Skip to main content

Abhava, Millnong project, abstraction: descriptions and negation

In the Square of Oppositions conference last month in Lebanon, Mihir Chakraborty considered absence to understand negation and as a positive concept. The idea is central to the notion of abhava in Indian logic. Then there are objects and absences of objects over which, supposedly, once could quantify. I asked him how close Abhava was from a Meinongian theory of objects. His first reaction was to say that to think of the absence of something as an object was not a Meinongian move. In fact, it could seem that one can refer to absences using the original objects - and not descriptions - allowing them to have a modally open horizon of life (as I defined previously in this blog (for example, http://anarchai.blogspot.com.br/2011/06/open-horizon-of-life-and-absolute-other.html and http://anarchai.blogspot.com.br/2011/06/challenges-for-millnong-project.html). The name of an absence would be designed through the name of the lacking object. If this were so, I thought absences could be a way to implement the Millnong project - the project of combining Meinong and Mill by considering non-existing objects as independent from descriptions.

However, this individualization procedure would fail precisely because in this case there is no concretude: the absence of a book on the table is also the absence of a pad on the table unless I describe it one way or another. Nothing can then come and upset my modal tales about how the absence of the book would be if something else were the case. The absence of the book would be necessarily such absence - no modally open horizon. Absence of objects are like mathematical objects - utterly Meinongian in the sense of fully dependent on descriptions. No trace of the independent life that concretude can provide.

Interestingly, Juan Manuel Benitez had discussed, minutes earlier, Buridan´s octagon of oppositions. From a nominalist point of view, predicates should also not be devoid of the modally open horizon of life: they are not associated to descriptions and, viewing them as concrete universals, one could quantify over them. So if being mortal is an object, one can quantify over it and say, for example, being some mortal or being every mortal. (Then, clearly, instead of an A proposition, s is P, we have at least two, s is all P and s is some P.) However negation introduces abstraction and makes it impossible for something to carry on enjoying the modally open horizon: when we say s is no P, we would be close to the notion of absence. And, unless absence can be thought somehow not in purely Meinongian terms (which would amount to the Millnong project), descriptions would have to be fully brought in. It seems that a theory of descriptions is a chapter of a theory of negation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne