Page 250

seeking the path

p. 139/19-20 p. 140/1-5

p. 143/37-39 p. 144/4

p. 148/33-38

568

in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.’]: No wonder science is such an unintelligent pastime! [No one supposes that a class is an object of the same kind, or type, as an individual.]: On p. 503 you say that Russell holds that a table is a class. [a Chinese philosopher … is reported to have said that if there is a dun cow and a bay horse, then there are three things; for the dun cow is one thing, and the bay horse is another thing, and the two together are a third. We must inquire wherein precisely lies the absurdity of this statement.]: Far from being absurd, this statement is of fundamental ontological importance. (If there is a bowl and a stem, is the pipe that comes of taking the two together simply a class? If so, then the bowl and stem are also classes, since different parts of them can be distinguished.) : (1) All dodos have large heads. (2) Some dodos are female. In the argument here the second proposition implies that dodos exist, whereas the first does not. after ‘belong’: From Russell’s argument on p. 153 it seems that ‘All dodos’ is an incomplete symbol, whereas ‘Some dodos’ is not, since it implies the existence of some dodos. But this interpretation of ‘some dodos are female’ is a confusion between ‘n% of (all) dodos are female’ and ‘here are (some) female dodos’ (which is equivalent to ‘these female dodos [exist]’). In the first of these statements ‘some dodos’ (=‘n% of dodos’) is an incomplete symbol, and in the second (= ‘these dodos’, ‘here are dodos’) it is not. Whether or not ‘all dodos’ and ‘some dodos’ (as incomplete symbols) imply the existence of dodos depends on what is understood by ‘existence’. [The assertion that the properties Φ and Ψ both belong to something will be false if nothing has Φ, or if something has Ψ but nothing which has Φ has Ψ. Hence, A poet was stabbed implies that a poet exists. In asserting (∃x).Φx.Ψx, we are asserting (∃x).Φx, i.e. that Φ belongs to something. Neither of these propositions contains a particular as a constituent.]: Nonsense! ‘Something’ is a particular. It would not be significant to say ‘I saw something’ (= ‘I saw a thing’) if there were no such thing as things. That is why ‘some

Early Writings (Seeking the Path - Ñāṇavīra Thera)  

Part B includes two early essays (Nibbana and Anatta and Sketch for a Proof of Rebirth) as well as notes from a Commonplace Book and Margina...

Advertisement