Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
I don't know about that. I think 'to exist' and 'to be' mean different things. I propose that the word exist means 'ex' apart from 'ist' be. So to exist is to 'be apart', this thing, as distinct from that thing. Anything that exists can be counted, and has an identity. Actually, Kennethamy quoted a Quine saying on this very point, 'no entity without identity' in another thread.
Fundamentally 'existence' is not a predicate (Kant).
'Exist' is just the verb "is".
Despite the above, the word 'exist' is normall predicated by humans.
As such we end up with the following;
Humans (exist),
and since humans are multi-variate;
Humans [realist, non-realists, common, language games, etc. (exist)]
1. A realist will insists objects exist as independent of human minds waiting there externally for humans to correspond with them.
This is a delusional type of existence.
2. A non-realist will have a different conception of existence.
3. The common man will have a different view of existence.
4. A scientist (QM or non-QM) will have their own concept of existence.
5. There are other views on existence.
There are different consensus on the above views.
Why should one of the above be the ONLY existence.
This is why we need to acknowledge that there are different views of existence and no absolute existence.
But the fact remains, we cannot extricate 'exist' from the human element, i.e.
Humans (exist)
It just cannot stand alone, i.e
(((exist)))
So, realistically, fact is
Humans (exist)
If a thing exists, then that thing exists now, this is a matter of grammar. That a thing existed does not imply that it exists now.
Does Lincoln exist, yes or no?
What are the different concepts of existence? And, what are you talking about?
It is a matter of grammar. But I am using the term "exist" tenselessly. In the way "2+3 is 5" it is used tenselessly. "Exist" in mathematics has not temporal qualifiers, and neither has it in philosophy. I think you are confusing "exist" with, "alive".
Lincoln exists, but he is not alive. And,"X exists" no more implies "X exists now", than does, "the number 2 exists" imply that the number 2 exists now.
I think you are confusing "exist" with, "alive".
Lincoln exists, but he is not alive. And,"X exists" no more implies "X exists now", than does, "the number 2 exists" imply that the number 2 exists now.
From dictionary.com:
exist
verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.
Just as an historical note, Aquinas warned against saying that God existed in a different way, or in a different sense, from the way or sense that ordinary things existed, since he pointed out that to say that starts you on the slippery-slope to atheism.
I think the lexicographer was wise not to add:
6. to have properties.
Fundamentally 'existence' is not a predicate (Kant).
'Exist' is just the verb "is".
Despite the above, the word 'exist' is normall predicated by humans.
As such we end up with the following;
Humans (exist),
and since humans are multi-variate;
Humans [realist, non-realists, common, language games, etc. (exist)]
1. A realist will insists objects exist as independent of human minds waiting there externally for humans to correspond with them.
This is a delusional type of existence.
2. A non-realist will have a different conception of existence.
3. The common man will have a different view of existence.
4. A scientist (QM or non-QM) will have their own concept of existence.
5. There are other views on existence.
There are different consensus on the above views.
Why should one of the above be the ONLY existence.
This is why we need to acknowledge that there are different views of existence and no absolute existence.
But the fact remains, we cannot extricate 'exist' from the human element, i.e.
Humans (exist)
It just cannot stand alone, i.e
(((exist)))
So, realistically, fact is
Humans (exist)
You ask for ways of existing. I listed 5 ways in the earlier post.
An historical note: Aquinas warns against saying that God exists in a different way, or in a different sense, from the way or sense in which ordinary objects exist, because he says that view starts the slippery-slope to atheism. He is, I think, right.
Secondly, I don't think that your examples demonstrate different types of existence, merely different ontological schemes. We disagree on what types of things exist, not on what types of 'existences' there are, which isn't entirely intelligible to me.
Firstly, I'm not so sure Kant is right about existence not being a predicate. His argument seems to be that a 'real' predicate must add something new to its subject, yet existence seems to be presupposed. However, consider "Barrack Obama's grandfather is a father". Fatherhood is presupposed in the subject, but does that mean that '... is a father' isn't a real predicate in this context, merely a logical one? I'm unconvinced. Moreover, there are most definitely cases where existence is not presupposed. I might explain to a child that King Arthur is a legend, but King Alfred actually existed. Here existence seems to be being used as the kind of real predicate Kant talks about, to discriminate between different members of a heterogeneous class of kingly characters.
Secondly, I don't think that your examples demonstrate different types of existence, merely different ontological schemes. We disagree on what types of things exist, not on what types of 'existences' there are, which isn't entirely intelligible to me. For example, most people would agree with the statement: There exists an x such that 2 + 2 = x and x is a number. Yet we still have (massive) ontological disagreement about the type of thing that the above variable refers to, which we can bring out by paraphrasing:
There exists an x such that 2 + 2 = x and x is an abstract idea.
There exists an x such that 2 + 2 = x and x is a platonic form/abstract entity/universal.
There exists an x such that 2 + 2 = x and x is a concrete particular.
etc.
Nobody really disagrees about existence (to be is to be the value of a variable, as Quine puts it), they just disagree over what types of thing exist.
I, of course, agree with what you say about ways of existing. There is but one way of existing. Existing. As you say, disagreement is about what kind of thing exists, but not about in what way it exists.
So you wouldn't say water can exist as a solid, as a liquid, as a vapor. Water exists. It can take the form of a solid or liquid.
It takes the form of a liquid, but it can't exist as a liquid. Because it can only exist in one way. Liquid water exists. But water can't exist as a liquid. Hmmm.
I would say that water can sometimes be a solid, etc. But I don't mind your saying that it can exist as a solid as long as what you mean is that water sometimes can be a solid. I object only to the implication of "exist as" if it is used to imply that there is a different mode of existence. Or, exists in a different way. As Berkeley said, "Speak with the vulgar, but think with the learned". We can all say that the sun rises at 6 am, just as long as we still are Copernicans.
So you're seeing fuzzy thinking with "exists as."
If I say "God exists as a concept" I'm in danger of what? (I'm asking, not arguing)
It is definitely not correct to say that God exists, or exists in the way that things exist. This is why atheism is essentially correct in saying that God does not exist. Everything that exists is composed of parts and has a beginning and an end in time.
In Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich argues that attributing "existence" to God is problematic insofar as it renders God a determinate Being among beings.[INDENT][In regard to the Proofs] they [the scholastics] did not mean 'existence.' They meant the reality, the validity, the truth of the idea of God, an idea which did not carry the connotation of something or someone who might or might not exist.
[/INDENT]He continues by arguing that every argument for the existence of God is more or less a failure qua argument, but that these arguments are unparalleled statements of the inerradicable question mark overhanging human finitude.[INDENT]The arguments for the existence of God neither are arguments nor are they proof of the existence of God. They are expressions of the question Source
[/INDENT]
How can arguments not be arguments?
Religion is direction or movement toward the ultimate or the unconditional. And God rightly defined might be called the Unconditional. God, in the true sense, is indefinable. Since the Unconditional precedes our minds and precedes all created things, God cannot be confined by the mind or by words. Tillich sees God as Being-Itself, or the "Ground of all Being." For this reason there cannot be "a" God. There cannot even be a "highest God," for even that concept is limiting. We cannot make an object out of God. And the moment we say he is the highest God or anything else, we have made him an object. Thus, beyond the God of the Christian or the God of the Jews, there is the "God beyond God." This God cannot be said to exist or not to exist in the sense that we "exist". Either statement is limiting. We cannot make a thing out of God, no matter how holy this thing may be, because there still remains something behind the holy thing which is its ground or basis, the "ground of being."
They point to something beyond existence, but which is real (to the believer).
