a freaky horse, not a unicorn.