How do you exist? Let me count the ways. (Apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning).

Many posters tell us that this or that exists in a different way from something else. Thoughts exists in a different way from material objects; unicorns exist in a different way from horses, and so on. Sometimes they explain this by using the locution, "exist as". For example, they say that unicorns "exist as" ideas, or "exist as" concepts. The question about this particular locution is whether it means anything more that that, for instance, that the concept or the idea of the unicorn exists (but that unicorns do not exist)? In other words, "X exists as a Y" just means that the Y of X exists.

The question I want to ask is whether it makes sense to talk of "ways of existing", and, if it does, what does it mean to talk that way. What I think is that there is only one way to exist, namely, to exist, so that it makes no sense to talk of different ways of existing. I also think that when someone says that this or that exists in this or that way, what he is really saying is that this or that does not exist, but maybe that something else does exist, usually the idea, or the concept, of this or that. It is a way of saying both that something does not exist, but that it does exist (but in a funny way). Which is, nonsense.

For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.

What I think is that there is only one way to exist, namely, to exist, so that it makes no sense to talk of different ways of existing.

You are always a fantasy created by you.

Well for me, I wouldn't actually use the term "exist as a concept" unless I was trying to make a point. Existing as a concept really doesn't mean what it implies. Of course all concepts exist but they are not substantial realities either, because if they were then everything exists conceptually. If you say that is true, then all you ready did was cancel out the word exist. If everything exists in those terms it is practically pointless to use the word when talking about a concept.

I think if you want to ruin a definition just use it in places where it is redundant or incoherent.

According to you and Fast, deceased presidents of the USA exist and it seems that you think this because there are true statements that can be made about them. For any dinosaur that ever lived there is at least one true statement that can be made, so it seems to me that you're committed to the existence of dinosaurs, if you insist on the existence of dead presidents, and this is in conflict with a policy that you often claim to espouse, concerning standard usage by competent speakers of the language as recorded in dictionaries. Putting "define extinct" into Google, the first result reads "no longer in existence", which is in direct conflict with your views, as dinosaurs are extinct. In short, rather than attempting to answer your question myself, I would like to hear what it is that you're talking about when you claim that things exist.

I really cannot speak for fast, but my own view is that the proposition that Abraham Lincoln existed in 1860 is true in 2010. If you choose to understand this as meaning that Abraham Lincoln exists (whatever that means) that is up to you.

But there are higher-order concepts such as mathematical laws, even numbers themselves, or abstract entities such as the gross national product of Ecuador, which exist in a different way to your shoes or your kitchen table (just for starters).

I think what you mean by things that exist are what the medievals called 'corporeal objects' or material bodies. Is that what you mean?

Even a realist about the existence of propositions as abstract objects would have no grounds for claiming that Lincoln exists because a proposition about him exists. Should I understand your reply to indicate that you do not hold the belief that dead people, or dinosaurs, exist?

Of course not, not if "exist" means, "are alive". I never said (I hope) that Lincoln is aiive because the proposition, "Lincoln exist(ed) in 1860" is true (in 2010). What would make you think I did?

Well, on the other thread Fast entrusted the explanation of Lincoln's existence to you, and as he thanked your immediately subsequent post, it seems probable that he believes that you explained the existence of a dead man. On the other hand, your responses are somewhat evasive, I'm trying to get a statement from you about what it means for something to exists. So:
1) does Lincoln exist?
2) do abstract objects, that is causally inert objects without location in time or space, exist?

Has Abraham Lincoln properties? Of course he has. E.g. he is dead. And whatever has properties exists. Lincoln (for example) is not like a unicorn.
I think that abstract objects exist.

Okay, I take it then that you think that all people who will ever live existed before there were any people. I think this is problematic when you pose your rhetorical question supposed to suggest a mind independent reality; 'did the moon exist before there were any human minds (but human beings and human minds existed)?'
Anyway, thanks for the answers. I assume that for a thing to "have properties", then properties must exist, and thus properties must have properties, etc. How do you deal with the problems of regress or circularity? Or do you hold that while it's the case that anything with properties exists, it's not the case that everything that exists has properties?

How do you exist? Let me count the ways. (Apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning).

Many posters tell us that this or that exists in a different way from something else. Thoughts exists in a different way from material objects; unicorns exist in a different way from horses, and so on. Sometimes they explain this by using the locution, "exist as". For example, they say that unicorns "exist as" ideas, or "exist as" concepts. The question about this particular locution is whether it means anything more that that, for instance, that the concept or the idea of the unicorn exists (but that unicorns do not exist)? In other words, "X exists as a Y" just means that the Y of X exists.

The question I want to ask is whether it makes sense to talk of "ways of existing", and, if it does, what does it mean to talk that way. What I think is that there is only one way to exist, namely, to exist, so that it makes no sense to talk of different ways of existing. I also think that when someone says that this or that exists in this or that way, what he is really saying is that this or that does not exist, but maybe that something else does exist, usually the idea, or the concept, of this or that. It is a way of saying both that something does not exist, but that it does exist (but in a funny way). Which is, nonsense.

let me point out that it does not follow from the truth of, Lincoln existed in 1860, that Lincoln existed a billion years ago.

Lincoln is not alive. Has Abraham Lincoln properties? Of course he has. E.g. he is dead. And whatever has properties exists.

Many posters tell us that this or that exists in a different way from something else.

'Exist' is just the verb "is".