Good work guys! Something either exists or doesn't exist. That's solid, hard to contest. Now, what do you mean by "exists"?

Samm

I have thought of existence in that way too...as at least the ability to have properties and, depending on how properties are defined, perhaps the necessarily having of properties or a property--although existence itself is not a property. I like this definition because it is broad enough to cover what is real, feet and stones for example, and what is not real, or at least not substantial. The Jabberwocky is not real, and democracy is not a tangible thing. But at the same time, it declares that existence cannot have its origin or explanation in non-existence.

So, if something exists or does not exists, it either has properties or has no properties. Even the Jabberwocky has properties that allow us to describe it; therefore, it exists, if only as an idea in the mind of those who conceive it (or read the Lewis Carroll work). Anything we can imagine or conceive and identify or describe must have such properties, although it may not be as real as we imagine it to be; for while we may say that it is a substantial thing, this Jabberwocky, neither saying so nor believing it true make the Jabberwocky substantial. It lives, but only in the mind. Berkeley said as much of us all, that we live, but only in the mind. He said that both substantial realities and insubstantial fantasies have their existences only in the mind. And we ask in what mind have they this reality which holds them true to their known properties at all times in all details to all observers with their many distinct minds all unkown to any others but themselves? Sure, its a long question and a wordy one, but entails a lot of issues. In response, Berkeley suggested that reality exists forever in the mind of God. Note to Bishop Berkeley: It is never a good thing to anchor your primary argument in such a being as one for whom the existence of which no evidence is available. :-)

Johnson and Moore are blithering idiots to me because they seem not to understand Berkeley's argument, but I think I understand it, and find it inspirational in ways, but I still see the weaknesses intrinsic to it.

Samm

I forgot to note that the definition of existence kennethamy uses allows for the existence of anything we can conceive, at least as an idea of the mind, a fantasy or delusion. In fact, there is not one thing that can be said not to exist except by reference, e.g., "That which has no properties (and it might be necessary to include the phrase, 'and no ability to have properties,') does not exist." Thus the only thing that does not exist is absolute non-existence (and that only by reference).

So it seems that existence for Berkeley has its definition in the act of being perceived by some mind, although, except for our own minds, none of us is capable of perceiving any other mind, and in fact we perceive not even our own mind but only the contents of the perceptions of that imperceptible mind. Does anyone besides all of us see a weakness inherent in this argument? :-)