Thread:User talk:Armondikov/Argumentum ad dictionarium/reply (9)

There is a school of thought to that effect with "to be". See E-Prime, and also Rationalist taboo. Though these are best used as critical thinking exercises that get you to think about what those terms mean without being lazy about it. You constantly use a ton of inferences whenever you say a single word, so in order to be clear you either need to a) unpack it thoroughly to say what you mean by it in very exhaustive and comprehensive terms (traditional philosophical discourse) or b) avoid its use so that the inferences don't creep in even subconsciously (E-Prime and Rationalist Taboo methods).

What does "exist" mean? Saying "it exists because it is" depends on both "exists" as "is" - and those are often defined circularly. BUT, If you take "exist" to mean something that constrains your expectation of what you will experience, then that's something more concrete. See, for instance, The Dragon in My Garage for an example where this becomes quite important - how can you say the dragon still "exists" when it has no meaningful interaction with the world? Indeed, the dragon is often defined as having no meaningful interaction with the world. But it still "exists"? I expect not to be able to leave the house if the door is closed, therefore the door is solid and exists. I don't expect to be able to sit down on this invisible chair that exerts no force, and if I park my arse there I'll just fall down - so the chair doesn't exist. This seems all grand and sensible until you tack the phrase "this is how scientific observation works" onto it, at which point people shy away and say "ah, but you can't prove it with science!" - As if this magically changes things.

If you try to define "to be" as a verb, you might run into serious trouble. Mostly, we use it to mean "has properties similar to this grouping". Aka, Socrates has a dick, therefore he is (read, "shares similar properties of the group") a man. But if you take it a little further, you could start thinking of "to be" as being some sort of essentialist quality. Now, if you want to play an essentialist card that's fine, but I don't see it being particularly useful in arguing or discussing anything. "Existence" being some essentialist "state of being" doesn't really help us at all. In fact, it's a complete non-explanation.

So, the guy you're speaking to is actually right. If you remove the cheap and lazy words from your linguistic space, you can explore them more deeply from the point of view of your conceptual space. You haven't banned the concept of existence by banning the word, you just force a more critical evaluation of what it really means "to exist".