Existence as an Attribute

[Chesterton]

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

Trimecular narkeltonabras.

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

Does that mean no thing doesn't exist? Would the opposite then have to be true, that all things do exist?

 

[The Cadet]

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

Well... Yeah. Things exist. "Things that don't exist" aren't things. Even if you insist that they must be things because we think of them, you are confusing the concept of a thing for an actual thing.

 

[The Cadet]

Trimecular narkeltonabras.

You've offered a sequence of words here that are not defined and therefore have no meaning. If this is meant to define a "thing", then the thing you have is a concept. The fact that you can conceptualize something does not make it real, or even mean that it could possibly exist.

 

[quatona]

Trimecular narkeltonabras.

That´s a thing?

Does that mean no thing doesn't exist?

If you want to word it that clumsily.

Would the opposite then have to be true, that all things do exist?

There is no such thing as a non-existing thing.

 

[Chesterton]

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

Thanks for the link. The way I see it is that Kant's mistake is conflating predicate with attribute, where predicates are unnecessary anyway. A sentence is just an expression of a meaningful, coherent thought. As we learned in grammar school, a sentence does not require a predicate, or even a subject, only a verb. "Go." and "Eat." are sentences expressing a meaningful, coherent thought. "John's car is." also expresses a coherent, meaningful thought.

The other example of "My wife Linda exists." - it's true that "exists" doesn't add anything to the subject, but the very reason it doesn't add anything is simply because the attribute of existence is already implied by reference to a subject. If I ask you to "pass the salt" I don't have to specify that I want the salt which exists, because it's already implied. I think this point is strengthened by the fact that the implication can also be wrong - if a real estate guy offers you an excellent price on ocean-front property in Arizona, you'd better double-check to make sure that the subject actually exists.

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.

Yes, a Christian using solipsism, very unseemly. I'm only trying to find a way to express what seems to me so simple and self-evident that it should go without saying: "exist" is something some thing does, and also a physical quality, otherwise it wouldn't be a thing.

 

[Chesterton]

Well... Yeah. Things exist. "Things that don't exist" aren't things. Even if you insist that they must be things because we think of them, you are confusing the concept of a thing for an actual thing.

I promise I'm not confusing things with concepts of things.

You've offered a sequence of words here that are not defined and therefore have no meaning. If this is meant to define a "thing", then the thing you have is a concept. The fact that you can conceptualize something does not make it real, or even mean that it could possibly exist.

That's the best I could do.

 

[quatona]

I promise I'm not confusing things with concepts of things.

And I promise that you do.

A thing that's not a thing.

 

[Chesterton]

That´s a thing?

I don't know. You didn't ask for a "thing", you asked what is there that doesn't exist. I don't think that/those exist(s).

If you want to word it that clumsily.

There is no such thing as a non-existing thing.

Yes, and red is red, and zero = zero. It seems you're just giving tautologies to try and avoid the fact that some things exist, therefore they have that attribute.

 

[quatona]

I don't know. You didn't ask for a "thing", you asked what is there that doesn't exist. I don't think that/those exist(s).

Plus they aren´t there. So they aren´t an example of "what is there that doesn´t exist".

Yes, and red is red, and zero = zero.

But apparently this stops when it comes to things - "things that aren´t things".

It seems you're just giving tautologies to try and avoid the fact that some things exist, therefore they have that attribute.

Well, "it exists" and "it is there" is a tautology - it´s not my making. And "a thing" and "a thing" is not even a tautology - it´s the exact same.
Thus, when you try to establish an idea that requires me to accept that "things aren´t things" and that "there are thing that don´t exist" it´s certainly not me who has a problem with logic and tangles himself up in absurd semantics.

 

[Chesterton]

Plus they aren´t there.

They aren't where?

So they aren´t an example of "what is there that doesn´t exist".

Would you like some examples of "what is there and does exist" with which to contrast the non-existent? I have an encyclopedia here. I'll begin at the beginning with "aardvarks."

But apparently this stops when it comes to things - "things that aren´t things".

Not sure what you mean.

Well, "it exists" and "it is there" is a tautology - it´s not my making. And "a thing" and "a thing" is not even a tautology - it´s the exact same.
Thus, when you try to establish an idea that requires me to accept that "things aren´t things" and that "there are thing that don´t exist" it´s certainly not me who has a problem with logic and tangles himself up in absurd semantics.

I agree, but how can we even discuss things then? Classify all things into two sets of things and non-things? Of course not, because things can't not be things. Yet I insist that 1) there are things and 2) the fact that there are things absolutely requires that they have the attribute of being things.

 

[The Cadet]

Yet I insist that 1) there are things and 2) the fact that there are things absolutely requires that they have the attribute of being things.

But an attribute that applies to everything in the universal set is completely redundant.

I hope that makes some sense, I'm a little tipsy.

 

[quatona]

They aren't where?

You introced the term "they are there".

Would you like some examples of "what is there and does exist" with which to contrast the non-existent?

No, I want an example for something that is there and does not exist (because you talked about such).

Not sure what you mean.

Good. Then, fortunately, I am not the only one who has no idea what you mean when saying "A thing that´s not a thing."

I agree, but how can we even discuss things then?

Where´s the problem? We can discuss things quite fine.

Classify all things into two sets of things and non-things?

There you go again with the semantic absurdities. There isn´t a class of things that are non-things.

Of course not, because things can't not be things.

Then why do you keep using this proposition?

Yet I insist that 1) there are things

That´s undisputed.

and 2) the fact that there are things absolutely requires that they have the attribute of being things.

Yeah, they also have the attribute of having the attribute of being things. We can pile redundant words upon redundant words and tautologies upon tautologies, if you wish to make a tasty word salad.

 

[Chesterton]

But an attribute that applies to everything in the universal set is completely redundant.

But redundant doesn't mean untrue.

I hope that makes some sense, I'm a little tipsy.

Hey it's a Saturday afternoon. I'm working towards that myself.

 

[The Cadet]

But redundant doesn't mean untrue.

No, but it does mean meaningless. The attribute "exists" essentially has no meaning. And as the only objects that don't have that attribute don't actually exist... How can it meaningfully be said to be an attribute at all?

Hey it's a Saturday afternoon. I'm working towards that myself.

Yo shoutouts to Saturday afternoon, AKA the perfect time to chug a bottle box of wine.

 

[Chesterton]

You introced the term "they are there".

No I believe that was you on page 4.

No, I want an example for something that is there and does not exist (because you talked about such).

Good. Then, fortunately, I am not the only one who has no idea what you mean when saying "A thing that´s not a thing."

If you don't like the way I define "nothing", come up with your definition, get it published, then accept your Nobel Prize and get back to me.

Where´s the problem? We can discuss things quite fine.

You seem to quibble with the terms in everything I ask or say.

There you go again with the semantic absurdities. There isn´t a class of things that are non-things.

Amazing that you will take exactly what I say, and repeat it against me as if you'd said it and I didn't.

Then why do you keep using this proposition?

How is stating the falsity of a proposition using the proposition?

Yeah, they also have the attribute of having the attribute of being things. We can pile redundant words upon redundant words and tautologies upon tautologies, if you wish to make a tasty word salad.

If a "thing" doesn't exist, we say it doesn't exist. If a "thing" exists, we say it exists. You can call it attribution or call it whatever you want, but you can't deny that "exist" and "not exist" are valid conceptions in the mind which can possibly be true or untrue. It may not be useful to say "red is red", but neither is it untrue.

 

[quatona]

If a "thing" doesn't exist, we say it doesn't exist.

Then there isn´t a thing or an it, to boot. "A thing that doesn´t exist" has no referent.

You can call it attribution or call it whatever you want, but you can't deny that "exist" and "not exist" are valid conceptions in the mind which can possibly be true or untrue.

"This thing doesn´t exist" can never be true.

It may not be useful to say "red is red", but neither is it untrue.

The problem is: "red is red" carries no information whatsoever. It is meaningless. As such, it can´t be true or untrue.

 

[Eryk]

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

There is no such thing as a non-existing thing.

I rise to the defense of non-existing things (for a non-existing retainer, so I guess this is pro bono).

Hypothetical, possible, and future things are important things to talk about. How impoverished we would be if our minds were limited to what is actual. There would be no art, no growth in technology, no progress in culture without imagining what it is like to live in a better world. Novelists and actors feel themselves haunted by their characters - they aren't mad, they know what is real, but non-real things can have realistic qualities. We have to make a distinction between things with the attribute of existence and things without it to talk about this strange, wonderful, useful, essential part of our humanity.

 

[quatona]

I rise to the defense of non-existing things (for a non-existing retainer, so I guess this is pro bono).

Hypothetical, possible, and future things are important things to talk about. How impoverished we would be if our minds were limited to what is actual. There would be no art, no growth in technology, no progress in culture without imagining what it is like to live in a better world. Novelists and actors feel themselves haunted by their characters - they aren't mad, they know what is real, but non-real things can have realistic qualities. We have to make a distinction between things with the attribute of existence and things without it to talk about this strange, wonderful, useful, essential part of our humanity.

I agree that imaginations, visions, utopias, anticipations, hopes etc. are important for us. This does not, however, support the notion that non-existing things exist. (I do understand that in colloquial language saying this can be a useful and tolerable crutch, but once people start building philosophical arguments upon this paradox terminology, we have to be very suspicious.)

 

[Eryk]

I agree that imaginations, visions, utopias, anticipations, hopes etc. are important for us. This does not, however, support the notion that non-existing things exist.

I'm not saying they exist. I'm saying that there are important things that do not have the attribute of existence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm not saying they exist. I'm saying that there are important things that do not have the attribute of existence.

But they do have the attribute of existence.

Fictional things exist in the imagination, not as anything as absurd and contradictory as "nonexistent things". That is why we refer to them as "imaginations, visions, utopias, anticipations, hopes, etc". They exist as such things, they simply happen to be mental phenomena.

It's important not to get these confused with nonexistence.


eudaimonia,

Mark