In "the reference argument" posts I spoke about the usage of "being" to depend on the existence in the world as the decider for the existence or absence of a stated fact. Suppose that a CEO of a company told his employee to deliver a message to another company then said:
-Mr. X is the CEO of Corporation Y, deliver this message to him.
Or
-Mr. X ,being the CEO of Corporation Y, deliver this message to him.
Which of these two statements could make the employee pay more attention to changing facts showing that X is no longer the CEO of that corporation and deliver the message to another person instead?
It seems that one could easily point to the second statement as the answer to that.
In addition to the general usage of the word as a guidance ,it seems that one can also reason that usage.
Both of the statements above came from the same speaker and referred to same current existence in the world. So why and how
could the second one satisfy the answer to the above question more than the first? That is because the difference is in the kind of authority supporting the statement. In the first statement the speaker was using his own authority to support that X is the CEO of that corporation. In the second statement on the other hand, the speaker is showing what fit transferring that authority to the existence outside and making himself more of a medium to transfer that authority to the listener. It is similar to when an author justifies his dependence on a fact by citing a reference for it .Except that, in the case of the author there is still an a direct authority exercised by the author in selecting that reference to represent reality. In the case of that second statement (and the second amendment) on the other hand there is what fits a direct transfer of authority to the reality in the world outside.
No comments:
Post a Comment