Defining "Existence"

Defining “existence” is not an easy task. It might be impossible. “Every definition is the determination of a concept by indicating its higher genus and the differentia specifica. But since being is itself the supreme genus, it is evidently impossible to find a higher genus in which it would be included; therefore any definition of being becomes logically impossible.” (Alfred Stern, Sartre, His Philosophy and Psychoanalysis New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1953), p. 37)

Still, in common language, we assign existence to ourselves and various things or ideas we perceive or reason or combine reason and perception to verify. Some things we merely say are self-evident. It’s like we have to have a starting point, a line in the sand, an axiom to begin with and then just get started.

Idealists believe that real existence is in the mind, the perfect Platonic forms. Outside reality is just a reflection of those mental forms. Realists also believe in this dualism but think substance, external matter, is more real than the form. It approaches the form. It is the block of wood that becomes the clipper ship when manipulated by man. Pragmatists don’t even speculate on what is real. It is enough for them that something works, has the appearance of truth, and Existentialists feel that existence is a process of becoming. “Is” is too static to accurately deal with reality. Sartre said, in Being and Nothingness, he is what he is not and is not what he is.

The Existentialists have a point. “Existence” is a human construct, a human invention. Man brought the concept of “existence” into being. But some of us think there was something here before that also. It was something independent of us that we gave names to and said they exist.

Yes, some philosophers said those things were really only in our minds; they were mental things. However, other philosophers said we couldn’t really prove the existence of minds without the assumption of some things external to the mind. If “no matter, never mind.”

Clearly, everything to which we refer has existence at least as a concept. We can say Santa Claus and the current King of England and Unicorns have existence as mythical objects. They exist in the mind but not in objective reality. Contradictory objects like square circles or four sided triangles cannot be imagined, like Santa Claus, but we can still refer to them as abstract things we can’t conceptualize. Gun shot wounds have objective existence. I can’t pretend they don’t exist or are just in my imagination. They are independent of my wishes and whims. And, if something doesn’t exist at all, I can’t really refer to it. I wouldn’t know anything about it.

This could go on and on. Heidegger and Sartre wrote thousands of pages each on existence. It’s a major part of metaphysics and epistemology.

Perhaps we can get a feel for it but not simply define it from a dictionary.

Bis bald,

Nick

Post 1

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:39am

Nick,

Here, you are giving short shrift to Objectivism. Existence is axiomatic (definable only ostensively). All def'ns take place within existence.

Ed

Post 2

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:55am

(Ed)Here, you are giving short shrift to Objectivism. Existence is axiomatic (definable only ostensively). All def'ns take place within existence.

(Nick)Gee, Ed, is this equal to calling Existentualism crap, like you do?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 3

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 12:56pm

Nick, need I remind you that I took a 12-week course in Judo???

Either pipe it down -- or I'll get on a plane to Washington state -- and perform something called 'osotogari' (my favorite move) on you. I'm sure you've heard of it -- so I'll only be reminding you of the agony of its execution.

Ed
[;-)]

Post 4

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 2:23pm

We can say Santa Claus and the current King of England and Unicorns have existence as mythical objects. They exist in the mind but not in objective reality. Contradictory objects like square circles or four sided triangles cannot be imagined, like Santa Claus, but we can still refer to them as abstract things we can’t conceptualize. Gun shot wounds have objective existence. I can’t pretend they don’t exist or are just in my imagination.

I think the word "existence" used in these sentences have two different contexts:

1) Existence within the imagination
2) Existence in reality

One can traverse from 1 to 2 and 2 to 1 but not in all cases, and 1 isn't equivalent to 2 due to context. But, from the context of existence in the imagination can come books, art, experiments, etc.-- things that exist in reality. i.e. Atlas Shrugged. Likewise, a unicorn is at #1, but drawn from things that exist in reality (#2): horns and horses.

However, there are limits to this, like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause, things that don't or can't traverse between 1 and 2. [However, I find it interesting that imagination, itself, exists in reality, but not vice versa-- otherwise we're all brains in vats.]

Please bear in mind, though, that I've answered only a paragraph of your post and my answer may not necessarily make the rest of your argument invalid. I'm taking a studying break, and must go back to the books!

Post 5

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 2:56pm

Right, Jenna!

And a good term for the kind of existence that is always and everywhere dependent on an existing minds, but can be the object of thought for more than one mind at once -- is intentional existence. So there's subjective existence (dreams, toothaches), objective existence (trains, planes, automobiles), and intentional existence (knowable, share-able, communicative concepts)

Ed

Post 6

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:01pm

Ed, about the Sicilian move called "index pull" lol

Post 7

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:03pm

And bear in mind there is a difference between imaginating and fantasizing - the one is reality oriented and works via extrapolating, the other not and using reality only to the extent of seeking a plausiblilty in contradictions...

Post 8

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:01pm

Either pipe it down -- or I'll get on a plane to Washington state -- and perform something called 'osotogari' (my favorite move) on you. I'm sure you've heard of it -- so I'll only be reminding you of the agony of its execution.

Osoto gari is an outside leg throw, the first throw a beginner learns. Ogoshi is a hip throw and Seionage is the shoulder throw. Ti otoshi is one of my favorite forward leg throws. One of the throws seen a lot in the movies is Tomionage, a sacrifice throw. It is where one falls backwards pulling his opponent on top of him but pushing him up in the air with a foot near the person's crotch and throwing him, heals over head, over him. If it isn't done right, the opponent can fall directly on top of the thrower. If someone tries it on me, I'd simply push that foot out of the way and fall on him. Osoto gari, however can just be reversed, as the thrower is putting his leg behnd mine, I can push him back over my leg. It's Osoto gari as a counter to Osoto gari.

These are all throws, though, not submision holds. It's when I get you down on the ground that we grpple wth arbars or choke holds, and they probably didn't teach you those in a 12 week course. They are for the advanced.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 9

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:13pm

I prefer the old street fighting tricks. Hey, I'm just a workin' class girl. Give me a pen, or anything I can make a shiv or something easy to conceal, then the game is over. Or as the CSS kids would say, "Pwnt!" ^_^

-- Bridget

Post 10

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:32pm

I prefer the old street fighting tricks. Hey, I'm just a workin' class girl. Give me a pen, or anything I can make a shiv or something easy to conceal, then the game is over. Or as the CSS kids would say, "Pwnt!" ^_^

Unless one lives in a bad part of town, one doesn't get a chance to test street fightng techniques very often. In a Judo club in a tournament league, one knows every week what works and what doesn't. It is hands on, not a dancing class, like most Karate classes are like. Sport Judo, like any martial sport, has rules which don't get used in street fghting, but we can easily adjust when we need to. When we know what we are doing, it's easy to take on someone who doesn't know what he or she is doing. And, if all you have is a little shiv made from a pen, the chances you will get it close to my face or a vulnerable portion of my body, if I know you are coming at me, is very slim.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 11

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:34pm

"Duck you sucker..." *BOOM* ^_^ <-- me working on the old chemical compounds. Either way, I think we would be even matches since I focus on a use of technology over mere physical prowess. I'm a okay shot, good with knives, and great with anything that goes boom or zap. ^_^

But back on the issue of existence. Existence isn't anything, it's a state, just like plasma isn't anything but a state. 1 or 0, or 1, 2, 3. States don't need to be things apart from that which can operate within their given attributes or bounds. That's why I find your argument lacking. I've dealt with issues of quantum mechanics since I was 12 years old and I can tell you the biggest errors people make are existence is a thing, time is a place, and that the Universe is complex. When you get those resolved it doesn't take much to consider the rest.

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/10, 10:39pm)

Post 12

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:48am

Is a hundred existing dollars greater than a hundred non-existing dollars?

If something "is", is it static or in a process of becoming?

Where was the man when he jumped off the bridge?

Who are you?

All these questions deal wth the concept of being, existence.

And, if existence exists, does non-existence exist? Sartre says it does. It's the hole that makes the doughnut possible, the backdrop on which somethingness manifests itself. We negate that which isn't the object when we focus in on the object. When our friend stands us up at the resturant, nothingness is what we find where our friend should be, should exist.

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 7/11, 8:50am)

Post 13

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 9:42am

Fundamentals are that which, while the hows may be still in the asking. Just because things are fundamental does not mean they are not complex. Take consciousness, for instance.

Post 14

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 9:57am

(Nick) If something "is", is it static or in a process of becoming?

(Me) If you're into linguistic analysis then it is a 'to be' verb. But if you accept it is a state then it's not existing nor existed, nor to exist (to be). Existence is, simply put. Just as plasma is, and what not. To ask if its coming or going makes no sense in the nature of its impact on entities. It's like asking why are there abstract behaviors/patterns in Nature rather than recognizing they simply are there like charge, mass, and what not. At some point in observation and reasoning, you have to stop at one point, whether you want to or not. Often, your questions lead to infinite regress rather than a concrete, finite steps to an ultimate or 'ur-matter' statement. Thusly, I find this jousting you keep doing pointless. Are you asserting a proposition or are you asserting you think you have a proposition but not really sure where to start?

(Nick)And, if existence exists, does non-existence exist? Sartre says it does. It's the hole that makes the doughnut possible, the backdrop on which somethingness manifests itself.

(Me) That really makes no sense. Null exists? I would love to see your mathematical proof for that, considering no mathematician known to humankind has asserted any such claim, nor hit upon any such principle deductively. Nor has any scientist found such a search for null to be possible. Non-existence is simply null as it is known in computer science, or the null set in mathematics, to which references there is nothing possible to detect/measure/compute. Consider how it looks in mathematical notation compared to a non-null example.

A null set usually looks like this: A = { }.

A non-null set usually has something to the effect of: B = { 1,2,3,5.20183,-1,...} And what not.

Null cannot exist because of it does exist then it is conflict to the defined attributes of NOT EXISTING or NOT HAVING ANY QUALITIES. But if you can measure it or detect it then it is not NULL/Non-Existence. So, if you want to believe as Sartre, then I'll have to laugh, because not only are you going against all science, Cosmology, Computer Science, Philosophy of Logic, and so on, but against all known perceptual capability. Essentially, you want something that is not defensible. You basically have the cult of Null just as some have Cult of (Insert Deity Name Here).

That's how it is, take it or leave it.

-- Bridget

Post 15

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:17pm

From a purely semantc point of view, "Existence exists" has two problems:

1. The term "existence" refers to everything and therefore nothing. It lacks anything specific and identifiable.

2. The term "exists" is simply the predicate form of the subject "existence." The predicate is contained withn the subject. It is a meanngless tautology. It tells us nothing about the real world, such as whether or not it is raining outside.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 16

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:05pm

(Nick) 1. The term "existence" refers to everything and therefore nothing. It lacks anything specific and identifiable.

(Me) Two words: No S**T. Also, does not need to be a thing for it to be real. Does the property of color exist apart from light? No. Does that mean color does not 'exist' or is unreal? No. Does it mean it's METAPHYSICALLY DEPENDENT ON AN ENTITY TO CARRY IT? Y-E-S.

The same goes for Existence. I will not play your poetry game. Stand and deliver factual or evidential claims not broadbrush generalities.

(Nick)2. The term "exists" is simply the predicate form of the subject "existence." The predicate is contained withn the subject. It is a meanngless tautology. It tells us nothing about the real world, such as whether or not it is raining outside.

(Me) Do you even know what the word tautology means? ( P v P, P * P, P v ~P, P * ~P )

What you can't accept is that it's not a tautology since there isn't a false choice, there is only existence as a property of entities, end of story. It's like saying light should have the alternate property of non-colour and what not. Yet, that does not make a lick of sense in itself. Do you want there to be things that are NON-EXISTING and yet can be perceived, aka EXIST? That's your tautology.

Lemme give you an example.

If there is existence, then there is non-existence.

There is existence, if and only if there is non-existence.

There is non-existence, if and only if there is existence.

Therefore there is existence and non-existence.

** ROUGH TRANSLATION TO NOTATION **

( E -> ~E )
( E <-> ~E )
( ~E <-> E )
:. ( E * ~E ) <-- WARNING: TAUTOLOGY.

You lose, good day sir! ;)

In other news, bunny with pancake on top of its head solves the age old question of why men can't put toilet seat down; news at eleven.

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/11, 8:34pm)

Post 17

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:14pm

tau·tol·o·gy Pronunciation (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
1.
a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
b. An instance of such repetition.
2. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

-- Bridget

Post 18

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:04pm

I thought you were finished with me long ago, Bridget. Why do you keep coming back?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 19

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:38pm