Existence

[quatona]

Let's say that all that exists are Bob, his chair (in which he is sitting), his pipe (which he is puffing), and an air-filled room (in which he is breathing and living).

"Existence" would simply refer to these entities and their relations, as described above. In fact, I could treat all of these things as a single entity. That entity could be called "existence". It could also be called "Bob's room".

So what we´d mean by "existence" in this definition is the universe?

Existence doesn't "contain" itself so much as it is itself.

"Existence" as "all that exists" seems to be a useful definition, to me.

(At least, an entity "containing" itself sounds strange to my ears.)

Yes.

 

[ivebeenshown]

For the sake of avoiding confusion, I prefer to use the word "reality" to refer to "all that which exists."

Exactly. Existence, in that particular case, is a property of everything. You can't have "all" without something to quantify, and the definition relies on that "all".

Should 'existence' be an entity which exists independently from all other things that may 'exist', a scenario is then possible where 'existence' is the only existing entity.

Existence is a subjective active involvement with the universe

Contrarily, I say that things may exist objectively within the universe which lack consciousness.

If "existence" means something in addition to the sum of all existents and their relations, then no.

What is the reasoning behind this?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So what we´d mean by "existence" in this definition is the universe?

Yes, precisely. Existence isn't a container, or any additional entity or property, but simply "the universe".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is the reasoning behind this?

I'm simply giving my personal view in response to quatona's question. I don't think that "existence" has to mean anything more than "all that exists". It's just a matter of thinking clearly.

Granted, I'm biased towards my own metaphysics. Perhaps some metaphysics far from my own (perhaps a version of Platonism) would posit some entity called "existence" that is somehow other than the entities we are aware of.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm simply giving my personal view in response to quatona's question. I don't think that "existence" has to mean anything more than "all that exists". It's just a matter of thinking clearly.

Or circular definition?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Should 'existence' be an entity which exists independently from all other things that may 'exist', a scenario is then possible where 'existence' is the only existing entity.

It's not an entity, but a necessary property of entities. If there is an entity, there is existence. You can't just have "red", you have to have a red something. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Of...?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Hypothetical and conceptual things. If you have a thing, and this thing is hypothetical, then surely that means that a property of this thing is that it is hypothetical? Properties define what something is, after all.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hypothetical and conceptual things. If you have a thing, and this thing is hypothetical, then surely that means that a property of this thing is that it is hypothetical? Properties define what something is, after all.

Let's try to clarify the issue.

Consider a unicorn. And I mean a real, live unicorn that can be fed and that will fall asleep in the lap of a virgin. Such a unicorn cannot have the property "conceptual". No unicorn can. The concept of a unicorn can, but not the concept's referent.

There is no such thing as a hypothetical unicorn. There can be a hypothesis (an image or idea) of a unicorn. But not a unicorn that has the property "hypothetical".

Do you agree?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

There is no such thing as a hypothetical unicorn. There can be a hypothesis (an image or idea) of a unicorn. But not a unicorn that has the property "hypothetical".

Do you agree?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Sort of. The idea of a unicorn does exist, and it is hypothetical.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sort of. The idea of a unicorn does exist, and it is hypothetical.

Ideas exist. Agreed. As long as one distinguishes between concepts and their referents (if any), there's no problem.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"This"

 

[ivebeenshown]

There is no such thing as a hypothetical unicorn. There can be a hypothesis (an image or idea) of a unicorn. But not a unicorn that has the property "hypothetical".

Do you agree?

I disagree. "Conceptual" is as valid a property as "corporeal".

When we say "concept of a unicorn" we clearly do not mean this as if there were a unicorn that possessed a concept, rather we mean a unicorn whose existence is conceptual rather than corporeal.

 

[JYJ]

It is only a word which demonstrates self awareness.

 

[ivebeenshown]

So where are we at now? Is there anything which necessitates that existence not be an entity rather than a mere property?

 

[JYJ]

So where are we at now? Is there anything which necessitates that existence not be an entity rather than a mere property?

I think that the most elementary existence is God. All else is of/from God.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I think that the most elementary existence is God. All else is of/from God.

I believe so too. I am just wondering if there is any logical way of demonstrating that existence is or is not an entity in and of itself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe so too. I am just wondering if there is any logical way of demonstrating that existence is or is not an entity in and of itself.

Interrogate yourself.

If you see a red brick, would you say that it exists? Yes, I'm sure you would.

What does the red brick exist as? It exists as a red brick.

You can't remove properties of the brick individually, such as its color or its mass, but if you were to remove all of those properties, would anything exist at all? No, the brick would be nonexistent. There would be nothing left of it to exist.

Now apply that to the universe as a whole.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JYJ]

I believe so too. I am just wondering if there is any logical way of demonstrating that existence is or is not an entity in and of itself.

My firm belief is that in the human predilection for finding reason, purpose and solace in citing "God" in all the many ways that we do from ancient to modern, primitive to modern, demonstrates clearly the presence of a "deity" even if we still argue the form and methods.

God is not separate from Creation. All that we know is of Him. If God has a body it must be the entire universe and everything in it. Certainly this is quite a testimony to existence.

Philosophy and religious faith always lead hard science. This is good. They give direction to the believer who is a scientist and consternation to the proclaimed atheist. Science looks backwards from the present and faith looks forward from God. The two should meet harmoniously at some point where science fails. This point, in my opinion, is what they call the big bang which, I say, is the moment of Creation.

God is patient so how can we be less? Certainly there is more to know.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Interrogate yourself.

If you see a red brick, would you say that it exists? Yes, I'm sure you would.

What does the red brick exist as? It exists as a red brick.

You can't remove properties of the brick individually, such as its color or its mass, but if you were to remove all of those properties, would anything exist at all? No, the brick would be nonexistent. There would be nothing left of it to exist.

It is possible that the brick's existence would no longer be actual but instead possible or conceptual.

Now apply that to the universe as a whole.

Again, perhaps the universe would not exist as an actuality but as a possibility or a concept.

Do we presuppose that existence is contingent upon that which exists in actuality? I happen to believe existence itself is pure actuality, contingent upon nothing but subsisting of itself.

God is not separate from Creation. All that we know is of Him. If God has a body it must be the entire universe and everything in it. Certainly this is quite a testimony to existence.

This sounds like pantheism, the idea that God is "all that which exists" (i.e. reality), including you and I.

 

[bricklayer]

A predicate contingent on things, or a self-subsisting reality?

Material existence is contingent.
God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

It is God's nature to exist. God has no potential to not exist.
He is simple actuality, with no potentiality.
Material actually exists, but it has the potential to not exist.
It is a complex of actuality and potentiality.

Existence is.
Existence is existence.
Existence is not non-existence.
Either existence or non-existence.
Non-existence cannot cause existence.
Complex existence is contingent upon necessary existence.
Simple existence is necessary for complex existence.