Existence as an Attribute

[quatona]

It seems as plain as the nose on my face that existence is an attribute.

An attribute of what?

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's why I put [sic] after "non-existent thing" as kind of a joke. There's no such thing as a non-existent thing, and that's why it can't be red, can't have attributes.

Okay, fair enough, but that doesn't make existence an attribute. Rather, one says that something is an entity (that it exists) when it has attributes. It isn't existence that is an attribute, but rather all the attributes that it does have. All existence means is "this has attributes".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrimKingGrim]

One problem with the ontological argument for God's existence is the idea that existence is an attribute. The weaker versions of the ontological argument, as you know, go something like:

1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. Having the attribute "exists" is greater than not having the attribute.
3. Therefore God exists.

However, existence is not an attribute of things. When one says: "God exists" or "I exist" or "planet Earth exists" one is not really describing God, oneself, or planet earth. "X exists" describes the world, not X. "X exists" really means "the world includes X". So existence is not an attribute.

Uh. When discussing the existence of something, I believe existence would be an attribute lol. Otherwise existence is pretty much an axiom.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Who said that existence is caused by a being?
Using God is Truth, and Truth is the only reality, because what is not true does not exist, then is Truth a being? (I use Truth as all that is truth).
It is said that if Truth could describe itself it would say "I Am". Sounds familiar.
I Am, does not point to a "being", it points to "Is".

What in the-

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, but for things whose existence we are unsure of? Can we possibly make any claims based on attributes they may or may not have?

Sure we can make claims. They could be right or wrong.

 

[Chesterton]

An attribute of what?

Everything and anything that exists, right?

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, fair enough, but that doesn't make existence an attribute. Rather, one says that something is an entity (that it exists) when it has attributes. It isn't existence that is an attribute, but rather all the attributes that it does have. All existence means is "this has attributes".

eudaimonia,

Mark

I think I get what you're saying, and to be honest, I can't conceive of a thing existing which has no other attributes except existence, but I still think if you make a list of attributes of any thing, one of those would have to be "it exists". Existence is just the prerequisite attribute to other attributes.

This may be silly, but what if someone invited you to go hear a new band you've never heard of. You ask "what do they sound like?" (asking about attributes). And the person starts off saying "Well first of all, the band exists, and they sound like...". That would be absurd in real life, but it would be true. But what if you ask what the band sounds like, and the person says "I was just kidding, there's no band to go see". Have they then removed an attribute? I guess you could say no, they didn't remove an attribute because there was nothing real to remove it from, but if you added the attribute of existence, you'd be adding an attribute wouldn't you?

 

[Davian]

Usually the God of the ontological argument is as generic as possible.

Why would anyone care about a generic 'god'? What is a generic 'god'?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think I get what you're saying, and to be honest, I can't conceive of a thing existing which has no other attributes except existence, but I still think if you make a list of attributes of any thing, one of those would have to be "it exists".

Well, no, it would not have to be. It isn't an attribute, IMV. It only seems that way in language.

This may be silly, but what if someone invited you to go hear a new band you've never heard of. You ask "what do they sound like?" (asking about attributes). And the person starts off saying "Well first of all, the band exists, and they sound like...". That would be absurd in real life, but it would be true.

It would be true, however, one would not be citing an attribute. One would only be saying that there is a band that you are talking about, and that they (by definition, I suppose) have attributes such as a sound, which is what makes that entity a band.

But what if you ask what the band sounds like, and the person says "I was just kidding, there's no band to go see". Have they then removed an attribute? I guess you could say no

Yes, there is no entity that has the attribute of being a band.

Let's not get too lost in this example, because I can't add or remove attributes from an entity through language. That's only my attempt at describing (or misdescribing) an entity, or at inventing a fake referent.

they didn't remove an attribute because there was nothing real to remove it from, but if you added the attribute of existence, you'd be adding an attribute wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't be. I would be saying that I'm not making up a referent. I'm not "adding existence" to anything, but admitting that there is an entity to which I am referring that is actually a band and has a sound.

Okay, instead of changing one's story, let's look at a change of reality. Let's say that you say that you know of a band, and that you can introduce me to them.

So, we meet the members that you associate with the band, but they sadly tell you that they have broken up as a band. There is no longer any band. The members suddenly wink out of existence...

Well, no, they don't. They are still there. The only thing that is different is that they aren't a band any longer. They lack the properties of being a band. The band doesn't "exist" only the in the sense that the properties that define being a band no longer exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not "adding existence" to anything, but admitting that there is an entity to which I am referring that is actually a band and has a sound.

If you bear in mind that all of reality exists as a conception in the mind (even a chair when you are touching it and looking at it), you are adding existence to the conception. We both have conceptions of unicorns, and if we wake up tomorrow and read a reliable news headline that a unicorn was found somewhere, we'll be adding existence as an attribute of our conception.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you bear in mind that all of reality exists as a conception in the mind (even a chair when you are touching it and looking at it)

The chair exists outside of my mind. That is not something to ignore. It is the chair that has attributes.

Yes, I have a concept of a chair in my mind, but it is the chair itself (outside of my mind) that is the referent. When I describe the chair, my description is intended to refer to the chair, not to my mental contents.

you are adding existence to the conception.

No, I am not. I am saying that I haven't made a mistake in identifying a chair.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

The chair exists outside of my mind. That is not something to ignore. It is the chair that has attributes.

Yes, I have a concept of a chair in my mind, but it is the chair itself (outside of my mind) that is the referent. When I describe the chair, my description is intended to refer to the chair, not to my mental contents.

I partially agree with you, but I'll argue anyway. That the chair exists outside your mind is only a matter of faith. I agree that if we were never born the chair would still be there, but it is nonetheless still true that it also has to exist as a conception in our minds via our senses. Looked at that way, we can add or subtract the attribute of existence to things.

No, I am not. I am saying that I haven't made a mistake in identifying a chair. The concept exists, to be sure, but I haven't "added existence" to the chair.

I was referring to the band in that part.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have other things to do right now, but I'll leave you with a link for further reading. I'll return later.

http://www.johnpiippo.com/2008/01/easy-explanation-of-kants-objection-to.html


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Everything and anything that exists, right?

And that distinguishes existing things from which`other things?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that existence is an extrinsic property of all finite objects. But are all objects finite?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties

 

[quatona]

I think that existence is an extrinsic property of all finite objects. But are all objects finite?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties

The actual question is: Do there exist objects that don´t exist?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think that existence is an extrinsic property of all finite objects.

What makes you think that it is an extrinsic property at all?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

That the chair exists outside your mind is only a matter of faith.

I'm not interested in following such a silly diversion into solipsist la la land.

Concepts are not some sort of game one plays all in one's mind. If one loses sight that concepts about chairs, bands, and similar things are about entities that do not have a mind-dependent existence, then one has ceased to think clearly on the subject.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

And that distinguishes existing things from which`other things?

From all else.

Seriously, I think the only way you can prevail here is to deny that some things exist and some "things" don't exist. And it makes my brain hurt to try and think of a thing not existing, because that means that the thing is not a thing, and is there such a thing as "no-thing"?, and so forth.

 

[quatona]

From all else.

For example? What is there that doesn´t exist?

Seriously, I think the only way you can prevail here is to deny that some things exist and some "things" don't exist.

It was very honest of you to put the second "things" in quotation marks - because "things that don´t exist" is an oxymoron.

And it makes my brain hurt to try and think of a thing not existing, because that means that the thing is not a thing, and is there such a thing as "no-thing"?, and so forth.

Exactly.