1. real existence
2. imagined, unreal existence (only taking place in one´s mind)
If we agree on this it would not be permissible to say:
"The unicorn really exists in my mind".
It exists, but not really, it exists only unreally.
Instead of real versus unreal, we could try substantially and unsubstantially.
Substance is palpable, thoughts are not palpable and therefore not substantial.
Exactly.
Unreal existence and real existence are both coherent notions. But "real non-existence" or "unreal non-existence" are incoherent notions. Non-existence only "includes" nothingness and all logically incoherent notions such as a square-circle.
We cannot separate existence from coherent ideas. We can however make distinctions between whether they are existent in reality, existent in the mind or existent in some virtual reality (like dreams).
A_part_of_existence wrote:Unreal existence and real existence are both coherent notions. But "real non-existence" or "unreal non-existence" are incoherent notions. Non-existence only "includes" nothingness and all logically incoherent notions such as a square-circle.
We cannot separate existence from coherent ideas. We can however make distinctions between whether they are existent in reality, existent in the mind or existent in some virtual reality (like dreams).
In the first part you are raping basic understanding of language, these are made up words and concepts.
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.
Both terms have manifold common usages. Being can be either a noun by itself or the present participle of the verb to be. Existence is usually a noun. However, in the philosophical context, I prefer to treat them as nearly synonymous nouns. In my own usage, Being is the opposite of Nothingness. Existence is sometimes used as the quality of Being applied to a particular entity. Other times, existence and being are interchangeable. Hope that helps - CW
the existance that knows it has nothing in its pocket is in its self nothing.so if i say to someone i have nothing in my pocket we both no nothing outside the terms of somthing.as in we share the meaning of non happening in happening.
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.
Both terms have manifold common usages. Being can be either a noun by itself or the present participle of the verb to be. Existence is usually a noun. However, in the philosophical context, I prefer to treat them as nearly synonymous nouns. In my own usage, Being is the opposite of Nothingness. Existence is sometimes used as the quality of Being applied to a particular entity. Other times, existence and being are interchangeable. Hope that helps - CW
I share this view also. I don't see how something can be, but not exist.
jackles wrote:the existance that knows it has nothing in its pocket is in its self nothing.so if i say to someone i have nothing in my pocket we both no nothing outside the terms of somthing.as in we share the meaning of non happening in happening.
A case of negation. Ok, thanks for the additional info.
