Yes. But maybe it's a "to each, his own" type of thing? Maybe there are fundamental flaws in any perspective. Is not the mark of excellence practical benefit?

So wind me up and watch me walk around in circles. It works for me.

I think we can reasonably assume, based on consensus and logic, that some perspectives are less flawed than others. Not everything is as relative as so many of us like to think (which usually convolutes matters of philosophy much further than need be)

What perspectives are we talking about here? Perspectives on what?

I think what you mean is that to say that X does not exist is to say that although the concept of X exists, what the concept purports to refer to does not exist. And I think that is right. For instance, to say that unicorns do not exist is to say that the concept of unicorn has no referent in the world. But, it is not to say that the concept of unicorn does not exist. The concept and what the concept purports to refer to are different, and either might exist without the other. As I pointed out, it is important to keep separate, concepts and objects. And, of course, words and things I agree that the word "green" is not a property (except of a sentence that contains it, of course) but certainly green, what the word "green" refers to, is a property. Pain is a sensation, but it is (like all sensations) mental entities. (Of course, it may be that mental entities are physical).

The meaning of things, such as, but not limited to, what it means to say X exists.

Well, I have already said what it is I think that "X exists" means. It means that X has properties (that something has the properties associated with X). Is there some other "perspective" that is true?

If you're a Realist, something is real if it is has existence independent of an observer. The state of the art of physics supplies no basis for belief that on the quantum level, physical entities have any knowable properties unless they're being observed. So a physicists will tell you that you don't know your frying pan is on the stove, unless you are actually observing it there. How does a Realist address this issue?

You're confusing knowledge with reality.

Could you explain what you mean? I agree that knowledge and reality are different, but I don't see how that is relevant here.

I do not think to say something "exists" is precise enough.
You might say something has physical existence say stars, planets, etc.
You might say something has imaginary existence say pink unicorns. The imaginary adjective implies it lacks physical existence.
You might say something has conceptual existence like Platos the true, the beautiful and the good which implies something more than imaginary but less than physical.
To just use the term "exists" without any further qualification just leads to confusion.

A dedicated materialist could claim even imaginary and conceptual existence has some material physical chemical mental correlation but that only furthers the confusion.

I do not think to say something "exists" is precise enough.
You might say something has physical existence say stars, planets, etc.
You might say something has imaginary existence say pink unicorns. The imaginary adjective implies it lacks physical existence.
You might say something has conceptual existence like Platos the true, the beautiful and the good which implies something more than imaginary but less than physical.
To just use the term "exists" without any further qualification just leads to confusion.

A dedicated materialist could claim even imaginary and conceptual existence has some material physical chemical mental correlation but that only furthers the confusion.

The term "exist" is univocal. What you seem to be talking about are the different ways in which we can determine whether something exists. Obviously, to determine whether a chair exists we have to determine whether something has the properties of a chair. And those are physical properties. But to determine whether a particular number exists (say the number three) we have to determine whether something has the properties of the number three (is odd, is the successor of two, is a prime number, etc.) and those are not physical properties.So "exist" always means the same thing, but how we determine whether something exists may be different depending on the kind of thing it is. There is no such thing as imaginary existence, since no imaginary things exist. That is what we call them "imaginary". Concepts, of course, do exist. And to say that a concept exists is just to say that something has the properties of concepts.

There is no such thing as imaginary existence, since no imaginary things exist. That is what we call them "imaginary".

But it is not unequivocal as the entire thread indicates. Our first notion when someone says something "exists" (The abominable snow man exists) is that of physical or material existence. Further discussion brings up concepts, values and imaginary constructs but these things do not have physical existence. So to say the something "exists" without a discussion of the attributes or properties one is asserting to belong to that subject is to say very little at all. "God exists" is not very informative.

And futhermore, to deny the existence of something "does not exist" implies having at least a conception of the thing being denied (in some odd sense confirming some type of existence in the act of denial). What we mean generally "does not exist" is does not have material or spatial properties.

Would you say that the statement "Unicorns are imaginary" is literally true? If so, how can unicorns "be" of some description if they do not exist? To generalise the point, does "X is Y" (where Y is an adjective) imply "X exists"?

If the abominable snowman existed then a physical object would exist which has the properties the AS is supposed to have. .... In no sense, odd or not, am I affirming that mermaids exist when I deny they exists. Indeed, if I did, I would be contradicting myself. What I am denying, however, is that the concept of mermaids (which does exist) has a referent. That there is anything which has the head of a woman and the torso of a fish.

If I were to say, falsely, that the concept of mermaid does not exist, I would not be saying that the concept of a mermaid has no spatial or material properties. ...

Yes, I might say that. But what I would mean if I said that, is that there are no unicorns, but some people may imagine there are. Or, more likely, that there are unicorn-stories, and unicorn-paintings. But imaginary is not a property of unicorns, since there are no unicorns to have properties. Imaginary is a pseudo-property. Don't let the grammar mislead you. Just as "exist" is not a property of any objects.

Is it not just easier and subject to less confusion to say.
Mermaids have no material existence only conceptual or imaginary existence.
:perplexed:

Is it not just easier and subject to less confusion to say.
Mermaids have no material existence only conceptual or imaginary existence.
:perplexed:

So to say that X exists when X is an object would be to say that an object that exhibits its physical properties has been observed?

And to say that X exists when X is the name of an idea is to say that somebody somewhere holds the idea in his or her mind?