Non-existence and existence: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Non-existence and existence » Non-existence and existence

Non-existence and existence

Page: 1 2

Non-existence and existence

Kelby
analytic poop

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 372

Posted 08/04/09 - 03:53 AM: Subject: Non-existence and existence	#1
We are not interested in the fact that things exist, more so than how things exist. Whenever we claim something to not exist, we are claiming that it fails to exist in a certain way. Non-existence is a consequence of a restrictive how. I have been mulling these things over. They may be better understood within a context. I was reading that the problem of existence has many riddles, one of them being the very nature of existence itself. An example was presented: If superman does not exist, then how can the sentence "Superman can fly" be meaningful? If Superman does not exist, then we're talking about nothing. How can we say anything meaningful about that which does not exist? Maybe I'm missing the big mystery here, but isn't this easily resolved with the simple question of how Superman exists? Once we note that Superman is a fictional character created by someone, then the riddle fades. We no longer pose the question as "how do we make meaningful statements about a non-existent thing." Instead, we simply make note that Superman does exist, but as a fictional character. So we are no longer talking about nothing! We are in fact talking about an existent thing, that thing being Superman. With this, everything spoken of exists in some way. Am I missing something?

Jurist
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 21

Posted 08/04/09 - 06:51 AM:	#2
Maybe you need a better example? Right now you are trying to define an existant Superman as a 'fictional character.' Or, to paraphrase, 'Superman exists as an imaginary character.' Or, to go one step further, 'Superman exists as a nonexistant character.' Do you see what you're missing? Existence. Edited by Jurist on 08/04/09 - 07:05 AM
Just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I'm always wrong. -- Me

UnitedMinds
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 10

Posted 08/04/09 - 09:04 AM:	#3
very true, nicely stated the tricky part about it that makes it complex is that there is no suck nonexistence either outside or inside of us that we can compare and say: this one exists and this none doesn't. anything that goes through one's mind represents auction, the process of thinking, from one thought to another, it automatically creates a space, distance, depth... so here you go again that one question, where it comes from? I really don't know, all I know is that all the questions that humans can possibly think is leading to that one answer, therefore there is only one question and one answer, I guess that is why Socrates said "all I know is that I know nothing" by actually knowing what isn't nothing. =)

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4153

Posted 08/04/09 - 10:02 PM:	#4
It isn't a problem if you assume that words are relative. If so, then existence and nonexistence do not have absolute definitions but, instead, their definitions change according to the context in which they are used. Thus it makes perfect sense to say "superman can fly" because the implied context is that superman is a fictional character. If the context is unknown or excessively broad then there is no way to determine what someone means by existence or nonexistence. My own favorite explanation for how existence and nonexistence are relative comes from an ancient Chinese poem of unknown origin. Tao Te Ching wrote: Tools Thirty spokes meet at a nave; Because of the hole we may use the wheel. Clay is moulded into a vessel; Because of the hollow we may use the cup. Walls are built around a hearth; Because of the doors we may use the house. Thus tools come from what exists, But use from what does not. Note that this distinction provides a simple pragmatic use of the terms existence and nonexistence rather than wasting time attempting to split semantic hairs ad infinitum.

Salandrion
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 08/06/09 - 09:07 AM:	#5
Another train of thought is that nonexistence inherently exists. Running with the thought Jurist proposed that Superman exists as a nonexistent chracter, it is possible that nonexistence as a whole exists because of its subjectivity. We created within ourselves the understanding of nonexistence therefore that which does not exist inherently exists. It is also easy to see how one could believe that the only things that are nonexistent are things never thought.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 627

Posted 08/06/09 - 11:36 AM:	#6
Kelby wrote: Once we note that Superman is a fictional character created by someone, then the riddle fades. We no longer pose the question as "how do we make meaningful statements about a non-existent thing." Instead, we simply make note that Superman does exist, but as a fictional character. So we are no longer talking about nothing! We are in fact talking about an existent thing, that thing being Superman. Then reality is relative? If so, then what is it relative to? Why not merge these two threads? : http://forums.philosophyforums.com...nd-nonexistence-36243.html
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 08/06/09 - 12:00 PM:	#7
Jurist wrote: Maybe you need a better example? Right now you are trying to define an existant Superman as a 'fictional character.' Or, to paraphrase, 'Superman exists as an imaginary character.' Or, to go one step further, 'Superman exists as a nonexistant character.' Do you see what you're missing? Existence. What I see that you're missing is a clear definition of "existence." You have alternately defined it as "non-fictional" and "non-imaginary." Those are not meaningful definitions, but are simply synonyms with subtly distinct meanings. Word meanings are derived from their use, so if the statement "superman does not exist" conveys meaning, then you need to figure out what that meaning is. By the same token, if we say, "superman exists as a figment of my imagination," then we have to figure out what existence means in that context. While I'm not going to declare definitively that I know the perfect definition of "existence" as it applies in every situation, I will declare that "existence" has a meaning and it is the opposite of "non-existence." To take a stab at it, I would suggest that existence means that something has some state of being in reality. Since we generally default to a dualistic understanding of the world, when I say that "superman does not exist," I am saying that there is no material form of the entity known as Superman. When I say that "superman exists as a figment of my imagination," I am saying that Superman does not exist in the material world, but he exists solely as a mental state. It seems irrelevant whether you actually accept that mental events and physical events are composed of distinct substances, but it is quite clear that in everyday discourse we accept a distinction between the physical and mental regardless of what their true composition is.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush