Existence as a Verb: A Philosophical Exploration

[Eh]

It's really just a question of language. Though the LSD issue brings up some interesting ideas.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
It's really just a question of language. Though the LSD issue brings up some interesting ideas.

Which just brings us back to the issues of the ineffable and vague, neither of which science can address at the present time, and it seems likely neither of which science will ever address despite their pervasive usefullness.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
To be existent is to exist, so that is also circular. Even so, if everything exists, then the verb exists becomes completely redundant. If the indentity of all objects includes existence, then saying object a exists, is really saying A is A. Existence really seems to be a concept used to tell the difference between something that is real or not. But the verb is the only problem.

That's only a problem because of the difference between common usage, and actual meaning. In common usage, "exist" refers to something's having material/physical existence (meaning that it can interact with energy).

 

[Eh]

Yes, but you see the definition of that "thing" would already include physical form and interaction with energy listed as it's properties. So you can see the redundancy.

Actually, I found a good link. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

It can be tedious, but it does cover the basic problems of defining what it means to exist.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Yes, but you see the definition of that "thing" would already include physical form and interaction with energy listed as it's properties. So you can see the redundancy.

Actually, I found a good link. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

It can be tedious, but it does cover the basic problems of defining what it means to exist.

Actually, it makes a point that is in line with what I've said. It mentioned that when one says "Tom exists", they can mean "Tom is real" - as opposed to being imaginary/mythical/etc.

Also, in response to the first (quoted) paragraph: the definition of that "thing" doesn't need to include physical form or interaction with energy.

 

[Eh]

Actually, it also listed problems with going strictly with a real/imaginary approach. Mainly, if there is a difference between a real and imaginary being, then being real (existence) would be a property. But this doesn't work either. See Anslem's ontological argument to see how these problems come up.

And take the definition of anything, let's say a planet. By definition, a planet is made of atoms and necessarily interacts with the physical universe. There is no such thing as a planet that does not, again by definition. So saying it exists does not change anything to the concept of the planet, otherwise it would be a property.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Actually, it also listed problems with going strictly with a real/imaginary approach. Mainly, if there is a difference between a real and imaginary being, then being real (existence) would be a property. But this doesn't work either. See Anslem's ontological argument to see how these problems come up.

And take the definition of anything, let's say a planet. By definition, a planet is made of atoms and necessarily interacts with the physical universe. There is no such thing as a planet that does not, again by definition. So saying it exists does not change anything to the concept of the planet, otherwise it would be a property.

So, basically, the distinction that needs to be made is that "existence" is not a property. Everything exists, and thus it cannot be a property, as it doesn't distinguish anything from anything else.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
Actually, it also listed problems with going strictly with a real/imaginary approach. Mainly, if there is a difference between a real and imaginary being, then being real (existence) would be a property. But this doesn't work either. See Anslem's ontological argument to see how these problems come up.

And take the definition of anything, let's say a planet. By definition, a planet is made of atoms and necessarily interacts with the physical universe. There is no such thing as a planet that does not, again by definition. So saying it exists does not change anything to the concept of the planet, otherwise it would be a property.

Eh, I haven't read that standford webpage yet on existence. Does existence not imply a temporal dimension? Yes, Earth exists now, but it did not always exist.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, basically, the distinction that needs to be made is that "existence" is not a property. Everything exists, and thus it cannot be a property, as it doesn't distinguish anything from anything else.

Basically, yes. And that's why the term exists sounds so silly when we consider that is it used exactly as if it is a property.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Eh, I haven't read that standford webpage yet on existence. Does existence not imply a temporal dimension? Yes, Earth exists now, but it did not always exist.

It's not that simple. If we say something exists, the concept of said thing is instantiated in the objective world at least once. So from that it would seem anything that was around in past present or future, can be said to exist. But it's actually a whole subject on it's own. The viewpoint that only the present exists, is called presentism. Of course, relativity gives this viewpoint some serious problems, and it seems like the temporal dimension should be treated as being just as real as the 3 spatial dimensions.

 

[wuliheron]

That sounds weird to me Eh. Words only have meaning because we give them meanings which are useful or otherwise meaningful to us. Since I cannot travel into the past, whether or not it still exists in some sense is meaningless and utterly useless to me.

 

[Eh]

But concepts have meaning whether they are instantiated in the past present or future. Time always appears the same to us, and it's really only a question of what time really is.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
But concepts have meaning whether they are instantiated in the past present or future. Time always appears the same to us, and it's really only a question of what time really is.

I'm afraid there is a great deal of evidence that time does not always appear to the be same for everyone. In life threatening situations people report experiencing everything in slow motion for example and certain other experiences people report that time seems to actually stand still for them. The Navaho languages notably does not even possesses the verb "to be," in other words, it does not possesses the future tense.

Asians often describe existence as having "suchness" or "isness" and that this refers to a quality which cannot be rationally communicated. Along the lines of attempting to describe color to a blind man, it is a quality which can only be experienced or expressed by analogy. Exactly what time really is, much less existence, is anyones guess as far as I am concerned and there are plenty of guesses out there.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Basically, yes. And that's why the term exists sounds so silly when we consider that is it used exactly as if it is a property.

Very interesting observation. Of course, this problem only arrises in Aristotelian Logic, but this is the kind of Logic that most of our "common sense" is based on anyway, so it's an important insight (to show that "existence" is not a property).

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I'm afraid there is a great deal of evidence that time does not always appear to the be same for everyone. In life threatening situations people report experiencing everything in slow motion for example and certain other experiences people report that time seems to actually stand still for them.

That's not really what I meant. It just seems that we experience "time" one present moment at a time. I don't know of any time travellers.

Asians often describe existence as having "suchness" or "isness" and that this refers to a quality which cannot be rationally communicated. Along the lines of attempting to describe color to a blind man, it is a quality which can only be experienced or expressed by analogy. Exactly what time really is, much less existence, is anyones guess as far as I am concerned and there are plenty of guesses out there.

That existence is something added to the definition of a thing, is what I would argue against.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
That's not really what I meant. It just seems that we experience "time" one present moment at a time. I don't know of any time travellers.

That existence is something added to the definition of a thing, is what I would argue against.

I travel into the future all the time, just don't ask me to bring anything back for you. I never go back.

Your definition of existence contradicts the dictionary meaning of the word. Existence is not something added to things nor is it a property of things, it a state of things. Either something exists or it doesn't.

Just because the word is vague like so many other words does not mean it is a useless word. Its widespread acceptance and use belies your resistence to accept it. If you are trying to say existence is a meaningless redundant word, I say prove it.

 

[Eh]

I don't care if my definition contradicts the dictionary, because that definition is circular. Why? Well take the term existence. That is defined as being the state or condition of existing. What is exist defined as? Having existence. So it's obviously circular, whether or not one wants to admit it.

Now keep in mind I'm not arguing the term is useless, as it obviously has some important meaning, such as telling the difference between something that is real and something purely imaginary. It is only if we actually treat exist as being a real property a thing could be with or without (as verbs usually do) that it becomes redundant and absurd.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
I don't care if my definition contradicts the dictionary, because that definition is circular. Why? Well take the term existence. That is defined as being the state or condition of existing. What is exist defined as? Having existence. So it's obviously circular, whether or not one wants to admit it.

Now keep in mind I'm not arguing the term is useless, as it obviously has some important meaning, such as telling the difference between something that is real and something purely imaginary. It is only if we actually treat exist as being a real property a thing could be with or without (as verbs usually do) that it becomes redundant and absurd.

Its usefulness is the only reason I brought up the dictionary definition. I certainly don't know all the arguments for and against the word, but I maintain it has common meaning about the property or state of something spatially and/or temporally.

 

[Eh]

I would argue the negative of course, taking the view that existence adds nothing to the concept of an entity at all. But the debate over the meaning of existence isn't a simple affair.

A quick question though. Have you read Anslem's ontological argument for the existence of God? I brought that up in this thread because it is very relevant, as it hinges on existence as a property. Though the argument seems silly, it's really not quite so easy to refute without thinking about it. I believe it took hundreds of years before Kant came along and was able to point out exactly what went wrong. It's worth a look, if you haven't already seen it.

 

[wuliheron]

I read it ages ago and I agree, it is a very subtle argument. However, I'd argue it is so subtle because existence is such a vague term and demonstrably paradoxical, if that isn't being redundant.