Have at it guys. I’ve been getting some kicks lately watching people go back and fourth about this, just changing definitions like they don’t even realize they’re doing it.
This thread could serve as a great place for the high minded members of ILP to discuss the nature of existence. What is it? What does it do? What has it? Or does it have things? Do all things, by virtue of being things, exist? Can a thing exist and then not exist anymore? Is existence everywhere all the time? Or is it just in some places at some times? Can existence exist without being attached to an object or thing? Do unicorns exist? What if we say that everything exists, but then conditionalize that they “used to” exist, or they exist, “as figments of some imagination”, or “in some possible world”? Would that help?
Talk it out people. Come up with something.
This is your time.
This is your place.
You exist here and now.
So act like it and spew nonsense about vague terms. You wanna be philosophers? Get with the program!
Sorry, but it’s a largely meaningless word. I’ll begin with the verb form. If I say “that dog”, I imply that it exists. I could say “that fictional dog” as opposed to “that real dog”, sure. And it means something to say that “I exist”, when that fact is in doubt. But we don’t say, “President Barack Obama, who exists, is a jerk.” And there’s a reason for that.
Lotta times, when people refer to “existence”, they’re trying to sound more philosophical than they would if they say “everything”. But it’s a trap, a rhetorical trap. “Existence” is still not the noun that many think it is. It’s still a clumsy adjective. The insane Heidegger aside, it has no useful place in philosophy. It still makes no useful distinction between the actual and the fictional. Does it include Santa Claus?
Existence is usually an ontological cop-out for those who do not want to think very hard.
The most problematic trap with the word “existence” lies in incompatible usages of the term:
Both the “real” and the “imaginary” can be talked about as though they exist.
Both can be identified as agents that cause “real” effects.
But it is common to claim that the “imaginary” does not exist e.g. Santa ('tis the season).
Additionally, there is the problem of whether existence exists.
In case it’s annoying you, I’m using quotation marks because I’m a Solipsist, who defines the difference between “real” and “imaginary” a little more subtly - I’m talking about something slightly different when using the terms but it doesn’t change the points I’m making.
Existence has no useful place in philosophy, as opposed to what??
Most existentialists lean toward nihilism as well. And there’s a reason why existentialism, nihilism, and objectivism are strongly linked together and associated. But anybody who can’t deduce that “is” also means “to exist”, shouldn’t even click on a philosophy forum in the first place. Existence is a verb, noun, and adjective. It is everything and everywhere, absolutely pervasive. The past, present, and future exist. But the human mind sections off time, and space, in order to measure and “know” things or facts about the universe.
And it is this separation between the objective and subjective world, dualism, that creates the unnecessary confusion about existence.
Faust is wrong. Existence is perhaps the most philosophical topic. And if you can’t accept existence, that things exist, that people exist, then you’re probably a solipsist who believes everything is a figment of your own imagination. Reality is an illusion, in that sense.
What is that supposed to mean? I’m not any kind of “ist”. “Ist” imples a position full of holes that everyone already knows how to poke through. If you’re an ist, you’re gonna lost a lot of arguments.
Faust isn’t wrong. Existence just is. If you like, you can write a few volumes about the consequences of existence, but existence is the pervasive environment and there isn’t anything “philosophical” about that.
Do yourself a favor and lookup “existentialism” on google if you don’t believe me. See that? Looks like there’s thousands of years of philosophy poured into the concept and idea of existence. You can pretend like existentialism is “useless”, but that will not dissuade nor discount what already exists as a collection of philosophical knowledge which everybody, including you, depend upon.
Just because you don’t think about existence, doesn’t make existence go away. You can ignore existence, but this doesn’t mean it disappears and is destroyed.
That’s solipsism. The idealist believes, falsely, that if he closes his eyes, clicks his heels together, and waves his magic want, that existence ceases to exist.
Smears, you are an essentialist. This is why you oppose existentialism. Faust is also an essentialist.
You prefer subjectivity over objectivity, emotion over reason.
So if enough people put a lot into something, it can’t possibly be wrong?
You’re conflating existence with the inferred outside world. It’s more accurate to say that experience never goes away. The outside world can “dis-appear” if it no longer appears because you closed your eyes. It’s not destroyed, and you don’t need magic to close your eyes. Some kind of experience continues all the while, however. And experiences exist. But the outside world can only be inferred to have continued without any experience of it, because you didn’t witness it, but when you witness again, it only appears to have carried on in a particular way.
Nothing false about any of that: I’m inclined to believe you haven’t really thought Solipsism and Idealism through.
Existentialism is about asking questions about value (which is subjective) instead of truth (which is objective). You seem confused.
Uhhh… did you read my post and think about it for a few seconds? All the so-called philosophy on Google is addressing the consequences of existence, NOT existence itself. Existence just is. I do indeed pay attention to the consequences of existing just like all life forms are compelled to do, but existence itself isn’t a philosophical concern despite Google and Wiki.
I’m addressing Faust’s claim, and your agreement, that existence is “philosophically useless”.
The verb “to exist” is almost synonymous with “is” or “to be”.
When people talk about existence, about what “is”, then they generally claim this is reality. How am I confused about idealism and value? People don’t need to value existence. And I disagree that “experiences exist” in the same way I disagree that “ideas exist”. You can claim that ideas exist, all you want, but you have to provide some kind of substance, argument, proof to that claim. The onus is upon you.
The best humanity has, in response to existence, is language, communication, description, and explanation. We begin to understand existence, by describing it. And after enough descriptions are given, and explanations agreed upon, then we start building concepts which people depend upon for knowledge.
That’s useless??? This thread must be a joke, and nobody here is serious. This must be a provocation of some sort, an antagonism. You guys really don’t believe what you’re saying. You’re joking around.
Are you seriously claiming that describing existence is “useless”? Yet, coincidentally, you use philosophy to describe existence. Was the verb “is” or “to be” invented overnight? Do these terms have no history behind them? Was the world invented yesterday?
Insight, I do not believe that if I close my eyes that things cease to exist. I’m also not an essentialist.
And this thread is no joke. So far, most everyone has been dead on. I"m interested in seeing you explain what existence means. You seem to know a lot about it.
Also, in spite of there being, “thousands of years of philosophy” dedicated to it’s study, I don’t think that makes the discourse on existence something that people necessarily depend on. There’s a reason why analytic philosophy is what real philosophers give a shit about. No one reads existentialism after sophomore year in college.
The only reason kids even get taught Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and all those guys in college, is so that early on they can weed out the kids who don’t have the reading comprehension skills to get into people like Quine or Russel, or Kant. So I mean…I guess in that sense existentialism is useful, and inasmuch as that class depends on the concept of existence, then we’re dependent on that. But…to be honest, it doesn’t really do all that good a job of weeding out the kids who can’t read well, so the dependence is minimal at best.
Existentialism always leads to a necessary choice, you believe that matter exists, which makes you a materialist or a rationalist. Or you disbelieve that matter exists, which makes you an idealist or a solipsist. Non philosophers, normal people, don’t think much about existence or matter or things. They simply assume it. People assume the world exists, or the universe exists, or God exists. Assumptions, it’s not based on knowledge though.
Philosophers classically believe that the only way to “know existence” is through reason and logic, deduction and induction. That’s the analytical part. It’s an extension of rationalism. You presume that things exist, because you pretty much have to, and then you analyze what they could be. You analyze possibilities and properties of things.
But the idealists want more. They want to analyze the “actual thing” or “thing itself”. This is more relevant to existentialism today. Today’s existentialists, postmodernists, believe that you can know the “thing itself” by understanding its values. Things have values. Because people value things. And by understanding these values, you know the “true essence” or “truth” of things.
But thinkers like Silhouette claim that “values are subjective”. So this is circular thinking, it leads back to the beginning. It’s more interesting to claim that values are objective. This is a much rarer belief and premise.
Okay, let’s presume the existentialists are correct. We can “know existence” through reason and logic, by investigating and accepting values. And let’s presume that values are objective. They are not subject to change or human wants. We inherit values, probably through genetics. It’s not a choice. We don’t have free will, with respect to values. So they are predetermined. This is determinism.
What are these values? How are they objective? Where do they come from?
This is where theology and deism enter philosophy. Religions and spiritual are formed, after answering these questions. In fact, you can take all of Christianity, and pretty much interpret it through these premises. Values are objectives. What are values? They’re principles that people live their lives around, defining things as good or evil or bad. Ethics. Politics. Whose team should you be on, as if you had a choice?
I swear, the internet has got to be the only place where anyone ever pays any attention to existentialism.
Existentialists aren’t serious, about their own lives, for one thing.
Describing the world we live in is just fine. Why can’t we just say “the world we live in”? That’s what we’re talking about. What is a “response to existence”? Who can respond to all existence all at once? That’s crazy talk. Get a job, get laid, get a good seat at the movies. Live. Don’t think so much. Do not try to “respond to existence”. It cannot be done.
