A Relevant Definition for Existence: Philosophy Forums

Forums Articles Gallery Links

Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » A Relevant Definition for Existence » A Relevant Definition for Existence

A Relevant Definition for Existence
A characteristic of existence that gives more meaning to the concept.

Print

Print

Page: 1 2 3 4

A Relevant Definition for Existence

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/19/09 - 07:56 AM:	#21
duszek wrote: In that case it is not possible to give an example of something which does NOT exist. As soon as you express it it exists as a thought. Just because the thought of a unicorn exists, doesn't mean that the unicorn itself exists.

duszek
little ghost

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 24

Posted 10/19/09 - 08:06 AM:	#22
I agree. Therefore, everything that comes into our heads exists as a thought. Some things exist not only as a thought but also as things, that is really (as res). The unicorn exists as a thought, not really. You still cannot say that something does not exist at all. As soon as you try to do it "it" exists as a thought (or concept). Interesting.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/19/09 - 12:27 PM:	#23
"It doesn't exist at all." That statement is true. Because I didn't decide what "it" was.

duszek
little ghost

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 24

Posted 10/21/09 - 04:58 AM:	#24
James S Saint wrote: "It doesn't exist at all." That statement is true. Because I didn't decide what "it" was. Up to a point, Lord Copper. The pronoun "it" is by its nature temporary. One is always entitled to ask: "What does not exist at all ?" As soon as the answer comes, there is a thought and there is - conceptual or real - existence.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/21/09 - 03:13 PM:	#25
duszek wrote: Up to a point, Lord Copper. The pronoun "it" is by its nature temporary. One is always entitled to ask: "What does not exist at all ?" As soon as the answer comes, there is a thought and there is - conceptual or real - existence. Unless they say something like, "non-existence".

duszek
little ghost

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 24

Posted 10/24/09 - 07:19 AM:	#26
Why ? A negation is a thought. Any thought exists as soon as it enters your mind. Non-existence is a thought too. I suggested the distinction between conceptual existence and real existence. Non-existence is a concept. Or is exists (merely) conceptually. You cannot point to a "thing" and call it "non-existence". Therefore "non-existence" does not exist really or as a thing or as res. Am I missing something ?

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/24/09 - 09:32 AM:	#27
Try to really think of, imagine/picture, true non-existence.

duszek
little ghost

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 24

Posted 10/24/09 - 10:02 AM:	#28
Thinking something does not mean visualizing something. Many concepts resist visualization, like for example "concept", "air", "better". This is called abstract thinking. You cannot help a child who asks you: draw a picture of it for me to see. We are able of this abstract thinking because we use language. I cannot "really" think of such concepts, I can only "conceptually" think of such concepts. I can establish logical connections between them.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/24/09 - 11:15 AM:	#29
Naming something is not "thinking of something". Language is merely labeling of the concepts. It is not thinking of them. It is at best merely thinking ABOUT them, but not OF them.

duszek
little ghost

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 24

Posted 10/28/09 - 11:40 AM:	#30
Language does not think, if your "it" in the third and fourth sentence refers to "language" of the second sentence. We human beings use language in order to think abstract things. Can you think of or about the void or black holes or thin air without naming them somehow in your mind ? You can think of a hare without naming it, if you walk in the woods and see one or visualize it in your mind, but a hare is res, not only an abstract concept.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.