Ways of existing?

@prothero,

prothero;141973 wrote:

Do not give up or give in on this Jeeprs. To say that there is only one "way of existing" is fundamentally the same as saying there is only one truth, one kind of object, and one kind of reality, in most cases objective material reality; what can be studied and measured by science. It is another way of presenting a mechnistic deterministic form of materialism. It is a worldview in which there is a building but no architect and a story but no storyteller. There is a great deal missing in this view of reality, existence and truth.

It is nothing like saying there is only one kind of object. It is like saying that there are many kinds of object, but that the term "object" means the same thing no matter what kind of object it is. In the same way, there are many kinds of things that exist, but the term, "exist" means the same thing what ever kind of thing exists. You really have to distinguish between:

a. There is one kind of thing that exists (which is clearly false) and,
b. All the kinds of things that exist, exist in the same way, ( which is true)

You (and Jeeprs) continue to confuse a. and, b. You insist that a is true because you do not distinguish it from b. But a. is false, and b. is true. It is only a matter of distinguish a. from b.

By the way, I am here taking no position on materialism, since if immaterial objects exist, that does not matter, since they exist in the "same way" as material objects, although, of course, material things and immaterial things both exist (and in the same way). Different kinds of things, but both exist.

For instance, I believe that the number three exists. But that the number three is an immaterial entity, and the number three exists no differently from my shoes. My shoes and the number three: very different kinds of things. But both exist. And there is no reason that I can think of, to believe that they exist in "different ways". Have you any reason for thinking so?

You really should not confuse my saying that shoes and numbers both exist in the same way with my saying that numbers are like shoes. Obviously they are not. Numbers are abstract objects, and shoes are concrete objects. So, they are very different kinds of things. But both exist.

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;141854 wrote:

:bigsmile:What a'bout cultivated archy-types ? imene we all play roles in our lives. my personnal favourite is Sophia, Pepijn Sweep's House-Keeper.
i host heritage of Hermes 1,2,3. want to share

What if words have more meanings; what if ancient language is root to modern languages; what if it in-deed was Onw Word which seperated Heaven and Earth ? Can we fix this ?

Pepijn Sweep s.t. SH:lol:

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;141979 wrote:

For instance, I believe that the number three exists. But that the number three is an immaterial entity, and the number three exists no differently from my shoes. My shoes and the number three: very different kinds of things. But both exist. And there is no reason that I can think of, to believe that they exist in "different ways". Have you any reason for thinking so? .

But I dispute that numbers exist in the same way as objects. Why? Objects occupy space, have a beginning and and end in time, and are composed of something. Numbers do not have any of these attributes. I don't know whether they are objects at all, except for by analogy. You cannot demonstrate the existence of number to a creature or an innumerate person.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;142021 wrote:

But I dispute that numbers exist in the same way as objects. Why? Objects occupy space, have a beginning and and end in time, and are composed of something. Numbers do not have any of these attributes. I don't know whether they are objects at all, except for by analogy. You cannot demonstrate the existence of number to a creature or an innumerate person.

But why would that show that numbers do not exist in the same way as shoes? Numbers are (as you point out) very different from shoes. But that is a different issue. But to say that shoes exist is to say that certain properties are exemplified. And to say that numbers exist is equally to say that certain (very different) properties are exemplified. So, to say that both numbers exist, and to say that shoes exist is to say that certain properties (very different in either case) are exemplified. And, therefore, what is meant in both cases is the same thing. Viz. Certain properties are exemplified.

Notice that this specification of what it means "to exist" is metaphysically neutral. It allows anything and all things to exist. Just as long as certain properties are exemplified. So, on his definition, shoes and God may both exist. The only issue then is whether in either case, certain properties are exemplified. I would think that that is a great advantage of that definition of "exists", since the definition begs no questions as to what kinds of things exist. Some seem to object to the definition as biased in favor of materialism. But that is certainly not so. It is not metaphysically biased in any way at all. I would think that such a definition would appeal to all metaphysical sides.

@kennethamy,

There are things that have greater and lesser degrees of reality. For example, in scholastic philosophy, angels have a greater degree of reality than do corporeal objects, and God a greater (or the greatest possible) degree of reality (in that essence implies existence).

Leaving aside whether one believes in any of this, or not, do such degrees of reality correspond with kinds of existence? I think that the scholastics themselves talked of 'modes of existence' in regard to such matters.

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 11:28 AM ----------

Incidentally I am not saying I believe in the scholastic approach, but on the other hand, all traditional metaphysic has some kind of hierarchy of being which implies degrees of reality, which seems to me to imply different kinds, modes, or planes of existence. The reason I believe the univocal approach to existence is materialist is because it cannot concieve of degrees of reality. It says that things either exist or they don't.

A few weeks ago we were discussing levels of knowledge in the Republic. THis came up again then. The Ideas can only be perceived by Noesis. So some kinds of existence can only by grasped by some kinds of cognition. I know this is not accepted by moderns. But that is where I'm coming from - just to provide a context for it.

@Pepijn Sweep,

I agree with kennethamy here.

Consider the following two statements, which concern difference as applied to motion:
A1. Different kinds of things move.
A2. Things move in different kinds of ways.

Both of the above statements are obviously true. However, when difference is applied to existence, can we say both of the following?
B1. Different kinds of things exist.
B2. Things exist in different kinds of ways.

Clearly B1 is true, but what about B2? However radically things may differ from one another, B1 seems sufficient to express such differences. Ontological differences have to do with what things are, rather than what they do. Once a thing has been fully described, and categorised as material or immaterial, concrete or abstract, universal or particular etc, everything about it has been said; there is no residual question of "how" it exists. The only remaining thing to be decided is whether it exists.

In other words, differences relating to existence are properly expressed by nouns and adjectives (or noun/adjectival phrases), not by adverbs (or adverbial phrases). Statement B1 is therefore true, but B2 is not.

@kennethamy,

Are there degrees of reality? Are some things more real than others? If there is, does this imply that their mode of existence is different?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;142033 wrote:

Are there degrees of reality? Are some things more real than others? If there is, does this imply that their mode of existence is different?

I would say 'no' to your last question. "More real" or "less real" can be dealt with in the adjectival categorisation of things (see the last two paragraphs of my previous post). However, I find the idea of "degrees of reality" very obscure.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;142033 wrote:

Are there degrees of reality? Are some things more real than others? If there is, does this imply that their mode of existence is different?

Perhaps there are rather degrees of being in tune with reality.

@kennethamy,

I am mindful of the idea that in traditional philosophy, which I know is quite unacceptable to us moderns, the sage was one who had insight. S/he was therefore capable of seeing things which the rest of us were not.

Two people will see the same situation and draw completely different conclusions from it. If reality, or existence, were so simple, this couldn't really occur, could it? There would be no scope for disagreement. We could, at all times, see what existed, and what doesn't. But this hardly ever happens.

I think I understand the argument, but I still don't agree with it. It sounds very simple in the abstract to say of a particular thing that it either exists or it doesn't. But reality is considerably less clear cut than that, and we are called on all of the time to make judgements about it. 'What is real' is one thing in a philosophical argument when you're contemplating the hypothetical chair or the hypothetical apple. But in real life, there are judgements that need to be made all the time about what is real. The expression 'getting real' about something captures something about that.

So it is like Nick Pappas says, above. It might just be the difference between being selfish and sagacious - but that is a very big difference and has a real meaning.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;142039 wrote:

I am mindful of the idea that in traditional philosophy, which I know is quite unacceptable to us moderns, the sage was one who had insight. S/he was therefore capable of seeing things which the rest of us were not.

Two people will see the same situation and draw completely different conclusions from it. If reality, or existence, were so simple, this couldn't really occur, could it? There would be no scope for disagreement. We could, at all times, see what existed, and what doesn't. But this hardly ever happens.

I think I understand the argument, but I still don't agree with it. It sounds very simple in the abstract to say of a particular thing that it either exists or it doesn't. But reality is considerably less clear cut than that, and we are called on all of the time to make judgements about it. 'What is real' is one thing in a philosophical argument when you're contemplating the hypothetical chair or the hypothetical apple. But in real life, there are judgements that need to be made all the time about what is real. The expression 'getting real' about something captures something about that.

So it is like Nick Pappas says, above. It might just be the difference between being selfish and sagacious - but that is a very big difference and has a real meaning.

Unless we know what the criterion is for whether X is more real than Y, how can we know what it means for X to be more real than Y? But have you such a criterion? Philosophers have held, for instance, that God is more real than anything else. But by what criterion is that?

---------- Post added 03-21-2010 at 10:13 PM ----------

jeeprs;142033 wrote:

Are there degrees of reality? Are some things more real than others? If there is, does this imply that their mode of existence is different?

The problem with your question is that it assumes that the idea of mode of existence is understandable.

@ACB,

ACB;142032 wrote:

B1. Different kinds of things exist.
B2. Things exist in different kinds of ways.
[. . . . ] . . . . there is no residual question of "how" it exists. The only remaining thing to be decided is whether it exists.
. . . .Statement B1 is therefore true, but B2 is not.

No two distinct objects, that exist, can occupy the same point in space and time, but this constraint doesn't apply to abstract objects, so, either abstract objects dont exist or their existence is something different from that of non-abstract objects.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;142043 wrote:

Philosophers have held, for instance, that God is more real than anything else. But by what criterion is that?

Well I would not presume to give a definite answer to a question of that magnitude. Many would say that God is not real at all, others would say that God's existence is something you simply must believe, and others that the existence of deity can be inferred from the order of the universe. I am sympathetic to the latter, which I think is the traditional attitude of Western philosophy, before the modern period. But I do understand that many people are not inclined to that view.

But my interpretation of the traditional metaphysic is that the so-called 'higher levels' of existence describe, not things that exist, but the way things exist. For example, the reason number is so familiar in some respects, but also so difficult to fathom in others, is because it is basic to how the mind operates, but is nowhere to be seen among the objects of perception themselves. I think this is why platonists are so enamoured of number. It illustrates something about the nature of the reality of the forms, in a way that the ordinary person can understand.

So when we say 'a numerical object' we are actually using the word 'object' as an analogy, as something the mind considers. But a number is not an object in the same sense as a material object. There is no such 'thing' as number. We assume that numbers and tables are the same kind of thing but if you consider it carefully, they are of a different order of reality, I think.

So I think perhaps Deity, in the philosophical sense of 'the first principle', is not in itself an object of perception, but the reason why existence is arrayed in the way that it is. So it is something like the source of being in the sense of the reason the way things are the way they are, in a very broad sense. And in another sense, you can say we can't see the light itself, but it is that by which everything is illuminated. This after all is very much part of the idea of 'logos' from whence we derive the whole idea of logic (and rationality/reason). And I don't think in saying this, I am saying anything which would raise an eyebrow in a Catholic college, so I don't think I am saying anything particularly radical.

But by the modern period, the understanding of logic, reason and intellect has been transformed. The ideas of modes, substances, types of being, and the like, are all pretty alien to the Post-cartesian outlook.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;141820 wrote:

Yes. I think that reality is independent of how human beings perceive reality, if that is what you mean. But, I don't know what variables you are talking about. Or, even what you have in mind by variables. Neither am I sure what you mean by "absolutely". What you need to do is to give examples of what you mean by, "absolutely independent of human variables". The phrase is too vague to be able to say anything about it.

As Kant had questioned, there is still no proof that there is a reality that is independent of human mind/variables.

Kant in CoPR wrote:

it still remains a scandal to philosophy and to human reason in general that the existence of things outside us (from which we derive the whole material of knowledge, even for our inner sense) must be accepted merely on faith, and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.

Can you demonstrate a reality that is independent of the human mind?
[Btw I expect something other than your usual 'Moore's hand' (refuted by Wittgenstein), and 'moon before consciousness' (Kants space-time), which had been easily refuted.]

This question is similar to the one i raised in the other thread.
If existence or reality is not up to people, then WHAT is it up to?

Instead of the usual human 'mind' i am using human 'variables'. i.e. whatever it takes to be human.
Mind is just a loose term.
It collectively represent many human variables, brain, thought, emotions memory, experience, neural networks, and many other variables.

@Humanity,

You all are idiots to me.

You manifesting your own theory and definition of existance when yourself do not exist.

It is kind of foolish.

you may ask , what else we can do ? be silent?.

Hm no.

You are going to do what you are going to do. Even i curse you to eternity , it is such that your meaning of beliefs do not matter.

You are just trying to explain things easy way that make sense to your beliefs.

Key is you need to make opposite of the sense to your beliefs. That is the courage.

What is the use of collection new references to old beliefs?.

You will not be einstein by masturbating with beliefs.

For me einstein was a fool. Because humans can't be anything other than a fool as long as he is slave like whore to his beliefs.

It is just that he has no control over himself.

Body exist Not the beliefs. But your mind tells you beliefs exist.

The issue is always about choice and alternative.

if humans has alternative , he will choose to try. There are sometime alternative is not visible. Smile

@pondfish,

pondfish;142088 wrote:

You all are idiots to me.

You manifesting your own theory and definition of existance when yourself do not exist.

It is kind of foolish.

you may ask , what else we can do ? be silent?.

Hm no.

You are going to do what you are going to do. Even i curse you to eternity , it is such that your meaning of beliefs do not matter.

You are just trying to explain things easy way that make sense to your beliefs.

Key is you need to make opposite of the sense to your beliefs. That is the courage.

What is the use of collection new references to old beliefs?.

You will not be einstein by masturbating with beliefs.

For me einstein was a fool. Because humans can't be anything other than a fool as long as he is slave like whore to his beliefs.

It is just that he has no control over himself.

Body exist Not the beliefs. But your mind tells you beliefs exist.

The issue is always about choice and alternative.

if humans has alternative , he will choose to try. There are sometime alternative is not visible.

I'm sorry you feel that we're all idiots. I think you're swell. But that's just a belief, so if I'm reading you correctly, and I'm sure that that's impossible, I should make opposite sense of that belief...so I think you're horrible. is that right? I'm new to the business of incoherent rambling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kant in CoPR
it still remains a scandal to philosophy and to human reason in general that the existence of things outside us (from which we derive the whole material of knowledge, even for our inner sense) must be accepted merely on faith, and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.

The problem with objectivity is that all things that we can interact with are necessarily taken in by our individual perceptions and interpreted by our individual rationalities. If any given property is necessarily related to our perceptions and our translation or understanding of those perceptions, then it is unreasonable to assume that these properties exist as we interpret them independently of our perceptions.

Consider synesthesia, when one tastes colors, or sees visual representations of sounds. By all accounts, these people are witnessing the same objects that we are, but their perceptions and interpretations are completely different. Obviously our interpretations are necessarily linked to our minds, but our very perceptions themselves are predetermined by our minds.

If this is the case, the argument that there are consistent properties independent of the existence of our minds doesn't hold much weight, since our minds determine what we perceive and how we interpret it.

The real scandal of philosophy is that we let a term like objective float around in common use for so long. Collective subjectivity is a much more accurate term to describe phenomena.

@pondfish,

The word "exist" is derived from the French exist-er, from the Latin ex(s)istere to stand out, be perceptible, hence to exist, from ex- out + sistere, a reduplicated form of sta- to stand.

I know that farmers exist because I see them out standing in their fields!

:flowers:

@kennethamy,

When you start to think without reference to your belief systems , you will be able to see.

You are blinded by your beliefs!.

@kennethamy,

to be separate, to have an identity.

Not the same as 'to be', in my view.

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 10:06 PM ----------

Rwa001;142104 wrote:

Collective subjectivity is a much more accurate term to describe phenomena.

Excellent point. Also known as 'consensus reality'. But see how we have divided the world. The thinking subject in the realm of objects. From which it follows there is the 'objective realm' also known as The Cosmos, which, according to the late Carl Sagan, is 'all there is'. And then, there is the 'subjective realm' which includes everything you or I might think about, feel, inwardly experience, etc, etc.

I have noticed that what has happened through all of this is that spiritual, religious or deeper philosophical principles that used to form the common core of the culture, have now been transferred into the private realm, and are therefore understood as something subjective. One might have a deeply held view of such a kind, but really it is difficult to distinguish from a matter of opinion.

So these appeals to 'what is really there' and 'what is mind-independent' is really a roundabout way of appealing to the authority and respectability of Science, the 'truly objective', the 'what is really there'. And I suppose this is indeed preferable to referring to some obscure metaphysic or theocratic form of government. Science, at least, produces a lot of useful information. So I suppose it is better that these more subtle understandings remain in a more private realm. But this should not mean they are mistaken for mere opinion, nor that science is understood to have the last word.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;142049 wrote:

No two distinct objects, that exist, can occupy the same point in space and time, but this constraint doesn't apply to abstract objects, so, either abstract objects dont exist or their existence is something different from that of non-abstract objects.

Why would this fact affect whether abstract object exist in the same way as concrete objects? You must mean that they are a different kind of object from concrete objects. And I agree with that. After all, to say either kind of object exists is only to say that the object exemplifies properties, and both abstract and concrete objects exemplify properties. Although, of course, abstract objects do not exemplify some of the properties concrete objects exemplify, and you point out. But then, shoes do not exemplify some of the properties that belt buckles exemplify, but you would not say that shoes and belt buckles exist in different ways would you. (Or, as you put it, the existence of shoes, and the existence of belt buckles is different)?

It seems to me that anyone who wants to say that abstract and concrete objects exist differently has to say something about the idea of existence. Don't you?

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 07:38 AM ----------

longknowledge;142106 wrote:

The word "exist" is derived from the French exist-er, from the Latin ex(s)istere to stand out, be perceptible, hence to exist, from ex- out + sistere, a reduplicated form of sta- to stand.

I know that farmers exist because I see them out standing in their fields!

:flowers:

Yes, that is how you know farmers exist (as you, yourself, say). But it that what it is (or means) for farmers to exist? That you see them? Quine points out that when people say that things have different kinds of existence, they are confusing how we know something exists with what it is for it to exist. That is, of course, the confusion Berkeley makes, and in general, the confusion of Idealism.

Philosophy Forum

Ways of existing?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know