I have been, for some time now, trying to figure out why so many posters here post about the existence of existence. Nothing exists, nothing does not exist, and so on. I think it’s for two reasons. One, it seems like the fundamental question of epistemology, and another is that professional philosopher, through the ages, have generally bungled the question so badly that there seems no clear answer.
I looked up an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a while ago, and I would like to gloss at least a part of it.
I think this article starts off badly. Why should it be difficult at all to explain that Tom exists? Why is it even necessary to explain such a claim? Let’s say you give me a wooden chair for Christmas. A couple of years later, I burn the chair (completely) in my fire pit. Some time later, you ask about the chair, and I tell you that I have burned it, that it no longer exists.
I think existence questions always need a modifier - exist how? The burned chair doesn’t exist anymore as a chair. That it ever existed at all as a chair was dependent on human perception of it as a chair. Is something there apart from human perception? I’d say yes, but exactly what isn’t such an easy question. And what is there, “existing”, doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists contingently - if it didn’t, in what way could it be said to exist? We would have no knowledge of it if it were somehow ultimately single and independent, the way we tend to think of “things”, “out there”, “existing”.
From a practical point of view it probably doesn’t matter, but I wonder if anyone can define existence as such without slipping into tautology, contradiction or even solipsism. Your chair example is referential, in that it tells us about the chair rather than about existence, and as I think Imp is suggesting, the referential model doesn’t quite live up to the grandiose standards of ontology once we submit it to analysis - it reduces existence to a property of things, albeit the ultimate property. By burning the chair you have not completely eradicated it (one imagines there is a pile of ashes, for example), rather you have deconstructed its chairness - it is no longer that particular manifestation of existence in general. Ontology is supposedly about the latter, I think.
Like I say, you tend to end up with a tautology, which is why it seems easier to dismiss from a logical or rational perspective, but I don’t think the other models (like reference) offer a full account of existence. I’m not seeking to defend ontology per se, more trying to understand its strategies.
As I’ve already explained in the thread, I think the difficulty to some degree and confusions are caused by our tendencies in thinking and talking.
First, we are not totally aware of our thought processes.
There are lots of things that go unnoticed as presumptions and as implied conditions/requirements/etc. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=166613
Also, at the same time, we have strong tendency to presume absolute conclusion out of pretty shaky shady logic probably because of our fear of uncertainty. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=166668
Now, in case of “existence”, I’ve rarely seen people stating the extent of said existence, how we can evaluate it, and so on.
Some people take it for granted that we all are talking about the “existence” within the physical world, while others are including concepts or hypothetical worlds/dimensions.
In any logical statement/evaluation, it’s pretty much useless/meaningless/logically-wrong if it’s not accompanied by evaluation method and the conditions/limitations for the method to be valid.
If you can define “Tom” clearly, present how you can verify/test existence and within which conditions, and if listener(s)/reader(s0 agree/understand, it shouldn’t be so difficult.
Often, we omit “clear definition” and evaluation method + conditions.
So, people get confused about which Tom, what kind of Tom we are talking about, and how we can say said Tom “exists” under which conditions.
As result, each person presume in her/his own way, and may conclude differently.
If you want to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, it’s better to be very explicit. But it doesn’t guarantee that everyone would agree/understand, though…
You’ve defined the object. It can be clear enough for both party, I guess.
And you are talking about the existence in the physical world, and probably within your room.
So, time/space perimeter is clear, as well.
But evaluation method isn’t so clear.
You are asking us to believe your words.
Who knows you aren’t having good (or bad) time/trip with dope or whatever you may take.
As long as well we are talking about well defined physical object within physical world, I don’t think there are lots of problem, unless we take extremely skeptical perspective that would doubt physical object/world.
But we often talk about “thought”, and even “awareness” type of things in addition to “Oh my god”, “fuck”, “Jesus” sort of materials, and green and red little and big aliens from different planet/dimensions.
So, it can get pretty sketchy.
This is a pre-philosophical view. I have been studying philosophy for over thirty years, and I haven’t seen a better one.
Imp -
"And so, my people, I have perceived God - follow me."
I think the main philosophical approach has been that we know nothing unless we know (something) completely. That, truly, is philosophy-as-religion.
anon -
Again - we don’t need to know “exactly what it is” to know it exists. And so it might be a mistake to confound those two questions. But it is that desire to know the thing-in-itself that gives birth to metaphysics. Metaphysics is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
matty -
As anon points out, we don’t define existence, but we define the things that we think exist. It’s when you try to define existence as distinct from that which exists that you run into the trouble you mention.
Why do we need to know “existence in general”?
But you have given me my segue.
To generalise is to abstract the common partial properties if any object/event. If there is no common partial property, we simply cannot generalise.
What is the common partial property of all object/events?
No. But that underscores the relativity of the word “exists”. For something to exist always stands in relation to its non-existence. When the notion of existence is looked at from some sort of absolute perspective, it slips into meaninglessness. You could ask “why is there something rather than nothing”, but that question is ultimately meaningless. In a non-relative way, how is the “nothing” you conceive of not also something? How is the “something” you conceive of not also nothing?
And I think this is what happens in too many Philosophy classes - the extremes are presented first. They can be taken as the only philosophical positions by people who have taken on a few classes, and who have read only a few thinkers.
I disagree with you that nothing is also something. Nothing simply is that - nothing. And speculating that perhaps nothing might have existed strikes me as entirely meaningful.
I would say their “being-there-ness” which is, for me, just a synonymous term for “existence.” I don’t think such terms need to be clarified any further though, nor can they be to my knowledge.
I think you’ve somewhat misunderstood me. I’m with you to a large degree regarding metaphysics. But if we ignore the question of “exactly what it is”, we tend to go on seeing it as a “thing-in-itself”, which is our habit. We are metaphysicians in habit, in need of methods to overcome our delusions.
Radio- That, of course is to say that there is no partial meaning to existence, which precludes generalising it.
Which means that questions about the existence of existence are literally nonsensical.
That was easy.
Anon - I’d say it was the opposite - it’s when we examine the question of exactly what it is that we encounter the thing-in-itself, which is an encounter with nothing.
The habit we need is to dismiss meaningless questions.