Existence as a Verb: A Philosophical Exploration

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
That's not really what I meant. It just seems that we experience "time" one present moment at a time. I don't know of any time travellers.

That existence is something added to the definition of a thing, is what I would argue against.

I travel into the future all the time, just don't ask me to bring anything back for you. I never go back.

Your definition of existence contradicts the dictionary meaning of the word. Existence is not something added to things nor is it a property of things, it a state of things. Either something exists or it doesn't.

Just because the word is vague like so many other words does not mean it is a useless word. Its widespread acceptance and use belies your resistence to accept it. If you are trying to say existence is a meaningless redundant word, I say prove it.

 

[Eh]

I don't care if my definition contradicts the dictionary, because that definition is circular. Why? Well take the term existence. That is defined as being the state or condition of existing. What is exist defined as? Having existence. So it's obviously circular, whether or not one wants to admit it.

Now keep in mind I'm not arguing the term is useless, as it obviously has some important meaning, such as telling the difference between something that is real and something purely imaginary. It is only if we actually treat exist as being a real property a thing could be with or without (as verbs usually do) that it becomes redundant and absurd.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
I don't care if my definition contradicts the dictionary, because that definition is circular. Why? Well take the term existence. That is defined as being the state or condition of existing. What is exist defined as? Having existence. So it's obviously circular, whether or not one wants to admit it.

Now keep in mind I'm not arguing the term is useless, as it obviously has some important meaning, such as telling the difference between something that is real and something purely imaginary. It is only if we actually treat exist as being a real property a thing could be with or without (as verbs usually do) that it becomes redundant and absurd.

Its usefulness is the only reason I brought up the dictionary definition. I certainly don't know all the arguments for and against the word, but I maintain it has common meaning about the property or state of something spatially and/or temporally.

 

[Eh]

I would argue the negative of course, taking the view that existence adds nothing to the concept of an entity at all. But the debate over the meaning of existence isn't a simple affair.

A quick question though. Have you read Anslem's ontological argument for the existence of God? I brought that up in this thread because it is very relevant, as it hinges on existence as a property. Though the argument seems silly, it's really not quite so easy to refute without thinking about it. I believe it took hundreds of years before Kant came along and was able to point out exactly what went wrong. It's worth a look, if you haven't already seen it.

 

[wuliheron]

I read it ages ago and I agree, it is a very subtle argument. However, I'd argue it is so subtle because existence is such a vague term and demonstrably paradoxical, if that isn't being redundant.