Existence and being

[Banno]

How do these differ?

I am curious, because analytic types look to existence, more or less developing on the account found in Frege, and treating existence as a second-order predicate. But those of other persuasions look to being, apparently taking it to be something quite different, and even occasionally capitalising it - "Being".

So, how do they differ, and how are they similar?

Straight away we might be rid of the notion of being as a particular, for much the same sorts of reasons that nothing is not to be treated as a particular. "I have nothing in my pocket, therefore nothing exists" - that sort of thing.

Or maybe not.

[thedoc]

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, one can exist in the world but not be really aware of it. Or one can "Be In" the world by being aware of it and all that is around you.

[jackles]

You are a human being.inside existance.or a localised being inside existance.existance in my opinion is nonlocal.nonlocal as meaning sizeless in any terms.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How do these differ?

I am curious, because analytic types look to existence, more or less developing on the account found in Frege, and treating existence as a second-order predicate. But those of other persuasions look to being, apparently taking it to be something quite different, and even occasionally capitalising it - "Being".

So, how do they differ, and how are they similar?

Straight away we might be rid of the notion of being as a particular, for much the same sorts of reasons that nothing is not to be treated as a particular. "I have nothing in my pocket, therefore nothing exists" - that sort of thing.

Or maybe not.

being and existence.

Words are uses carelessly, and so in usage these can often be interchangeable.
But Were we to discuss literal difference I would suggest a perspective difference, with Being holding a subjective position, and existence an objective one.
Being is experienced whilst existence is that experience abstracted to others "beings" and things.

[James Markham]

Everything that has being, has existence, but not everything that exists has being. As the post above states, being is reserved to describe sentience and subjective perspective.

[Owen]

How do these differ?

I am curious, because analytic types look to existence, more or less developing on the account found in Frege, and treating existence as a second-order predicate. But those of other persuasions look to being, apparently taking it to be something quite different, and even occasionally capitalising it - "Being".

So, how do they differ, and how are they similar?

Straight away we might be rid of the notion of being as a particular, for much the same sorts of reasons that nothing is not to be treated as a particular. "I have nothing in my pocket, therefore nothing exists" - that sort of thing.

Or maybe not.

x has existence, means, there is some predicate such that Fx is true. E!x =df ∃F(Fx).
x has being, means, x is alive. B!x =df (x is alive).

(x is alive) -> ∃F(Fx). ie. (x is alive) -> E!x. B!x -> E!x
Being entails existence but existence does not entail being.
∃F(Fx) -> (x is alive), is not valid. That is, (E!x -> B!x) is invalid.

DesCartes' I think therefore I exist, has the form Gx -> ∃F(Fx).

I doubt therefore I am alive, is true.
(I doubt) -> (I have being).
(I have being) -> (I have some property).
(I have some property) -> (I exist).
therefore,
(I doubt) -> (I exist).

I pee therefore I am, also works here.

Gx -> EF(Fx). ie. Gx -> E!x.

(My car is red) -> (My car exists), is true.
but,
(My car is red) -> (My car has being), is false.

(x is animate) -> (x has being), is true.
(x is inanimate) -> (x has being), is false.

(x is animate) -> (x exists), is true.
(x is inanimate) -> (x exists), is true.

[Banno]

Thanks, Owen.

So to exist is to be the subject of some predicate. Sure. But why equate being with being alive? Flowers and bacteria have being, but not sports cars?

[duszek]

Would it be a possible sentence:

A does not exist.

A is a subject in a sentence which denies the existence.

But does it at least exist as a concept ?

[Impenitent]

George Washington exists but has no being

-Imp

[jackles]

Localised meaning is being.as in human being.a human state of being means being human.a car a flower a human have a general meaning in existance as moving things.

[Owen]

Would it be a possible sentence:

A does not exist.

A is a subject in a sentence which denies the existence.

But does it at least exist as a concept ?

Yes, A then has sense but no reference.

If A is a non-referring description eg. the present king of France, then
it is tautologous to say, the present king of France does not exist.

But, it is false to say that: the present king of France has the predicate of non-existence.
~(F(A)) <-> (~F)(A), iff A exists.

It is not the case that the present king of France exists, is equivalent to, the present king of France has the predicate of
non-existence...is provably false.

That is, there is no primary predication of the present king of France that is true.
(all F)(~F(the present king of France)) is true.

Note: the present king of France is not meaningless.
It has meaning when it has reference, when France is a monarchy.

x exists <-> (some F)(Fx).
~(x exists) <-> (all F)(~Fx).

There are several ways of expressing (x exists).
(x exists) <-> (some F)(Fx).
(x exists) <-> (x=x).
(x exists) <-> (some y)(x=y).
(x exists) <-> (~F)x <-> ~(Fx).
etc.

[Owen]

George Washington exists but has no being

-Imp

I agree, a dead body exists and it has no being.

[Johnson]

re: oakland's replies

It is important to note that oakland is using a secondary language, that is, he is taking what might be natural language and converting it into his own secondary language, one of logic. Logic is a set of rules created for the purpose of its own standard, unrelated to the use of natural language. If you see existence and being as logical constituents, then his representations are useful. If you consider existence and being to be something found in natural language, his offerings are of no aid.

[Banno]

Meh. I think Owen's analysis of existence - which is quite standard - captures most of what is implicit in the natural language use of "exists"; and that much of what isn;t captured is rubbish.

But I'm less convinced with what seems to me the rather simple equation of "being" with "being alive".

[A_part_of_existence]

I'm not sure about the difference between existence and being. But in my opinion there is a difference between existence and reality. Existence encompasses all hypothetically possible things and all realities. For that reason there is a clear distinction between existence and reality.

Whilst you could claim that you are indubitably a part of existence and therefore have some sort of being, you cannot claim that you are indubitably real because the latter is susceptible to doubt whilst the former is not.