Note 30

This seems puzzling :  Isn't it so that  ' Cassio is sad ',  which proposition also expresses a state in which Cassio finds himself to be in, is nevertheless not a real relation? Indeed, this is true. Why then is  ' Cassio loves (Desdemona) '  a real relation?
The reason is that  ' Cassio is sad '  expresses an identity. And indeed this identity cannot be the case with respect to the real entities to which the terms  ' Cassio '  and  ' sad '  refer. It is only the terms together with their designation that are identified. So the relation as expressed by  ' Cassio is sad '  cannot be a real relation, but only a being of reason. Indeed this non-real relation  ' Cassio is sad '  intends  the real relation  ' Cassio has sadness '  (Cassio possesses the form sadness). Here Cassio  r e a l l y  possesses something, instead of being something.
Also in  ' Cassio loves (Desdemona) '  Cassio  r e a l l y  loves someone, instead of being someone. This real relation can be intended by the non-real relation, that is, the relation of identity :  ' Cassio is a lover (of Desdemona) ',  where  ' Cassio '  is the subject,  ' is '  the copula, and  ' a lover (of Desmona) '  the predicate.

Back to main text