We should
not mistake the predicate of existence with the human proclamation of being here and now. “To be here” is a
positive action of the subject, a hard one in fact, a kind of fight with the
universal law narratives which deny anything human from the all too human
perspective of a narrative of domination. But when we say that something exists, we are simply reifying a transcendental
property which conditions us within an ideological frame.
A predicate
is a determination of an object, its inscription within a particular (finite)
frame of properties, physical (space-time, weight, etc.) or social (legal,
aesthetical, etc.).
( (1) Suppose that “exists” is a predicate,
then to say that “a” exists is to say
that “a belongs to a particular frame
of properties”, say F1.
( (2) F1 is a frame of
properties, but not a frame which includes all properties, for there is not a
single object “a” which can have all
properties, so it could not belong to such frame. Thus, there are F1,
F2,…Fn.
( (3) Therefore, to say that “a exists” is to say that “a belongs to a frame which in turn
belongs to a set of frames of properties”. From this, we can infer “F1
exists” (by (1)). Thus we can say that “a exits when it belongs to an existing
frame”. This is an impredicative definition.
Thus, “exists”
cannot be a predicate.
Formally:
‘a exists’ =.def a ∈ F1 , ∀ F1 ∈
(F1, F2,…Fn)
F1 ∈ (F1,
F2,…Fn) ⟶ ‘F1 exists’
‘a exists’ =.def a ∈
‘F1 exists’, impredicative
definition
∴ ‘a exists’ cannot be a predicate
In fact, “exists”
is what we are already saying in mathematics with the symbol εστί, ∈.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please write here your comments