'Sorry Parmenides', Santa Claus isn't real | Tim Maudlin attacks Michael Della Rocca #philosophy

[Shonie]

Not true, I saw Santa sitting on the ground drinking a bottle of vodka in the subway station just last week

[KaliFissure]

Santa Claus doesn't exist as a physical reality. Santa, and dragons and unicorns exist as ideas.
In the same way there are physical apples but to define what an apple is gets tricky as this is a concept. Apple-ness.
Some are green, some are red, some are sweet, some are sour. Yes they are fruit but so are pears who are closely related genetically.

These are two different ways of existing.

[nhlfg]

That there is no multiplicity as parmenides states is not a matter of semantics. It is about thinking what the world is devoid of subjects

[jacqloock]

But the word Santa Claus absolutely comes from a historical person who did exist so this is the worst example he could have picked.

[dogyamato]

The thing with Parmenides is that nobody actually has a clue what he means. There is no scholar that knows him in any real depth. But as much as people like to say his claims are wrong, his student zeno is very successful through defending him. And though there is little evidence left of what zeno argues he still makes some important arguments for today.
I just think Parmenides had something important to say, but we don't know what it is and, this, we should be wary of using him in an argument.

[Contribute_TakeCare_Learn_Play]

This is a fair representation of the original argument I think.

1. If Santa Claus (the one and only person) doesn't exist, then the words would refer to nothing, making the words devoid of meaning.

2. If the words have no meaning then Santa Claus (the one and only person) doesn't exist.

3. But you do refer to Santa Claus (the one and only person) therefore the words do have a meaning

4. If and since the words do have a meaning they must refer to something that exists

5. Therefore Santa Claus (the one and only person) exists

Let's see if the logic is really as good as it seems.

The problem is that you can put anything here.
Zeus, Thor, unicorn, the duodadokokolos.

This argument’s issue has an ambiguity problem and this argument seems to be begging the question aswell as in it assumes in the conclusion that something referred to must exist, and bases it on a similar premise in different words namely that if we refer to something it must have a meaning otherwise it can't exist. Leaving no true proof. Let's see if it holds up.

If a child says to you (meaning to fool you), “mommy? see that lamp there?” And points behind you in a closed small white empty room.

You won't see a lamp. This shows we can refer to things that do not exist.

Sure lamps exist. As a concept and as physical objects. But that specific lamp didn't physically exist. So what did he point to that exists? A conceptual projection of the imagination.

1. IF we refer to something THEN it must exist
2. We refer to the flying spaghetti monster
3. Therefore the flying spaghetti monster must exist.

1. solitary person c never sees the woman upstairs anymore (the woman is person b their man is person a)

2. Person c think that person b was murdered by person a. He refers too a friend, about the supposed murder.
3. solitary person c referred to the supposed murder, therefore person a’s supposed murder on person b exists (as in took place)

4. When a murder happens death penalty follows
5. Since the supposed murder exists (took place by proof of 3.) person a will get the death penalty

(So the murder does exist in some form sure, but as what? Are you a writer?, are you imagining? is that truly enough reasonable evidence?)

This further shows the logic’s issues and they are not small. I would not want to live in that person's country if he made laws based on that logic, I would definitely not want to live above him with a woman that divorced me.

Another option: imagine a time before any pyramid was built. And a person has an idea on how to build one.

1. IF we refer to something, THEN it must exist.

2. I the inventor of the pyramid (the concept) refer to the pyramid (the concept) to the king in order to build it.

3. Therefore the pyramid (the concept) does exist

So far so good the pyramid as a concept does exist in this case. But here is where the equivocation fallacy would cause issues.. remember this is before the time any pyramid was built on earth. This is about our own planet and its things in existence.

1. IF we refer to something, THEN it must exist

2. I the inventor of the pyramid (the concept) refer to the pyramid (the concept) to the king in order to build it.

3. Therefore the pyramid (the building) does exist


See? The logic is the same. It if is referred to it must exist the logic states. Sure. But in what form does the "it"exist?

In this case the pyramid (the building does not exist at that time yet seems to be referred to not really though)

Exercise: look in the corner of your room or wherever you can find a corner in your vicinity right now.. can you see the ten eyed spider, the size of an airplane?

No?

Well it MUST EXIST tbat specific one that in that exact spot. Because that is the one I am referring to. And it is real because referring to something is only possible if it exists.

Have a nice day.

[Ivan.Wright]

Everything exists, the important question to answer for each thing is "in what way and in relation to what else?".

[edinfific]

"It's a virtue of my theory that it doesn't make any sense" is also what Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. "Saint Paul" said when his stories were questioned by reasonable people.
Rather than admitting defeat, he never gave up and instead came up with even more fallacies, like the "foolishness of God".
And the masses just fell for it.

[fbalvim]

Sorry, every single Christmas, millions or even billions of uncles, dads and other people become Santa Claus for one day. Try I another entity this one does exist.

[valariemgutierrexa.k.a.map]

What about Belsnickle (Bell Sniggle), St. Nick or Joulupukki? 🎅

[atheistcomments]

You can say santa claus exists as an imaginary character.

[semantics...]

A philosopher fixed this problem by adding exists as fiction check out the book ordinary objects.

[legendaryships]

Does he not know Saint Nicholas, commonly referred to as Santa Clause, did in fact exist?

[GigaNietzsche]

It exists as a concept, therefore it is. I mean what's next are you going to try and say that being able to speak hypothetically somehow disproves Parmenides?

[robberlin]

This guy still believes in truth??!! Ppffftt, get with the program.
It doesn't matter if it's true, it only matters that people believe you...

[Robinson]

Did he miss Meinong? And Mills? And Aristotle, that it is potential?

[Thomas-gk]

This philosopher of science seems to be a realist, but is very biased about realistic theories in quantum mechanics.

[raymondjensen]

This is why I chose not to be a philosophy major.

[The-warm-up]

Amazing these people get paid for this 😣

[alexsuited]

Tim, Santa Clause is real he is a distant cousin. The clauses have always been around, their Native Canadians. So Santa Claus is A Native Canadian. And he lives at the north pole. Ho ho ho's