This post was inspired by a comment on Wikipedia, which in turn I wouldn’t have read if it wasn’t for the Why Nietzsche? thread. That comment says:
[size=95]Logical positivists, such as Carnap and Ayer, say Existentialists frequently are confused about the verb “to be” in their analyses of “being”. They argue that the verb is transitive, and pre-fixed to a predicate (e.g., an apple is red): without a predicate, the word is meaningless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Criticism[/size]
I think this is grammatically incorrect. I have some pretty radical ideas about Indo-European grammar, one of which is this: In the phrase “an apple is red”, “red” is technically an adjective; thus “an apple is red” is technically the same as “a red apple is”. I say “to be” technically always means “to exist”.
In statements like “I am a man”, “to be” is often taken to mean “to be equal to”, like the mathematical symbol “=”. But “=” never means simply “is”, but always “is equal to”.
X = Y
X is equal to Y
The word “equal”, like the word “red” in the statement above, is an adjective.
an apple is equal
an equal apple exists
X is equal to Y
an equal-to-Y X exists
This last statement may sound awkward; feel free to rephrase it as “an X that equals Y exists”.