I don't know how broadly you wish to use the term "exist". The term "exist" need not be used solely to entail physical manifestation. I could say "My relationship with my mother exists", or "This idea exists in my mind". And, in the case of mermaids, we could say the concept or notion of the mermaid exists. I think our assertion would depend upon the sentence in question.

Or did you solely want to focus on existence with physical properties, like the elephant example?

And just what that adjective means depends entirely upon what that adjective modifies. To go further would require some context or qualification of our particular meaning.

The question, do mermaids exist, and does the concept of mermaid exist, are obviously two very different question. As different as the questions, "Do mermaids exist, is from the question, does the word "mermaid" exist. But I mean to ask what the adjective "exist" means whatever it is we are asking about? In my example above, I think we are asking the same thing whether it is about the word "mermaid", or about the object, "mermaid". In either case we are asking whether something exists. (Just as if whether we are asking whether an apple is red, or whether the concept of an apple is red, we are still asking whether something is red).

But I mean to ask what the adjective "exist" means whatever it is we are asking about?

You would not say that what "red" means depends on what "red" modifies. So why would you say that about "exists"?

But we would be asserting different things if we said "Mermaids exist" and "The concept of the mermaid exists". With the former we would be asserting that there is some physical manifestation of the mermaid, in the latter we would just be acknowledging the notion exists. You asked what we would be asserting, so I was just noting that it depends upon on the sentence in question.



The common denominator is that we are saying X is (or is not), in some form. The form evaluated depends upon the sentence in question.

Well, of course we would be asserting different things. But that need have nothing to do with the term, "exists", need it. No more than the fact that we would be asserting different things when we asserted that apples were red from fire-engines are red, would have anything to do with the meaning of the adjective "red". In both case we would be saying that the object in question has the property of being red. So, what are we saying about the concept of mermaid, and mermaid, when we assert that both exist? Or about the concept of elephant and elephants, when we assert of them that both exist?

To say that X exists means:

To use language to express the idea that X is.

To "use language" presumes that there is a speaker, and language is a tool.

But obviously this is wrong, because if there was no language, there could be no speaker.

So language is a form... a pattern. The engagement of the pattern results in sounds that have meaning.

But this isn't true, because a parrot, sitting outside of the earshot of a human, can spout obscenities that don't mean anything to the parrot.

So is the parrot using language? Do we require a listener in order to say something?

To me, these matters are basic to your question. And we haven't even gotten to issues such as: what is a question... what is meaning?

If we don't address these issues, we're building a structure on top of an uninvestigated heap of assumptions. So we could look at these assumptions to see if they'll support our structure before we keep building.

All of this may be true. But what has it to do with the question of what the term, "exist" means? I don't see any connection.

You seem to think that unless you ask everything at once, you cannot ask anything at all. Can't I ask, and answer the question, what does the word "cat" mean without asking, and answering, all your other questions.

But we would be asserting different things if we said "Mermaids exist" and "The concept of the mermaid exists". With the former we would be asserting that there is some physical manifestation of the mermaid, in the latter we would just be acknowledging the notion exists. You asked what we would be asserting, so I was just noting that it depends upon on the sentence in question.



The common denominator is that we are saying X is (or is not), in some form. The form evaluated depends upon the sentence in question.



We would say that what "cool" means depends on what "cool" modifies. What you just said doesn't logically follow. Just because, in the case of "red", it usually doesn't depend on what the adjective modifies, doesn't mean there aren't cases where it does depend.

Yes, "cool" has a number of different meanings. But when we confine it to just temperature, it has just one meaning.

And in "there are elephants" and, "there are mermaids" means the same thing in both cases.

Have you any such reason?

Perhaps we should compare "exist", with "square of". We get different answers to the question, what is the square of X, depending on the number X is. But, the meaning of, "square of" is the same. It means multiplying the number by itself.

Yes, and when we confine "exist" to mean there is physical corroboration, then we confine it to one meaning, such as saying "Elephants exist". When we say something like "The concept of the mermaid exists" we don't mean there is physical corroboration, and we are using a different meaning of the word "exist".



I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion. How does it mean the same thing? You just agreed that we would be asserting different things with each of these propositions. With the former we are speaking of a physical manifestation, with the latter we are not. So, clearly, when we say "exist" in the first case it does not mean the same thing as when we say "exist" in the second case. Why do you think it does?



Yes, for same reason that if I heard a child shout, "Wow, batman is cool!", I wouldn't think he was referring to batman's body temperature: contextual clues.



Why would we do this? Should we compare "cool" with "square of"?

I think there are different ways of discovering or deciding that something exists, but I see no reason to think that those different ways constitute difference in the meaning of "exist". There are different ways of testing whether someone has influenza, but that does not mean that the disease is any different depending on how it is tested. There are different ways of knowing that I am in pain, my feeling pain, and discovering that my c-fibers are firing. But that doesn't mean that what we are knowing is any different. Why should what we know differ with how we know it? In fact, that question implies that there is no difference, and we are asking about the same thing. Just because we can see a dog barking, and hear the dog barking, that does not mean that "barking" means something different, does it? Whether we know the dog exists because we see it, or whether we know the dog exists because someone tell us it exists, or whether we know the dog exists because we hear it barking, or because we have just seen a recent photograph of it, what we mean by "the dog exists" or, "there is a dog" remains the same. So, the question still is, what do we mean by it?

I've reconsidered my position and I believe you are correct.

"Exist" still means the same thing, it's just the subject which dictactes in which way that thing exists. Mermaids and elephants both exist, but how we come to the conclusion that they exist is different (in the former, we know it's just the notion that exists, and in the latter we know there is physical corroboration - nonetheless, they both exist). They are in some form. Is that what you were going for?

Just imagine for a second that every statement is the answer to a question:

Does X exist?

The answers could be: yes, no, maybe, probably, probably not...

Just notice that my answer to the question could be either yes or no.

Do mermaids exist (are there humans whose lower body is a fish tail?)

Do mermaids exist (in imagination?)

Just explain why you can get opposing answers to the same question... not to mention any names (PLATO).

I am not sure what you mean by "the way" they exist

We should never mix up how we know with what we know.