It depends on the context it is used, which makes it great for equivocation and other word games. And look, we're in the philosophy section. What a coincidence
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some people said that truth is what exists.
Well, leaving the issue of truth aside, what does it mean to "exist"?
How about this:
Existence is an objective event. Objective in this context, meaning independent of or not reliant upon human perception. Event in this context meaning anything that persists in some capacity in space-time.
Yes ? No ?
What is the referant for "pain" in this context ?
About 10 minutes ago I reached for a spatula and banged my hand into a corner, breaking the skin and causing bleeding.Any random example of pain you've experienced would be fine.
About 10 minutes ago I reached for a spatula and banged my hand into a corner, breaking the skin and causing bleeding.
In this context, "pain" is a term for a biological cocktail of events that persisted in some form in space-time.
I assumed you were going somewhere like this ... and I was still going to stand by my statement, because of the way I was using the word "perception". I was using it in the sense of "interpretation". After your post, however, I decided to actually look up the definition of perception lol ... and now I think I made a poor choice of words. I'm used to using the word perception in the context of "interpretation", believe it or not, almost dailySure, but that biological cocktail of events is exactly the what we call human perception - without it the pain wouldn't have happened. Since it was reliant upon human perception, it doesn't exist by the definition you were using.
I assumed you were going somewhere like this ... and I was still going to stand by my statement, because of the way I was using the word "perception". I was using it in the sense of "interpretation". After your post, however, I decided to actually look up the definition of perception lol ... and now I think I made a poor choice of words. I'm used to using the word perception in the context of "interpretation", believe it or not, almost dailySo I'll ditch that word. You may be using it properly for all I know, and the way I've been using it (for years) may be less common or perhaps incorrect altogether.
Having said that, plug "interpretation" in where I had "perception" and see what your thoughts are if you like. Interpretation being "the assignment of meaning."
Pain is an event rather than a thing.
Its like asking: does running exist?
The "pain" is all biology at work, events which are independent of the way a human may assign meaning to them. Whether we refer to an instance of those events as "pain" or "pleasure" or "love" for that matter ... they are all biology at work, persisting objectively in some capacity in space-time as the events themselves. The way we communicate those events (i.e. by recognizing some aspects of the events and communicating, "I'm in pain") is also a cocktail at work, the components of which are arguably separate events persisting together in space-time.I mean I get where you're going with this, but I still think that human interpretations or opinions are just biology at work so I'm not sure this change really makes a substantial difference in my objection.
Pain is an event rather than a thing.
Its like asking: does running exist?
Does running have properties? Not running-people, but just running?Running does exist. Of course, what we really mean by that is that running people exist, just as pain exists in the sense that suffering people exist.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Does running have properties? Not running-people, but just running?
Well, thats what I think too. Except I'd call it an activity, or an action, more than a property.There is no such thing as "just running". There are running people. Running is better thought of as a property than an entity.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Some people said that truth is what exists.
Well, leaving the issue of truth aside, what does it mean to "exist"?
I find the word to be in-definable and only graspable intuitively, an therefore not useful for 'hard' reasoning.
Well, thats what I think too. Except I'd call it an activity, or an action, more than a property.
But people all the time say "but what about LOVE.... doesnt that exist?"
Love happens, but it doesnt exist.
Some people said that truth is what exists.
Well, leaving the issue of truth aside, what does it mean to "exist"?
I find the word to be in-definable and only graspable intuitively, an therefore not useful for 'hard' reasoning.
In semantic terms, definitions are made according to the minimum necessary and sufficient conditions.
Man, for example, might look like this:
+ human
+ adult
- female
To distinguish for girl, woman or boy would be a simple matter of changing one or two perameters.
For table the conditions might be:
- animate
+ flat surface on top
+ 1 or more leg/s
For exist I am afraid the necessary and sufficient conditions turn out to be rather circular; existence would seem to define itself:
+ in esse (to be in being)
Yes, it would only have that attribute if the table exists, but perhaps we could say that the imaginary table has the "imaginary attribute" that it is two meters long. I don't mean to imply anything mystical here. I'm just saying that in your mental list of attributes for the imaginary table (in your mental model), you've decided that it is two meters long, or would be if it had actually existed. It's just a decision on your part.
I don't think that is good as a definition, because it gets too detailed. It's more like a physics description.
For instance, while it may be the case that all possible entities interact with other entities, that wouldn't mean that an entity that didn't react with other entities would not exist. It might not exist in our universe, but it might still have an independent existence. Perhaps there even is some quantum waveform like this that we can never detect, but we'll never know.
Also, "structured" just sounds like a restatement of "having characteristics". I'm not sure that this adds anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?