Existence - What it is

[ReluctantProphet]

Does existence exist?
And if so, does the existence of existence exist?
And how about this existence of the existence of existence? Does it exist?

Orrrrr....


Is the color yellow really yellow?
If so, how yellow is it and how do we know?

I have actually encountered a young man that was very serious in asking that question.

 

[Danhalen]

This isn't circular. It is the very proof of the definition. It is saying that to exist is to have affect and vice-versa. Which was exactly the point.

And again, this is a restatement of the exact definition.

How do we know a thing exists? "Because it has the property of affect."

How do we know a thing has the property of affect? "Because it exists."

This is the very description of circular logic.

I would agree "the property of affect" is necessarily a property of existence. I would not agree "the property of affect" is a sufficient property for existence.

This is the exact common error spoken of just earlier where the concept is subtly confused with the object itself.

Perhaps I just read too much into your section in the OP where you had given credence to the existence of things as "concepts." I agree concepts exist, as concepts. I agree with the rest of what you have said in this response.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

How do we know a thing exists? "Because it has the property of affect."

THIS is what I proposed.

How do we know a thing has the property of affect? "Because it exists."

THIS is what YOU added so as to create circular logic and shift the blame to me.

I said nothing of how you know whether something has affect. I didn't mention such for 2 reasons. One was that it became immediately apparent that most people already realize that their senses are involved in detecting affect. But in addition, the topic of how you detect affect, is another topic and issue concerning deceptions of senses and of people slipping in word changes and additional steps of false reasoning without declaring such.

In your original post, you were confirming that existence = affect. But then you take it in a different light and proclaim that you can only KNOW affect BECAUSE of existence (as opposed to senses and perception).

 

[Sojourner<><]

I am amazed how often people argue about the question of what existence is. But as often as it gets brought up concerning God issues, it seems to be something to settle. Often the dictionary offers only an ambiguous definition or merely a substitution for the word. Word substitution might help if you&#8217;re not looking for detailed understanding, but does not constitute an actual definition.

I propose the following as the defining quality of existence.

Existence is that which has the property of affect. If something has affect, then it exists. If something has no affect, it does not exist.

Corollary; Dreams, fantasies, and lies are each a sample of things which exist as their names imply, although the characters or objects within these existences exist only as structural components of the whole. They have no other existence.

Does this work?

I was thinking about your proposition this morning in the shower (which is where I do my best thinking) and it must have been sometime after the 30 minute mark that it finally hit me and I came to a conclusion in support of your idea. However, it shows that your original attempt to define existence is a little bit off but is headed in the right direction.

Here is my argument: Existence cannot be defined as a state of having affect. Existence is a state of being. It can be said to be true that something exists because it is not nothing. It is also true that something is nothing if it has no physical properties. Conversely, something that exists must have physical properties. A property can be defined as an effect something has on another thing. Therefore if something exists it has the ability to affect and if something has the ability to affect, it exists.

See, the problem is that affect is the truth of the consequence of the truth of existence. Existence is more simple than affect.

If that is agreeable to you I'm very interested to see where you're going with this.

 

[Danhalen]

THIS is what I proposed.

Yes it is. I think your proposal leads to the circular reasoning I proposed.

I said nothing of how you know whether something has affect. I didn't mention such for 2 reasons. One was that it became immediately apparent that most people already realize that their senses are involved in detecting affect.

I realize our senses are how we detect affect.

Do you think it is possible to detect a thing which does not have affect?

But in addition, the topic of how you detect affect, is another topic and issue concerning deceptions of senses and of people slipping in word changes and additional steps of false reasoning without declaring such.

While the issue of detecting affect is a seperate topic, it also does play into the definition of existence when you define existence as "that which has the property of affect." This is where the circular reasoning comes into play.

In your original post, you were confirming that existence = affect. But then you take it in a different light and proclaim that you can only KNOW affect BECAUSE of existence (as opposed to senses and perception).

Do my senses exist? Does my perception exist? By your definition of existence, they do. They exist because they affect me. So where are my senses and perception (since they exist)?

 

[Danhalen]

I'm late for work. I'll be back. Excellent topic RP!

 

[ReluctantProphet]

While the issue of detecting affect is a seperate topic, it also does play into the definition of existence when you define existence as "that which has the property of affect." This is where the circular reasoning comes into play.

No. You are injecting it into the definition. Definitions do not require the additional rationales that would proceed from them. The definitions are proposed such as to begin the thought processes that will lead to your added concerns. Without the initial definitions, your addition concerns can't even be addressed.

I agree that the issue of how to detect affect must follow and everyone has acknowledged that such is a concern except they do not see it as a conflict.

You are proposing that once we get into that issue, a conflict will arise. That in itself is a legitimate concern. But it does not address the accuracy of the definition but rather the potential usefulness of it.

Thus it has nothing to do with circular definitions. But rather your own circular proceeding logic. Your logic is what is in error.

Do my senses exist? Does my perception exist? By your definition of existence, they do. They exist because they affect me. So where are my senses and perception (since they exist)?

Where they ARE is again a separate issue that I don't mind addressing as long as you understand that where they are has nothing to do with circular definitions or the accuracy of the definition.

If in addressing where they are, it can be seen that the proposed definition is unusable, then it can be dismissed. But again, this has nothing to do with circular definition. At worst it would be an issue of circular logic and more likely simply be an issue of uselessness.

My first question on “where your perception is located” is, “Why does this matter?”

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Here is my argument: Existence cannot be defined as a state of having affect. Existence is a state of being. It can be said to be true that something exists because it is not nothing. It is also true that something that is nothing has no physical properties. Conversely, something that exists must have physical properties. A property can be defined as an effect something has on another thing. Therefore if something exists it has the ability to affect and if something has the ability to affect, it exists.

It seems to me that in this, you have said that something cannot be done, then you proceed to do that very thing.

A property is merely the category of an affect. As you pointed out, if something has a property to it, then it must have affect such as to define the property.

Thus saying that for something to exist, it must have properties, is really saying the same thing as saying that it must have affect. The only difference is that properties are categorizations that people come up with so as to assist in the usefulness of identifying things whereas an affect is more general requiring no specific categorizing that might not be established yet.

I can see some people arguing that because they haven't identified the properties, then the thing doesn't exist yet.

It appears to me that you are getting involved in a proof of affect or properties being a part of existence. The very beginning of any proof is the definition of the terms.

I was merely proposing that we stop some of the arguing merely by accepting what is easy to see as a defining characteristic of existence. Of course, to some people, nothing is easy, but I'm not expecting 100% acceptance of anything, ever.

I would like, in additional threads, to build from this point along with other accepted definitions into the subject of what magic is, what a god is, and who THE God is, the issue of eternal existance, along with other philosophical concerns involving what must or must not exist.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It seems to me that in this, you have said that something cannot be done, then you proceed to do that very thing.

No, I did not. I provided a logical argument to support the idea that existence and affect are synonymous but not the same.

In my last edit I added this statement:

See, the problem is that affect is the truth of the consequence of the truth of existence. Existence is more simple than affect.

Existence is binary, it either is true or false and it cannot be divided any further. Existence and affect are separate concepts whos combination will, with enough effort, melt your brain. If all apples are red apple does not equal red. Otherwise, it's a logical error. I have to admit though that it is very deceiving because the truths are so closely related.



​

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Existence is binary, it either is true or false and it cannot be divided any further. Existence and affect are separate concepts whos combination will, with enough effort, melt your brain. If all apples are red apple does not equal red. Otherwise, it's a logical error. I have to admit though that it is very deceiving because the truths are so closely related.​

Could you elaborate a little more?

I can see why you say that existence is binary, although I still think it requires a definition. Rather than the word "binary", I would use the word "axiomatical".

The red apple bit lost me completely.

I agree that affect and Existence are different concepts but that is why one can be used to define the other. Existence is thought of as simply "that which is." But this doesn't really help much because the obvious question would be, "Yeah, but what is it that 'just is'?"

By saying that existence is that which has affect, you reveal an identifiable property that cares a little more meaning via the inherent consequence of something existing.

I don't see a problem in defining something by its inherent and unavoidable consequences and stating that the defined thing is what causes those consequences inescapably. This type of statement yields the thought that one cannot be without the other and thus each concern is covered by the other.

I suspect that your "brain melt" affect is from you trying to imagine something existing first, then having affect because it existed. My proposal is that it exists only because it has affect without which or before which, it had no existence. Having properties is basically the same thing as having affect.

I am not trying to logically prove that affect is the definition. The only proof I would provide would deal with the notion that anything could exist without affect and thus the 2 are inseparable. Add to that the apparent fact that existence has no other meaningful definition and you end up with a solid axiom to accept and then proceed.

Definitions do not require logical proof. Definitions must be accepted before any logic begins. The association of one thing being inherently tied to another can perhaps be logically addressed, but even in that, the words used within that proof would require definition.

In the long run, you simply have to begin by accepting something as a definition and axiom from which to start thinking.

This definition is one that is easily apparent to the point where many have said that it is just too obvious to be interesting. I agree except that some still want to argue simply to remove any hope of ever being able to establish any order of thought. Their arguments are never logical in themselves, but that is just something I have to sort through.

Logic and ALL thought begin with definition of terms. So regardless of any logical argument, definition will still be required. If something more fundamental can be established which then leads to a more clear definition of existence, that is fine with me. But I find that everything tried ends up having more things to define which in turn lead right back to where you started.​

 

[quatona]

Yes, we are only talking about the definition of a word. We are not talking about the more relevant break downs of what constitutes existence - yet.

If it is merely about defining a word, I do not see any problems at all. For me, you can define „existence“ as „that which comes which cows produce in their udders“, as long as I am informed about the way you use this word when you talk to me.
What I was trying to point out is that our conclusions depend on the way we define words. If you define „existence“ as something that excludes the mere objects of thoughts, the result will be „gods do not exist“, if you propose a definition that will include those objects, the resulting statement will be „gods exist“. Thus, the definition you (or anyone) proposes is designed to enable the desired break-downs (which makes them mere semantics, basically).

I found nowhere in your common usage, any sign of intent different than the proposed definiton. Each time you used the word "exist" or "existence", you were refering to something that has affect on something else.

No, in many cases I was not sure whether the assumed cause existed. As far as I am concerned I merely observe phenomena, and what I can observe I consider existing, for practical purposes. I have no idea whether they are affected by something and even less what it is that they are affected by.
Does love „exist“? Is it that which affects things, or is it the very affect we perceive itself?
I personally am fine with and if feeling loved. The question whether love exists does not really interest me.

How so? What else is required?

If visiting a friend I may ask in advance whether a guitar „exists“ in his house. Philosophically, I do not believe that guitars exist other than as our concepts.

I don't see how you would have to change anything that you seem to do currently. Those who need to change would be those similar to the prior post who confuse the idea of a thing with the things existence and do so very readily such as to bring argument and cloud issues.

I personally wouldn´t be so quick to call this clouding the issue, anymore than I would regard any other definition as clouding the issue. What you are describing here is exactly what everybody else does, too, when defining words: Preparing the desired resulting distinctions.

He use of words is what is important in that bad usage results in confusion and further clouding issues.

Well, in your very first sentence above you were telling me that all this is merely the attempt of defining a word, i.e. a merely semantic question. Now you are warning me of the significance of a definition for the result, and that is exactly what I am trying to point out.

It is important to acknowledge that thoughts do indeed have existence and therefore affect. If you were to leave that idea out, then you would begin to find people who argue that the thought of something brings effect and thus existence is created by thought (non-existence).

I am completely confused as to what you are trying to say here. Would you care to reword this paragraph for me?

There is a form of "magic" trickery that causes something to come into existence as a real thing simply because of the thoughts and what they affect.

I don´t know what you mean when saying „real thing“ here. I do not understand the distinction between „existence“ and „real existence“. The latter seems to be a tautology.

Those who are familiar with this type of thing tend to argue that the thought of the thing, being its cause, is the same as the object itself.

If I were to object to this notion, I would try to come up with good arguments against it, instead of merely trying to define this possibility out of existence by proposing a definition of „existence“ that suits my purpose (magic trickery).

Thus it is important to begin by clarifying that any existence is quantified, not by what it will bring later, but by what affect it has at the moment being discussed.

I personally am not convinced that this is important.

Are you saying here that if you cannot perceive it, then it doesn't exist?

No, I didn´t mean to say anything to that effect. At best, your above paraphrasing would be an invalid reverse conclusion of what I meant to say.
For practical purpose I consider that which I can perceive as existing. In everyday life (and in reference to that which we call the physical realm), this definition seems to do. If I see a guitar hanging on my wall, another person looking there will see this thing, too. If she is blind she can feel it. There doesn´t seem to be much disagreement about the existence of something, at least none that requires, justifies or necessitates complicated philosophical considerations.
Enter concepts. Other people may conceptualize differently than me. Being a musician I may think of this perceived thing as a „bass“, while for a layman the concept „guitar“ is entirely sufficient. A third person may think of it as a piece of wood for fueling the oven.
Yet, disagreement as to whether there hangs something on the wall are not to be expected. Further attempts of describing its properties are likely to give everybody involved the relieving idea that her perception works sufficiently similar to those of the other persons involved.
There are different degrees of abstraction. Whilst „guitar“ is such a familiar concept that we are (mistakenly) are tempted to consider it something concretely existing, a concept like „wind“ is already signifying a complex process other than something that statically exists.
For example we will run into problems determining what about this complex process must be called an affect or is rather to be considered a cause. „Wind exists“ is a problematic statement, since we are already talking about an advanced conceptualization, a thought, if you will.
On the philosophical level we end up in mere abstractions. When talking about „love“, „freewill“, „evil“ we are talking about abstract concepts. Do these things exist?
Actually, I don´t care much. Being abstract concepts, they are brought to me by my brain activity. I´m fine with everyone who wants to call them existing, I´m also fine with everyone who refuses to call them existing.
I personally experience myself to have those thoughts and concepts, and that´s all.
Returning to your question: I consider those things that are brought to me neither by perception nor my brain activity as irrelevant for me.
If someone claims to have personal conversations with god, and I don´t have such, these conversations are not relevant for me (the claim of the person may, though). Now, if I ask this person to invite me to join those conversations, and he comes up with funny excuses as to why that is not possible, I am losing interest. I will consider this entire thing irrelevant for me. Whether this god „exists“ is merely a semantical issue, for me. He perceives it, I don´t. Fine. I will go with my perception.

That would mean that atoms, electric fields, the dark side of the moon and such don't exist because you can not perceive them. You must deduce their existence from the affects they have. Deduction is different than perception.

Deducing something from an affect is the textbook example for conceptualization. These things are mere concepts, thoughts, and I suspect you will have a hard time to demonstrate that they have an „existence“ beyond „merely“ being thoughts. They are useful thoughts, though, and they have proven to be appropriate explanations for our purposes. That´s why I find those explanations acceptable. The question whether these things „exist“ is not really much of a concern, for me.

They reply, "He can't be seen, he just IS." I am proposing that they then explain what affects define the thing they are calling "the devil" else it is to be concluded that such a thing is merely a thought and no more.

I suspect that they will answer with „evil“ or „sin“ or „unclean thoughts“ or something to that effect.

I propose that first a discussion of what constitutes existence be presented.

Well, I have tried to outline where I see the essential problems coming with this approach.
For the purpose of demonstrating my point I will propose the above mentioned definition: „That which cows produce in their utters.“
Anyways, I sincerely hope this thread will get you (and us) somewhere, nonetheless.

Finally, another thought I suggest to take into consideration: We do know that the feelings of something to exist can affect us in the same way as this thing being demonstrably there. I feel that this poses a major problem for your approach. If we assume that feeling a god to exist would affect a person in the same way as a god existing, I would a. have no idea how to conclude existence from affect, and b. I am even inclined to consider the difference irrelevant.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

If it is merely about defining a word, I do not see any problems at all. For me, you can define „existence“ as „that which comes which cows produce in their udders“, as long as I am informed about the way you use this word when you talk to me.
What I was trying to point out is that our conclusions depend on the way we define words. If you define „existence“ as something that excludes the mere objects of thoughts, the result will be „gods do not exist“, if you propose a definition that will include those objects, the resulting statement will be „gods exist“. Thus, the definition you (or anyone) proposes is designed to enable the desired break-downs (which makes them mere semantics, basically).

Wait. You are saying that any design of a definition only serves the purpose of controlling an eventual conclusion. That is simply not so.

A definition is designed so as to allow for communication of more exactly matching concepts. When words are altered so as to manipulate an out come, then the entire language falls apart.

The definition that I proposed has nothing to do with forcing a conclusion for or against any gods. You believe that a god is merely a thought or concept, thus you, at the moment, believe that the proceeding conclusion would have the out come of saying that a god does not exist except as a thought based on what you know about such things right now. But all of this is only because you have already decided what a god is.

The definition proposed has nothing at all to do with determining if a god exists except to say that if a god exists (or anything else) it must have some affect on something. Who is going to argue that a god must indeed have some kind of affect for it to be real?

The definition does not dictate which thing it must have affect on nor in what manner it affects anything, only that it has SOME affect on SOME thing. The affect that something has can then be used to assess the value or potential of the thing as it normally does anyway.

The definition does NOT include nor exclude any gods. And it is not designed with such in mind. You are presuming my intent to be a rather manipulative one. The only purpose that I actually have right now is to settle on a common usage. If something like a god has affect, then it will exist with or without any definitions being toyed with.

At best the only thing that I would achieve by such manipulations would be that someone could SAY that a god didn't exist, but saying such would not affect the reality of it.

My definition is merely an attempt to reflect what reality already does in such a way as to allow us to talk to each other and think with less confusion.

 

[quatona]

Wait. You are saying that any design of a definition only serves the purpose of controlling an eventual conclusion.

To be more precise, I am not saying that this is the sole purpose, but a necessary by-product.

That is simply not so.

A definition is designed so as to allow for communication of more exactly matching concepts.

Then why insist on signifying a particular concept with a particular term? For this purpose it would be entirely sufficient to agree upon any term for any concept. See my alternate definition of "existence" - would we all come to agree upon it, named purpose would be served.

When words are altered so as to manipulate an out come, then the entire language falls apart.

If words had a natural meaning you would have a point there. Whilst in fact language is constantly changing.
On another note: If we look up any abstract term in the dictionary, it comes with multiple (partly very differering) meanings. Why do you think that is?

The definition that I proposed has nothing to do with forcing a conclusion for or against any gods.

Correct. It only has to do with forcing a statement for or against the existence of gods.

You believe that a god is merely a thought or concept, thus you, at the moment, believe that the proceeding conclusion would have the out come of saying that a god does not exist except as a thought based on what you know about such things right now. But all of this is only because you have already decided what a god is.

Exactly my point. If I had an interest in arriving at the outcome "God exists", I would pick a definition matching this purpose and vice versa.

The definition proposed has nothing at all to do with determining if a god exists except to say that if a god exists (or anything else) it must have some affect on something. Who is going to argue that a god must indeed have some kind of affect for it to be real?

Just for clarification: Do you use "real" and "existing" as synonyms?
Since we cannot know whether observed effects can be ascribed to gods (and since there is as much disagreement in this question as there is about the existence of god), and since we cannot know whether potential effects of gods have simply gone unnoticed so far, I don´t see how establishing this definition provides us with a major break through.
But, for what it´s worth and in order to speed things up a little, I will simply accept your definition that "affecting something" is a necessary property of "existence". It´s just a word, after all. We have now successfully shifted the problems with the term "existing" on the term "affecting". So I am interested in hearing your definition of this term.

The definition does not dictate which thing it must have affect on nor in what manner it affects anything, only that it has SOME affect on SOME thing.

Yes, that´s what I have understood you to say all the time.

The affect that something has can then be used to assess the value or potential of the thing as it normally does anyway.

"Normal" is a pretty tricky word when it comes to philosophy.
Whatever. So far we see phenomena, and we assume them to be the manifestation of something being affected (whatever that will turn out to exactly mean in your proposed terminology).
The major obstacle and one of the most basic differences in the opinions of god-believers and non-believers is the problem of how to determine what it is that causes these phenomena. Since your definition of "existence" didn´t do anything to get us any closer towards a method to do this (and hence the actual problem at hand remains, independent of which definition of "existence" we agree upon), I expect your definition of &#8222;affecting&#8220; to provide us with a major step towards solving the issue.

The definition does NOT include nor exclude any gods. And it is not designed with such in mind. You are presuming my intent to be a rather manipulative one.

I make no presumptions whatsoever concerning your intentions. I am merely trying to describe processes. I have no reason to doubt that your intentions are sincere.

The only purpose that I actually have right now is to settle on a common usage.

Then I wonder why you insist on a particular usage.

If something like a god has affect, then it will exist with or without any definitions being toyed with.

Only if we accept the definition you are &#8222;toying with&#8220;. Else there would be no basis for the above statement. You are being circular here.

Granted: &#8222;WHAT IS&#8220; remains unaffected by our definitions. Not even our concepts of "WHAT IS" are changing, if we accept a certain definition. What merely will change is the way we will express them.

At best the only thing that I would achieve by such manipulations would be that someone could SAY that a god didn't exist, but saying such would not affect the reality of it.

Yes, that is exactly my point. Definitions merely change what we can SAY about something, they do not change &#8222;WHAT IS&#8220;, and they do not help us discerning &#8222;WHAT IS&#8220;.

My definition is merely an attempt to reflect what reality already does in such a way as to allow us to talk to each other and think with less confusion.

Whilst I completely agree in that agreed upon definitions are necessary for talking with less confusion, I don´t follow your idea that persons who think in alternate definitions therefore think in a confused manner.
Well, anyhow, I have accepted your definition for the sake of having an agreed upon definition and enable us to communicate with less confusion, and I am waiting in anticipation for the next steps.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Could you elaborate a little more?

I can see why you say that existence is binary, although I still think it requires a definition. Rather than the word "binary", I would use the word "axiomatical".

I can see why that was confusing. Let me fill in a few missing words here...

Logically, the truth of something's existence is binary, it either is true or false and it cannot be divided any further.

The red apple bit lost me completely.
I agree that affect and Existence are different concepts but that is why one can be used to define the other. Existence is thought of as simply "that which is." But this doesn't really help much because the obvious question would be, "Yeah, but what is it that 'just is'?"

By saying that existence is that which has affect, you reveal an identifiable property that cares a little more meaning via the inherent consequence of something existing.

I don't see a problem in defining something by its inherent and unavoidable consequences and stating that the defined thing is what causes those consequences inescapably. This type of statement yields the thought that one cannot be without the other and thus each concern is covered by the other.

I suspect that your "brain melt" affect is from you trying to imagine something existing first, then having affect because it existed. My proposal is that it exists only because it has affect without which or before which, it had no existence. Having properties is basically the same thing as having affect.

I am not trying to logically prove that affect is the definition. The only proof I would provide would deal with the notion that anything could exist without affect and thus the 2 are inseparable. Add to that the apparent fact that existence has no other meaningful definition and you end up with a solid axiom to accept and then proceed.

Definitions do not require logical proof. Definitions must be accepted before any logic begins. The association of one thing being inherently tied to another can perhaps be logically addressed, but even in that, the words used within that proof would require definition.

In the long run, you simply have to begin by accepting something as a definition and axiom from which to start thinking.

This definition is one that is easily apparent to the point where many have said that it is just too obvious to be interesting. I agree except that some still want to argue simply to remove any hope of ever being able to establish any order of thought. Their arguments are never logical in themselves, but that is just something I have to sort through.

Logic and ALL thought begin with definition of terms. So regardless of any logical argument, definition will still be required. If something more fundamental can be established which then leads to a more clear definition of existence, that is fine with me. But I find that everything tried ends up having more things to define which in turn lead right back to where you started.

The major problem that I keep running into with your argument is that you're trying to say that one thing IS the other. I am proposing that it is a logical error, and, for the purpose of future discussion, I am proposing in it's place a logical argument to establish the co-existence of the two ideas. In other words, where one is you will find the other and vice versa.

My example of the apple was a demonstration of this. We both know very well that the idea "apple" is not the same idea of "red" and yet it seems that you are trying to say that the definition of "apple" is "red".

At this level, it's all about how you say it.
What you are saying is: "existence is that which has affect". What I am saying is: "that which exists has affect". The difference is a subtle one for sure.

This, unfortunately, leaves the exact definition of existence to be open which seems to be throwing us all into a desperate confusion. But if the worlds of philosophy, mathematics and physics have still yet to come up with an explanation for this idea, how can we expect to accomplish this here in this thread? Instead, for argument's sake, can we agree that existence is the state of a thing that is opposite of its void? I think that is the best that we can expect to do here.

On another note, I read in one of your earlier posts that you are trying to differentiate existence as it applies to thought and reality. Perhaps if you chose to use the words imaginary and real we might make more progress.

 

[quatona]

What you are saying is: "existence is that which has affect". What I am saying is: "that which exists has affect". The difference is a subtle one for sure. .

In fact I had been wondering about the phrase "existence is that which has affect", too, for a while. Since it didn´t make much sense to me I was assuming that it was a lapsus and what he actually meant to write was "existent is that which has affect". But maybe I was mistaken?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The major problem that I keep running into with your argument is that you're trying to say that one thing IS the other. I am proposing that it is a logical error, and, for the purpose of future discussion, I am proposing in it's place a logical argument to establish the co-existence of the two ideas. In other words, where one is you will find the other and vice versa.

My example of the apple was a demonstration of this. We both know very well that the idea "apple" is not the same idea of "red" and yet it seems that you are trying to say that the definition of "apple" is "red".

At this level, it's all about how you say it.
What you are saying is: "existence is that which has affect". What I am saying is: "that which exists has affect". The difference is a subtle one for sure.

But...

In the case of existence and affect, neither can exist without the other. If anything has the property of affect, then it MUST also have the state of existence. If anything has the state of existence, then it MUST also have the property of affect.

With your apple example, many things can be red that are not apples. And many apples could possibly be not red. With affect and existence they are ALWAYS together. Thus to define existence as that which has affect allows a consistent truth that could never be wrong regardless of what is being considered unless you think there can be something that has no affect at all and yet still exist or visa-versa.

Instead, for argument's sake, can we agree that existence is the state of a thing that is opposite of its void? I think that is the best that we can expect to do here.

Well I have found that Science not having achieved something yet has little to do with it's achievability when it comes to logic. Speaking of which..

You have in that statement merely said that something is necessarily not its opposite. I can agree with that as a logical axiom, but it provides nothing as far as any definition.

On another note, I read in one of your earlier posts that you are trying to differentiate existence as it applies to thought and reality. Perhaps if you chose to use the words imaginary and real we might make more progress.

The word "imaginary" directly implies fictional to most people so that would lead to conflict with those who proclaim that there thoughts are not fictional even though they involve imagination. Imagination is a objectizing or picturing process that can apply to real or fictional things.

"Real" as far as I know is the same as "exists". Thoughts are real. It is the characters being represented within those thoughts that might not be.

The issue with thoughts is more of one concerning something, like a label, that represents something else versus the actual something else. People confuse the thought of something with the something just as though you were to confuse the label "Jesus" with the actual person. Then proclaim that Jesus must be real because you thought of him.

This kind of thing was actually done in an earlier post on this thread. People are having trouble keeping their brains healthy enough to easily separate a concept from what the concept refers to. It all has to do with feeling too impatient to take the time to let their brains actually discern subtle differences. It is also what causes people to feel bored and willing to get &#8220;crazy&#8221; at any cost. And also what causes them to over-speculate with suspicion and rush to judgments that have no need to be made as well as attention problems.

 

[Danhalen]

Ok RP,
I've been thinking, and debating about your OP for a while now. I think I now have a better understanding of why you are disregarding the proceeding logic; you are not justifying what existence is, or even proving it. You are merely defining existence for use as a premise in a larger argument (or not, but the definition is useful as a premise). If this is the case, I retract all of my prior argumentation.

However, I do not find your definition adequate. I find your definition problematic in that it is possible for a non-existent thing to have any property other than the "property of affect." For a thing to have a property, it must be existent.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I agree that the world is a confusing place. Personally, I think it's a consequence of our imperfections, and the imperfections of our language.

 

[quatona]

I agree that the world is a confusing place.

I don´t feel that way. What in particular is it that you find confusing?

Personally, I think it's a consequence of our imperfections, and the imperfections of our language.

I´d rather think that it may be a consequence of confusing words with concepts, and confusing concepts with WHAT IS. The result you get when looking at the world is a consequence of the concepts you apply.
No doubt, communicating by language comes with a lot of problems. But you needn´t restrict your thinking to thinking in words.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

.. in that it is possible for a non-existent thing to have any property other than the "property of affect." For a thing to have a property, it must be existent.

What properties non-existing things have is not relevant as long as they cannot have the property of affect.

I would say that what properties a non-existing thing might have would be totally unknow-able to us. We measure properties by the type and degree of affect they have, so in a sense, for a non-existing thing to have any property is not really possible (as far as anyone in this universe is concerned anyway).