Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: type of object

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: type of object

    Quote Originally Posted by tdol
    Hmm, wonder what happens if you present this argument at the Pearly Gates:
    The ontological argument therefore fails, because its assumption that an existent God is greater than a non-existent God is false; the two are equal in greatness, because they are identical.

    Let's bewilder them
    The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. (Pensées, 233)
    Hello tdol, I wanted to make a very short note on Frege's solution (hoping it would give some tip to this discussion), and am still trying... (umm..rather in vain)!

  2. #22
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    43,335
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: type of object

    The problem is for agnostics, who neither believe in the existence njor the non-existence of God- are they OK or in real trouble?

    Please try away.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: type of object

    Hello tdol,
    I certainly need some consultation of Red Pencil to answer to your big question !
    Please try away
    Thanks... ^_^;

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: type of object

    Quote Originally Posted by Roro
    Although I'm not sure if this article might interest you all or not, let me refer you to it; seems interesting!
    http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...predicate.html

    G. Frege presented some answer to that question, and I've read that many philosophers were touched by his solution, they say...
    Let's go back a wee bit. Here's the sentence at issue:

    [1] Lassie is outside.

    Now, RP says "outside" is an adverb and, moreover, that it cannot be a subject complement (i.e., "outside" neither renames nor describes the subject "He".) And I agree with that. "outside" is not a subject complement (See why below). tdol then adds a very interesting spin, "outside" describes (which is the operative word, here) where the subject is located, so why couldn't it be a subject complement?

    The Why
    Adverbs and nouns belong to different categories; one can never "rename" or replace the other. For example,

    [A] Lassie is outside. Predicate adjective: an outside kind of dog. X

    [B] Lassie is outside. Prediate nominal: outside is another name for Lassie. X

    In short, adverbs cannot functions as nouns (i.e., subjects or objects) and they cannot modify nouns (i.e., function as subject complements). Adverbs describe where the subject is located, whereas subject complements are intimately "linked"; they tell us about the subject's attributes.

    About Frege, I'm not sure how his argument relates to our topic, but I'm always willing to learn new things.

    The way I see it is like this: All subjects are nominal; they represent people, places, and things, and if those people, places, and things didn't have a concept attached, they wouldn't exist, there wouldn't be a word, and hence there wouldn't be a subject to negate. That's what Frege is saying, right?
    If existence is a property that can be attributed to subjects like any other, then “God does not exist” can never be true, and God’s existence is necessary.
    In other words, nomenclature. You have to know what "God" means/stands for in order to talk about it, even to negate it. "God" is a word and that word has an associated concept. Adding the verb BE (i.e., God exists) doesn't make it true; it's already true. The word alone, by itself, tells us there is a concept "God" in our language. As long as there's a word for a concept, the concept will exist. The only way to negate that concept (ontologically speaking) is to omit its associated word (i.e., God doesn't exist => _____ doesn't exists. Sam: Who doesn't exist? Max: I dunno. / objective accomplished!). Take away the word, and its associated concept (the person, place or thing it stands for in the world) won't exist, either (Frege's got nothing new here; Shakespeare wrote about that, too).

    In short, "What we have here is an ontological argument for the existence of everything!" That is, "God does not exist" still means God exists: You have to know what "God" means/stands for before you can negate it, so even if you negate it, the concept still exists.

    OK. So, how does all that relate to RP's bit, that adverbs cannot be subject complements? Help.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Indirect object or Adverbial ?
    By hela in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-Oct-2005, 21:18
  2. make/let/have + object + ing"
    By dcomest in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-Apr-2005, 10:52
  3. dynamical object
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30-May-2004, 08:24
  4. Subject of a verb
    By Anonymous in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 14-Oct-2003, 07:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •