In Quine’s, On What There Is, he presents the puzzle called “Plato’s Beard” or The Platonic Riddle of Nonbeing (2). The puzzle revolves around things that you can say there are, but do they actually exist. Meaning, “Plato’s Beard” appears as a contradiction in claiming there are things that are not. To illustrate, Quine uses the example of Pegasus. McX argues that Pegasus must exist because stating that 'Pegasus does not exist' still implies something, thus, Pegasus must in some sense be something. For McX, Pegasus does not refer to an actual physical winged-horse but instead to something abstract about a concept or mental image of Pegasus or the idea of Pegasus. Quine’s solution entails his belief that there is no such existence of real, physical winged-horse. In making his point, Quine points to the Parthenon as an example, “McX never confuses the Parthenon with the Parthenon-idea. The Parthenon is physical; the Parthenon-idea is mental (according anyway to McX’s version of ideas, and I have no better to offer)” (2). In other words, no one confuses the concept of the Parthenon with the physical Parthenon.
2. Present and evaluate one reason for thinking that…show more content… Hole linings is the matter that surrounds the hole (207). Therefore, for Argle, the hole lining is the hole. Evaluating Argle’s reasoning requires Bargle’s objection. First, Bargle addresses Argle’s hole-lining claim by stating that things don’t surround themselves (208). In the cheese example, we would say that the cheesy lining around each hole surrounds the hole. However, if Argle is claiming that the hole is the cheese lining then it appears the hole surrounds itself and nothing can surround itself. This suggest that Argle’s belief is the hole is made of cheese. This seems wrong for one reason, it is the absence of cheese that makes the hole. Thus, the hole cannot be identical to hole
