Beyond the sound of things, and into the soul of things.

One can of course use metaphorical expressions but ascribing

properties to not existent entity is curious business. One is

free to describe Pegasus as one like with whatever kind of

wings but we know that Pegasus does not exist in, uh, reality.

The soul has in this sense the same ''status'' as Pegasus. I assume

the analogy with our ''heart'' which seems to be the place where

our love coms from? The old Greek used what I call ''metal analogy''

such that our Lew can be described as ''honest as gold'' and

our chakster ''strong like iron''. This analogy imply constant

properties so even if Lew seduced the wife of his best friend

he will still be ''honest like gold'' while chakster even with broken legs

would be able to dance and jump. 

''Ascribing properties to not existing entity is curious business''.

''Not so'' according to 'super natural' orpheus. That is to say

that the question about existence is not relevant.

We in Europe spend billions for the so called Cern large collider

in order to answer the question about existence of Higgs particle.

All physicist knew what this particle means for the theory but

nobody knew if this particle exist. Without this particle the

physics would be different.

We could save enormous amount of money by following orpheus

opinion that existence is question of belief.  

''To find...God''. Peter is hunting unicorns in Afrika. He will catch

one if he find one.

The ''if'' suggest an hypothetical statement. Hypothetical questions

need some research or experiment in order to get the answer.

The meanings of words is their contribution to the meaning of

an sentence. Only (indicative) sentences can be true or

false. I.e. not words or terms. The so called ''correspondence''

theory of truth means that an sentence is true if it correspond

with the reality.  Sets, classes and properties means the same

in logic. Properties are not imaginable without some bearer of

the property while ''bearers'' can be seen as members of an

set or class. A set can consist of one member only: a set

with one member. Anyway words don't legislate about the

truth. Otherwise the vocabulary would be all we need to discover

the truth. If high school education lack in subjects of philosophy

of science and logic then we get such contributions about ''the

soul'' as in this thread.

Curious thinking. We have ''all great music we'd miss out on if they

didn't EXIST'' while the ''SOUL of the music EXIST in the music

itself''. Identity of any entity exist in itself. This way we don't need

to think about the question how properties are possible without

any bearer of the property. ''Properties on their own'' so to speak. 

Dear elizabeth, I am more optimistic because I believe that

''conscious minds'' can produce clear statement which truth

of falsity can be grasped. There is an short description for

this: ''facts are true statements''.

Dear elisabeth, Your separation between ''true facts'' and

''less than  true facts'' is as curious as properties without any

bearer of the assumed properties. I mentioned truth as

well falsity  of statements, If one has an clear idea one can

easily formulate this idea. Language is not the point. But

we need to grasp what is stated in order to judge: true or

false. As far as I know there are only two ''truth values'' :

true or false (tertium non datur). Your ''account''  imply variations

in  truth  depending on their complexity. I am not an expert in

philosophy of science but am not aware of ''different kinds of

truth''. Or different kinds of facts as mentioned above .