Why are philosophers so convinced that unicorns don't exist?

[Shadow Wolf]

"What’s four metres long, 2.5 metres high, weighs 3.5 tonnes and has a preposterously large horn in the middle of its face? A really massive unicorn, that’s what.

Research published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution has now uncovered the details of the life, history and extinction of a spectacular species dubbed the “Siberian Unicorn”. .."

Unicorns did exist – until they didn’t | Cosmos

That doesn't do anything to address the fact that the word unicorn should not appear in the KJV, but it does because the word re'em, which does not mean or imply unicorn, was poorly translated. The creature mentioned in Hebrew had TWO horns.
Calling a komodo dragon a dragon doesn't make it anything like a dragon, the creatures of legend, just as calling a rhinoceros a unicorn doesn't make it anything like the creatures of legend, nor does it make the English translation of re'em into unicorn accurate (that's why other English versions tend to use "wild ox" rather than "unicorn.").

 

[Salvador]

I define a unicorn as a large-single-horned mammalian animal, the Siberian unicorn (Elasmotherium) had a single large horn, and it's a mammal, so then the Siberian unicorn fits my definition of a unicorn.

 

[dianaiad]

They WERE NOT unicorns. The word unicorn shouldn't even appear in the English Bible, and indeed many contemporary translations have replaced unicorn with wild ox, which is far more accurate than unicorn.

Evidently they were, according to some.

Or are you so ignorant of the way language works that you don't understand shift and meaning change? "Unicorn..." means 'one horn." So any critter with observers who see 'one horn.' would call it a 'one horned' critter, and....voila;. There is nothing about translating that into Latin, Greek or English that changes the meaning into 'magical critter which can heal, sparkles and loves virgins.' and what's more, translating that word BACKWARDS into the original meaning of 'one horn' doesn't take all those mystical qualities with it, so that a properly scientific person finds himself in a quandary as to whether he can even use the word.

As for me, I just figure that English is a mystical, magical, utterly baffling language that should be taken, as a whole, with a jar of sea salt and a great deal of flexibility. English words will shift underneath one just when one thinks one has it pinned down.

Not happening.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or are you so ignorant of the way language works that you don't understand shift and meaning change? "Unicorn..." means 'one horn." So any critter with observers who see 'one horn.' would call it a 'one horned' critter, and....voila;. There is nothing about translating that into Latin, Greek or English that changes the meaning into 'magical critter which can heal, sparkles and loves virgins.' and what's more, translating that word BACKWARDS into the original meaning of 'one horn' doesn't take all those mystical qualities with it, so that a properly scientific person finds himself in a quandary as to whether he can even use the word.[/QUOTE]
I am not ignorant of such things. However, you have been ignoring the FACT that the word unicorn should not appear. Re'em referred to a large two horned creature, and translates to wild ox more accurately, and was probably an aurochs bull. That is the word that originally appears, several times, in the Tanakh. Unicorn, when it was used in the KJV, it didn't mean a rhinoceros but rather the mythical creature we think of today. Even when Marco Polo thought he discovered the creature, he seemed rather disappointed in his writings that it wasn't the creature of legend.

 

[Valjean]

Given the penetration of humans into every corner of the globe, a large, social grazing animal would have a great deal of difficulty remaining hidden. Thus, it's assumed they don't exist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Given the penetration of humans into every corner of the globe, a large, social grazing animal would have a great deal of difficulty remaining hidden. Thus, it's assumed they don't exist.

Unicorns can turn invisible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When I was in college I was a philosophy major for four semesters and I heard in multiple classes from multiple professors that unicorns supposedly do not exist. Unicorns also had their own section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on "Non-Existent Objects." This was one of the reasons I switched to a different major. Humans have only a limited knowledge of the world around us so why do philosophers think they can know something like this? Saying that unicorns don't exist also seems to go against what I thought metaphysics was supposed to be. Shouldn't the philosopher practicing metaphysics start out with no assumptions about what does or doesn't exist? Why can't philosophers just admit that they don't know whether unicorns exist or not?

One could say unicorns exist in mythology.

None have been found in the real world albeit there are rhinos and narwals. Just not horses or maybe....

Gotta love it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"What’s four metres long, 2.5 metres high, weighs 3.5 tonnes and has a preposterously large horn in the middle of its face? A really massive unicorn, that’s what.

Research published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution has now uncovered the details of the life, history and extinction of a spectacular species dubbed the “Siberian Unicorn”. .."

Unicorns did exist – until they didn’t | Cosmos

That's what happens to a unicorn when it gets married.

 

[Yazata]

When I was in college I was a philosophy major for four semesters and I heard in multiple classes from multiple professors that unicorns supposedly do not exist. Unicorns also had their own section in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on "Non-Existent Objects." This was one of the reasons I switched to a different major. Humans have only a limited knowledge of the world around us so why do philosophers think they can know something like this?

The properly philosophical respose there would have been to ask the professor in a friendly manner how he/she knows that unicorns don't exist.

I think that what's typically happening is that they are using unicorns merely as examples of non-existent objects to address other philosophical problems such as how words and phrases can refer to non-existent objects, how propositions about non-existent objects can nevertheless be meaningful, and how propositions about non-existent objects can have truth values.

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, but it's true (in some sense) to say that he is a 19th century British private detective and not a 12th century Byzantine cleric. There's philosophical interest in exploring what that "in some sense" consists of. What is a 'fictional character'?

There's a whole philosophical literature about those kind of issues which I expect that your professor knew about and was probably trying to address.

Saying that unicorns don't exist also seems to go against what I thought metaphysics was supposed to be. Shouldn't the philosopher practicing metaphysics start out with no assumptions about what does or doesn't exist? Why can't philosophers just admit that they don't know whether unicorns exist or not?

Your professor probably would have if you had put the problem to him/her that way.

My own response is that I know of no convincing reason to think that unicorns exist as physical animals, as opposed to items of folklore. I can say this with a reasonably high degree of subjective conviction, but not apodeictic certainty. I can't conclusively exclude the possibility that a unicorn exists out there somewhere that I'm unaware of, but for all practical purposes I don't believe that one does.

Interesting questions about the nature of faith arise here, btw.

It's kind of sad and even tragic to see people fumble their chance to pursue a philosophical education because they have valid philosophical intuitions like you seem to have had. I'd suggest that you give it another go.

Sometimes it's best to set those kind of objections aside for the time being and attend instead to whatever point that your professor was trying to make by using the example. Perhaps walk up after class and put your question to him/her. I expect that most philosophy professors would be impressed by that and might start thinking of you as one of the brighter students in class.