Anjan Notes
—-
What is it?
Anjan Chakravartty (Toronto) gave a seminar pointing out some problems for the ontic structural realist (OSR). Superficially at least some of the issues raised seemed to be connected to what I’m trying to do in treating existence as a trivial predicate that can be completely unpacked into relations.
Where can it be found?
In Anjan’s head mostly at the moment I guess, but I’m sure something will be forthcoming.
—-
How does it fit in?
Anjan’s primary thesis was that OSR is either unable to account for the ontic primacy of relations over relata or for the existence of relata at all.
So how does this fit in with what I’m trying to do? Well, it gives good reasons for believing that there is a cost to be had if one takes the view that all existence is is relational. Namely, one must sacrifice the notion of some subordinate object/relata hiding away in the background. While this cost may not seem all that great, it does lead to the anxiety voiced in Dave Chalmers’ comment below.
The seminar also introduced some conceptual tools which may prove useful: the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction and the monadic/relational distinction. Getting clear on these concepts will probably enable me to situate the idea above in a more useful way.
A further point of interest was raised by Dave Chalmers in the discussion: there is definitely a fundamental desire to keep asking “but what is it” when the nature of an object is described in a purely relational way. Perhaps this points to the need for some sort of “perspicuous representation” of how any relational definition of existence is not contrary to common-sense ideas of existence. {[green This bit definitely needs more work, it’s more of a shadow than an idea at the moment. I’m trying to get at some sort of similarity between the point above and what Mc Dowell and Wittgenstein term a philosophical anxiety. But whether this is of significance for anyone other than the quietist remains to be seen. ]}
—-