What Do You Mean "Exist"?

[KCfromNC]

Some people said that truth is what exists.

Well, leaving the issue of truth aside, what does it mean to "exist"?

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

 

[KCfromNC]

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 ?

Pain doesn't exist?

 

[TillICollapse]

Pain doesn't exist?

What is the referant for "pain" in this context ?

 

[KCfromNC]

What is the referant for "pain" in this context ?

Any random example of pain you've experienced would be fine.

 

[TillICollapse]

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Sure, 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.

 

[TillICollapse]

Sure, 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 daily So 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."

 

[KCfromNC]

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 daily So 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."

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.

 

[durangodawood]

Pain is an event rather than a thing.

Its like asking: does running exist?

 

[KCfromNC]

Pain is an event rather than a thing.

Its like asking: does running exist?

Yep. It exists as a process. The fact you're writing about it also means it exists as a concept.

 

[TillICollapse]

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.

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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Pain is an event rather than a thing.

Its like asking: does running exist?

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

 

[durangodawood]

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?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Does running have properties? Not running-people, but just running?

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

 

[durangodawood]

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

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.

 

[brinny]

What Do You Mean "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.

Yet you exist, do you not?

Perhaps this is inexplicable, as you say, and amongst the many other inexplicables?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, thats what I think too. Except I'd call it an activity, or an action, more than a property.

Sure, I could go with "activity" or "action". Those strike me as properties (or characteristics) of entities, but I can see why the word property might be unsatisfying.

But people all the time say "but what about LOVE.... doesnt that exist?"

Love happens, but it doesnt exist.

Yeah, loving people exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

When we say that something exists we are not describing the thing in question. Rather, we're talking about the world itself. An example:

To say that God exists is not to describe God, but to describe the world. It's to say that God is part of the world - God is one element within the world to take account of.

Hope that helps!

 

[Paradoxum]

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)

Well what I've been saying is that it might be able to be defined another way.

Saying that 'existence' can only be defined by 'in esse' is like saying 'female' can only be defined 'in femininity'.

You might be right, but this is a bad argument. 'In femininity' is circular, but it doesn't mean it's the only definition. Similarly, 'in esse' may not be the only definition.

(Also I'm not sure your basic definitions are correct. Not all tables have legs, and intersex people could also be considered human, adult, not female, but also not male.)

 

[Paradoxum]

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 wouldn't say an imagined thing could be 2 meters long. Even if you picture it so that it looks that big to you in real space, it only looks that long to you. In the same way, a distant building may look only 10cm tall, but I wouldn't say it would be true to say the vision is actually 10cm tall... it's all in your head.

As for the mental list... what you have is a list, not a thing that is 2 meters long.

I don't think that is good as a definition, because it gets too detailed. It's more like a physics description.

Can you explain more why it's too detailed to be a definition?

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.

If something doesn't act, interact, or have any definable structure, in what way does it exist? If it doesn't seem to be anything, or do anything, does it exist?

Perhaps it has some essence it can never express? Maybe you're right, I don't know.