What Do You Mean "Exist"?

[durangodawood]

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.

 

[durangodawood]

...and if you try to frame it in terms of "to be" or what "is", you have just moved the problem, and not fixed it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

Really? I find it easy to understand.

To exist means to possess properties. Existence isn't itself a property, but rather the having-of properties. When something has properties, we say that it exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BabylonWeary]

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.

Without truth, there is no meaning to the word at all, that any definition you provide is invalid. You might say that to exist means marshmallow and buttercups, or whatever nonsense, so in a sense you are correct.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We are caught, in trying to cognise it, in the draft of that which withdraws (i.e. Being). Or something like that, according to Heidegger.

 

[durangodawood]

Really? I find it easy to understand.

To exist means to possess properties. Existence isn't itself a property, but rather the having-of properties. When something has properties, we say that it exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So, for example, an idea exists because it possesses the properties of......?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, for example, an idea exists because it possesses the properties of......?

A brain functioning in such a way as to produce the idea. I can't be more explicit without an answer to the hard problem of consciousness. If you want more information, I hope that "I don't know" is acceptable for such a difficult question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

A brain functioning in such a way as to produce the idea. I can't be more explicit without an answer to the hard problem of consciousness. If you want more information, I hope that "I don't know" is acceptable for such a difficult question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No problem. Lets try another.

Santa Claus exists because he possesses the properties of rosy cheeks, bushy beard, and jollity. Right?

 

[durangodawood]

Without truth, there is no meaning to the word at all, that any definition you provide is invalid. You might say that to exist means marshmallow and buttercups, or whatever nonsense, so in a sense you are correct.

I dont need to discuss truth every time I talk sensibly.

 

[True Scotsman]

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.

It means to be something, to posses identity. Do thoughts exist? Do they have identity? Yes they do. If they didn't we could not tell them apart or communicate them. Therefore thoughts exist. I agree with Mark. Existence is not a property. Existence is identity and identity is existence. You can not do any reasoning at all, hard or soft, unless you exist and something would have to exist to reason about. That's why the concepts "existence" and "identity" are axioms.

 

[Paradoxum]

Perhaps:

If a thing exists, then that thing will be structured and interact based on it's attributes?

 

[BabylonWeary]

I dont need to discuss truth every time I talk sensibly.

If you're not telling the truth, how sensible can you really be?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Really? I find it easy to understand.

To exist means to possess properties.

A unicorn has the property of being an equid with a single horn. Does that make the unicorn exist? Does that make the idea of the unicorn exist? What separates the existence of a thing from the existence of the idea of the thing?

 

[Eudaimonist]

No problem. Lets try another.

Santa Claus exists because he possesses the properties of rosy cheeks, bushy beard, and jollity. Right?

If he actually did exist, he would have those properties, and those are just some of the properties that would distinguish him from non-existence. I'm sure that some existing human beings have the properties of rosy cheeks, a bushy beard, and jollity, such as possessed by some Santa impersonators. Those properties do distinguish those living individuals from non-existence, because non-existence implies no properties at all.

Let's not confuse the ability to state or imagine properties with the existence of some physical entity. There is a difference between a concept and a referent to that concept. There is a difference between the idea of Santa Claus (which has brain/mental properties) and a living human being or "elf" that we might call Santa Claus (which has the sort of properties one would except from a biological entity).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

What separates the existence of a thing from the existence of the idea of the thing?

The idea of a thing refers to a mentally defined set of potential things (whether they exist or not, or can exist or not). Epistemologically speaking, the existing thing is a referent for an idea. It just so happens that the set of existing unicorns is an empty set. The idea has no referents. It may, however, have a definition.

Have you ever heard that if you point your finger at the Moon, you should not confuse your finger for the Moon? The idea is like that pointing finger. The referent to that idea is like the Moon.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps:

If a thing exists, then that thing will be structured and interact based on it's attributes?

It will, but it exists because it has attributes. If "it" had no attributes at all, we couldn't say that "it" exists at all. We'd be talking about nonexistence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

Take a hammer & hit your thumb with it. If it hurts, you exist. I guarantee that will not be only graspable intuitively; you will know.

Job done.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think therefore I am. - Rene descartes.

Buut what about "I think therefore "you are", or even I think therefore the world is mine..."?

"Yogācāra at times resembles epistemological idealism, which does not claim that this or any world is constructed by mind, but rather that we are usually incapable of distinguishing our mental constructions and interpretations of the world from the world itself. This narcissism of consciousness Yogācāra calls vijñapti-mātra, "nothing but conscious construction." A deceptive trick is built into the way consciousness operates at every moment. Consciousness projects and constructs a cognitive object in such a way that it disowns its own creation - pretending the object is "out there" - in order to render that object capable of being appropriated. Even while what we cognize is occurring within our act of cognition, we cognize it as if it were external to our consciousness. Realization of vijñapti-mātra exposes this trick intrinsic to consciousness's workings, thereby eliminating it."

http://buddhists.livejournal.com/2603367.html

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Meaning and reference.... a problem for logical positivism? If "existence" is not a thing, which can be observed, then it cannot be tested or verified. Existence belongs to das mystische.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein.

"Man is a sign that is not read,
We almost have,
Lost our tongue in foreign lands." - Holderlin.

Note to self: What a load of rubbish. Get a real job. Mc Donalds here I come...

 

[essentialsaltes]

To exist means to possess properties.
...
If [Santa] actually did exist, he would have those properties

I don't think it's as simple as you presented. If the ascribed properties of unicorns or Santas are not really properties at all, then we need a way to distinguish real properties from imaginary ones. We've gone from 'how do we know if a thing exists' to 'how do we know if a property exists'.

Now whiteness, I suppose, is a real existing property (at least of some things). New-fallen snow is white; Snow has that property; and snow is real. Santa's beard is reputed to be white, but it doesn't really have that property, since Santa doesn't exist. So the property-ness doesn't seem to help much.

For a thing to exist, does that mean it has to be perceived in some way (and not just mentally)? That perception or observation yields a (real) property of the thing, and therefore the thing exists, because it has a property?