Does Canada exist?

[RFan]

I thought I understood metaphysics relatively well but a conversation I had recently has got be a bit confused. I told my friend that Canada does not exist. He said that it does in the same way a can of pop exists. The name "Can" does not exist but the material object it describes. He said Canada is just a discription of land.

[Libertus]

Names do not exist, they are not objects in the real world. But that is not the point here, he didn't say "the name 'canada' doesn't exist" he said 'Canada doesn't exist' which is also true. Canada is the name of a 'nation state', which is basically a monopoly on force within the given geographical area. It is also the name for that geographical area itself so you would have to ask what he is specifically referring to.

Canada the nation doesn't exist (because nations are theoretical constructs which by themselves, do not exist (in the physical world)Canada the name doesn't exist because names never do.That certain geographical area exists and is being referred to as 'Canada', I'm OK with that.A bunch of people with guns, fences and office buildings exist, and a lot of other people whom they hold hostage do exist. That's a whole bunch of folks and stuff right there that does exist and what is usually referred to as 'Canada'. So, yeah, in a sense, Canada exists, and doesn't exist, you have to be more specific with your reference there.

[TheRobin]

I think the basic thing to remember is that its an arbitrary distinction. It doesn't describe a distinct object (like a cup or a tree) but simply an arbitrary part of a land. That would be like drawing a line on my table and calling one side Bob and the other Doug. Sure it's a valid descirption, but it doesn't create any new actually existing entities.

[David L]

 

I think the basic thing to remember is that its an arbitrary distinction. It doesn't describe a distinct object (like a cup or a tree) but simply an arbitrary part of a land. That would be like drawing a line on my table and calling one side Bob and the other Doug. Sure it's a valid descirption, but it doesn't create any new actually existing entities.

 

Except in mind of course.

In line with the general inquiry of this thread, here's a question for all staunch Empiricists out there:  Does the Non-Aggression Principle exist?

[TheRobin]

as all epistemological debates, it depends on how you define "exist".

[David L]

 

as all epistemological debates, it depends on how you define "exist".

 

How do you define it?

 

 

[TheRobin]

well, I usually use it as a term denoting the attribute of the category which encompasses all other categories.But I like to differentiate between "thought in my head" and "actual tangible object in the world" So in regards to the NAP I'd answer "It exists as an idea in my head but not as something tangible in the world"

[David L]

 

So in regards to the NAP I'd answer "It exists as an idea in my head but not as something tangible in the world"

 

OK, so to make sure I really understand, you are saying the Non-Aggression Principle has an actual existence, right?

 

[TheRobin]

yes, an actual, completely non-tangible immaterial existence as a thought inside my head. Or you could probably call it an attribute of my brain. like "green" has an actual existence as an attribute of colour within certain materials.

[David L]

 

yes, an actual, completely non-tangible immaterial existence as a thought inside my head.

 

OK, so I'm guessing if an Empiricist were to ask you for evidence of the existence of the Non-Aggression Principle, you would NOT try to present any evidence of the Principle to his fleshly eye---instead, you would present evidence of the Principle to his mind's eye, that is, you would describe the Principle to him, which would include giving reasons and explanations for its existence right? And this is because reasons and explanations cannot be seen with the physical eye, only the mind's eye, correct?

[TheRobin]

 

 

yes, an actual, completely non-tangible immaterial existence as a thought inside my head.

 

OK, so I'm guessing if an Empiricist were to ask you for evidence of the existence of the Non-Aggression Principle, you would NOT try to present any evidence of the Principle to his fleshly eye---instead, you would present evidence of the Principle to his mind's eye, that is, you would describe the Principle to him, which would include giving reasons and explanations for its existence right? And this is because reasons and explanations cannot be seen with the physical eye, only the mind's eye, correct?

 

Actually, this is not correct. It's not even close to correct. Its meanigless and nonsensical. You arbitrarily invent concepts to "explain" something for which there is already an explanation without these ideas. Furthermore, even IF you would want to use the concepts as an explanation, this doesn't mean there any more real than if I inveted flying invisible mini-angels to explain gravity.

[David L]

So then, Robin, since you have already stated that the Non-Aggression Principle actually exists, how then would you present evidence to an Empiricist that it does? In Empiricism, to claim that something actually exists requires evidence to back it up, no?

[TheRobin]

 

So then, Robin, since you have already stated that the Non-Aggression Principle actually exists, how then would you present evidence to an Empiricist that it does? In Empiricism, to claim that something actually exists requires evidence to back it up, no?

 

I don't know the details of the empirisit philosophy, so you're asking the wrong guy here

I accept that contradictions don't exist (contradictions being claiming that X=non-X)and I try to derive anything else from that. Now IF an emprisist would come and ask me to show him "evidence" for the validity of non-contradiction I first would have to ask back what he means with "evidence" then before trying to provide it. Or simply point out that by using non-contradictory symbols to communicate (and rejecting meaningless ones) he already accpets that anyway (or if he doesn't there would not be a way to communicate that, so a debate without mutual accpetance of noncontradiction is never going to take place anyway)

[RFan]

 

Names do not exist, they are not objects in the real world. But that is not the point here, he didn't say "the name 'canada' doesn't exist" he said 'Canada doesn't exist' which is also true. Canada is the name of a 'nation state', which is basically a
monopoly on force within the given geographical area. It is also the
name for that geographical area itself so you would have to ask what he is specifically referring to.

Canada the nation doesn't exist (because nations are theoretical constructs which by themselves, do not exist (in the physical world)
Canada the name doesn't exist because names never do.
That certain geographical area exists and is being referred to as 'Canada', I'm OK with that.
A bunch of people with guns, fences and office buildings exist, and a lot of other people whom they hold hostage do exist. That's a whole bunch of folks and stuff right there that does exist and what is usually referred to as 'Canada'. So, yeah, in a sense, Canada exists, and doesn't exist, you have to be more specific with your reference there.

 

 

Ok that's what I was thinking. The land exists and you can call it whatever you want but Canada as a country does not exist because a country is not merely a geographical location but a government as well. Thanks for the help!

[RFan]

 

I think the basic thing to remember is that its an arbitrary distinction. It doesn't describe a distinct object (like a cup or a tree) but simply an arbitrary part of a land. That would be like drawing a line on my table and calling one side Bob and the other Doug. Sure it's a valid descirption, but it doesn't create any new actually existing entities.

 

 

That's a great point and metaphor thanks!

 

[Libertus]

I accept that contradictions don't exist (contradictions being claiming that X=non-X)and I try to derive anything else from that.

Two contradicting statements can't be both true. It has nothing to do with existence. If you believe that these statements, facts, opinions exist at all (I don't use the word 'existence' in that way, but I'll play along), then contradictons exist, too...  Because you can hold two contradicting thoughts in your mind at the same time, right? People do it all the time, we call it cognitive dissonance.

The concept of a 'contradiction' exists, too (again, not my choice of words), so what makes contradictions different from any other thought?

Hm. Let me try again. I think, the concept of contradiction doen't exist, neither do contradicting or non-contradicting thoughts, because thoughts don't exist in a sense that they are not objects in the real world. I use existence strictly in the physical sense, right now.

But if you want to say that concepts, thoughts, beliefs, etc.. exist in a sense that people can think them up, then why wouldn't contradictions exist, too? I can hold them in my head.

You know, if you use 'existence' in the latter sense, then god does exist, because some people think it does. I don't like the confusion that arises from that lack of distinction.

 

[TheRobin]

 

I don't agree here.

You can think of a circle, you can think of a square, you can even think of the idea of putting those two together, but you literally can't think of a square circle. (if you say you can, then please draw it while you imagine it and post the pic, cause I sure can't)

You can't think of a contradiction, but you can say what a contradiction is and describe it using non-contradictory concepts. But you can't think of X existing and not-existing at the (exact) same time. For instance you can't think of the word elephant and not  think of the word elephant at the same time.
Or you can't imagine lifting your arm and not-lifting your arm at the same time.

At least I can't, hence why I'm using the concept of "existence" in that sense without having to worry about gods existing or square circles existing, because they still don't exist even as thoughts.

small edit (hopefully in time): If you'd argue that you can imagine a contradiction, then that would be proof it is in fact not a contradiction, since for it to be contradictory you'd need it to be imagined and not-imagined at the same time. so saying you imagine it, means that by definition whatever you imagine isn't currently contradicting itself.

[Libertus]

OK, that's a geometrical contradiction. I can't imagine a square circle either. But showing one contradiction I can't think of does not prove that I can't think of any contradiction or believe in two contradicting thoughts.

How about this one:

1. Hates big corporation

2. Supports Obamacare which requires everybody to buy insurance from a big corporation

 But you seem to be missing my main point which is that two contradicting propositions can't be true at the same time. But they can exist* because I can think of both of them (for them to exist* I don't need to believe any of them are true, do I?)

*exist, in the let's say, broader sense

1. Unicorns exist

2. Unicorns don't exist

Can you think of 1? Can you think of 2? Do you have to believe one of the two to be true in order for the proposition to 'exist'? According to your concept (an actual, completely non-tangible immaterial existence as a thought inside my head) you can.

[Jose Perez]

This is not entirely correct. Lines on the ground that divide countries do follow some criteria – for example mountains, coast and other land features. It is political lines that are completely arbitrary. Countries do have a certain level of objective existence – even though not as obvious and fixed as a cup or a tree.

Anything that can be given a name for a practical objective reason does enjoy a certain level of existence – think for example towns, hills... If this weren't the case, then cups and (especially) trees would also become nonexistent by simply strengthening the boundary criterion – which can go all the way to the quantum level or be extended to greater time scales.

Canada as a part of the geographical or social landscape of the Earth can perfectly be an entity, and its name and boudaries be objectively determined or reasonably established by consensus. 

 

 

 

I think the basic thing to remember is that its an arbitrary distinction. It doesn't describe a distinct object (like a cup or a tree) but simply an arbitrary part of a land. That would be like drawing a line on my table and calling one side Bob and the other Doug. Sure it's a valid descirption, but it doesn't create any new actually existing entities.

 

 

That's a great point and metaphor thanks!

 

 

[TheRobin]

 

OK, that's a geometrical contradiction. I can't imagine a square circle either. But showing one contradiction I can't think of does not prove that I can't think of any contradiction or believe in two contradicting thoughts.

How about this one:

1. Hates big corporation

2. Supports Obamacare which requires everybody to buy insurance from a big corporation

To be a bit technical about it, so far there really isn't a contradiction in these two things. The person might have some weird motivation of wanting to be ruled by allpowerful people he hates, BUT I assume you meant something like this.
1. Hates big corp. (therefore we shouldn't give them our money)

2. Wants obama to give them our money.

So the result would be that he wants to give and not-give them our money simultaniously (an action, which can never exist/happen).

 

 But you seem to be missing my main point which is that two contradicting propositions can't be true at the same time. But they can exist* because I can think of both of them (for them to exist* I don't need to believe any of them are true, do I?)

*exist, in the let's say, broader sense

By "true" I assume you mean that what I think of actually describes a thing other than the thought itself? Like saying "I'm currently staring at a giraffe" (false) "I'm curently typing a post"(true) "I'm currently thinking of an elephant" (true, but not really falsifiable) (or do you not ascribe true/false values to the last one?)

Erm so, yes, they can exist in the sense, I can think of both concepts after another and the concepts actually pop up in my head insofar they "exist". The reason I'm using this word btw is that, if you don't say your thoughts "exist", then what do they do? I mean saying "My thoughts don't exist" seems kind of weird, since everyone experiences thoughts and thinking all the time, but if you can't call that "exist" what word do you use to describe the reality of thought?

 

1. Unicorns exist

2. Unicorns don't exist

Can you think of 1? Can you think of 2? Do you have to believe one of the two to be true in order for the proposition to 'exist'? According to your concept (an actual, completely non-tangible immaterial existence as a thought inside my head) you can.

 

Not quite sure what you mean here. Both propositions exist as a)text on my screen b) thought/concept in my head when I think of them. And you don't need to assume any of those represent any reality outside of the thought/screen so far (given the lack of evidence for 1. and the fact that you can't proof a negative for 2.)

Btw this whole "lets focus on contradictions" is something I'm currenty in the midst of trying out and seeing if it holds, so thanks for the debatte. The basic idea which I want to check is that exist=non-contadictory=true and non-exist=contradictory=false, whereas it gets a bit technical, when you use those concepts to describe thought/realworld-connections but so far I'd say even then it holds in saying, either there's a relation between the conepts one thinks up or there isn't but it can't be both.
So for instance claiming "unicorns exist in the real world" implies knowledge(relation of the thought to the world outside) of unicorns (where there is none) so its basically claiming to have knowledge and not have it, which means the knowledge can't exist.

Though if you have a better word than "exist" to use here I'm happy to replace that word with something else. I'm beginning to suspect I might be the only one who uses it that way, so it may be a good idea to change the word accordingly.

[David L]

 

But if you want to say that concepts, thoughts, beliefs, etc.. exist in a sense that people can think them up, then why wouldn't contradictions exist, too? I can hold them in my head.

You know, if you use 'existence' in the latter sense, then god does exist, because some people think it does.

 

As I see it, there is a difference between a symbol (which exists as a mental tool or conceptual operation), and the existence of what that symbol represents or portrays (which may or may not exist outside of the symbol itself. In other words, we can confuse the content of our minds with physical or spiritual realities, not realizing there is a distinction to be made between these various realms of experience and knowledge. God, or Spirit Itself, for example, is not a mental concept per se, but if we are stuck in the mental realm, we can (as we almost always do) confuse the symbol we entertain of God with God itself, or as Atheists do, dismiss it as "mere imagination". But the realm of Spirit has its own faculty, or eye, just as the realm of mind has its eye, and the realm of flesh has its eye.

In the Perennial Philosophy, the three basic modes of knowing are:

Physical (sensibilia)

Mental (inteligibilia)

Spiritual (transcendilia)

 

Each mode of knowing has to be respected for its own unique contributions to its own unique realm. If one realm claims to speak, or see, for another realm or realms, this is called a category error.

For example, religionists claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old, are making a category error, speaking for the physical world, by completely ignoring the physical geological evidence provided by the eye of flesh.

Rationalists make category errors when they claim through reason and logic, that Spirit does, or doesn't exist (since Spirit is transrational by definition, and can't be discovered through reason itself) and when they make claims on the physical world through reason alone, without checking things out with their physical eye.

And empricists make category errors when they claim nothing exists but matter and physicality, when clearly reason and Spirit do exist when those unique modes of knowing, or "eyes", are properly trained to experience datum from those particular realms. 

A true philosophy of life would thus seem to respect and thus carefully differentiate these major modes of knowing, so that confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of our human history, is ultimately eliminated. This is how I see it anyway.