Philosophy Now Forum

Are we talking about the correct use of the words "existence" and "being" and "reality" ?

Who says what is correct ?

Correct is ...

1. what a person coining a new term says it is supposed to mean (gives a definition)

2. what is the original sense of a word.

Ex-sistence.
Coming out of sistence.

If you sist you simple are. If you ex-sist you not simply are but are in a self-conscious way.

A stone ex-sists too ? This is not correct, a stone sists. But if an exsisting individual is perceiving the stone he uses the term of ex-sistence, because that´s his own normal perspective.


Reality.
Res = thing.

All things are real. All non-things are not real (= dreams, phatamorganas, whishes, nightmares).

duszek wrote:Are we talking about the correct use of the words "existence" and "being" and "reality" ?

Who says what is correct ?

Correct is ...

1. what a person coining a new term says it is supposed to mean (gives a definition)

2. what is the original sense of a word.

Ex-sistence.
Coming out of sistence.

If you sist you simple are. If you ex-sist you not simply are but are in a self-conscious way.

A stone ex-sists too ? This is not correct, a stone sists. But if an exsisting individual is perceiving the stone he uses the term of ex-sistence, because that´s his own normal perspective.


Reality.
Res = thing.

All things are real. All non-things are not real (= dreams, phatamorganas, whishes, nightmares).

We could label them differently. But we could not alter the semantics space available to us.

If I assert that existence encompasses all things and someone else asserts that human encompasses all things, then I would accuse them of making a mistake and they would accuse me of making a mistake. The solution to finding out who is in error, is by asking them to be more specific by defining the label they are using.

So I would say that humans are a part of existence, they are not existence. The other person might say that existence is a part of humans. I would then think rationally we are referring to the same thing but have different labels for them.

If I were to ask you "can existence be anything other than that which encompasses and includes all things and all worlds?" how could you possibly respond with yes?

There is objectivity in semantics and reason. The labels we choose are subjective.

Owen wrote:

Impenitent wrote:George Washington exists but has no being

-Imp

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

Semantically, can there really be a difference between being and existing?
If I say G. Washington has been dead for many years, does that not say something about him being dead since 1799?

A dead body exists. But it has no life. How is it existing? It is being dead.

A_part_of_existence wrote: If I were to ask you "can existence be anything other than that which encompasses and includes all things and all worlds?" how could you possibly respond with yes?

Before agreeing or disagreeing I would try to find out what you mean by "existence" ?

And what are "things" ?
Only material things ? Or immaterial concepts too ? And emotions too ?

The meaning of existence is a challenge !
And an exercise in frustration.

duszek wrote: Before agreeing or disagreeing I would try to find out what you mean by "existence" ?

And what are "things" ?
Only material things ? Or immaterial concepts too ? And emotions too ?

The meaning of existence is a challenge !
And an exercise in frustration.

It is a challenge. But it's a worthwhile challenge.

I would then rephrase to the following: Whatever is, whether it be material or immaterial,
it is within existence because something cannot be outside of existence. Only nothing can be outside of existence.

Challenge met?

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

If you say that everything exists and only nothing does not then we probably need a further distinction between things or items that exist really and those which do not exist really, like dreams, unicorns and the like.

Or would you say that a unicorn and a pink elephant exists really ?

If a term uncludes too much it can become deluted and thus meaningless.

If everything is a thing then also nothing is a kind of thing.
And what´s the point of talking about anything at all ?

duszek wrote:
If you say that everything exists and only nothing does not then we probably need a further distinction between things or items that exist really and those which do not exist really, like dreams, unicorns and the like.
Or would you say that a unicorn and a pink elephant exists really ?
If a term uncludes too much it can become deluted and thus meaningless.
If everything is a thing then also nothing is a kind of thing.
And what´s the point of talking about anything at all ?

Existence encompasses all things, anything that is a part of existence, is existing or existent.
If you can coherently think of a unicorn, then at the very least the unicorn is instantiated within your mind. Whilst the unicorn may or may not be a part of the original reality (as opposed to a simulative reality) it is within existence. It is existing in your mind.

Could you say that it is not existing in your mind? I'm sure you could say, that it may not be existing in reality. But I'm also pretty sure you can't say that it is not existing at all because it is existing in your mind.

Existence might be a brief moment or as long as it's supported by a certain mechanism.

A being is a continaual selfsupported thing/object that exist.

HexHammer wrote:Existence might be a brief moment or as long as it's supported by a certain mechanism.

A being is a continaual selfsupported thing/object that exist.

Would you say that that which is existent in the mind, is still existent? As in it is a part of existence?

A_part_of_existence wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Existence might be a brief moment or as long as it's supported by a certain mechanism.

A being is a continaual selfsupported thing/object that exist.

Would you say that that which is existent in the mind, is still existent? As in it is a part of existence?

If you ask such silly questions then you would lack cognitive abilities.

Any reasonable person would know that anything in the mind are thoughts, thoughts are not real existant beings, thought exist as thoughts in the mind.

It's very selfexplanatory.

I think you misunderstood the point of my question.

I asked:

Would you say that that which is existent in the mind, is still existent? As in it is a part of existence?

I didn't ask if that which exists in the mind is existing in reality or not. The point of my question was to convey that even if something exists in the mind, then it is still a part of existence. It exists in the mind therefore its still existing in a part of existence. This is because it cannot be existing in the mind, but be considered as non-existent, can it? There is a difference between reality and existence. Existence includes all things. But not all things are real.

Your answer confirms this:

thoughts are not real existant beings, thought exist as thoughts in the mind.

If it exists in the mind, then isn't it existing? How can something exist if its not a part of existence? Can it exist in non-existence??

You are confusing youself too much.

Sometimes oversimplifyed logic can confuse, and one should not think too much of it. There's a famous danish play where the main character will tell his mom "mom is a stone, because stones can't fly, ergo mom is a stone", it's a logical phallacy.

Things in our mind exist as thoughts. THOUGHTS!

HexHammer wrote:You are confusing youself too much.

Sometimes oversimplifyed logic can confuse, and one should not think too much of it. There's a famous danish play where the main character will tell his mom "mom is a stone, because stones can't fly, ergo mom is a stone", it's a logical phallacy.

Things in our mind exist as thoughts. THOUGHTS!

And I agree that they exist as thoughts. Thoughts are in existence; they are a part of existence!

Where a specific item of thought may be instantiated within which reality (the mind, the dream, the waking reality or some other reality if there is one), is another matter.

We could classify existence as:

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.

duszek wrote:We could classify existence as:

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.

It makes no sens to say that "the unicorn really exist in my mind", that would suggest insanity, specially that "really". To imagine a unicorn would be sufficient and suggest one know it isn't real, but one can still imagine the concept about unicorns.