Actually, I'm more interested in the proper use of the word "existence" than trying to think up a list of things that exist. In Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy, in the chapter on the Philosophy of Logical Analysis, Russell has this to say about the proper use of the word: In his theory of descriptions, the real meaning of a sentence such as "The author of Waverley exists (or existed or will exist)" is "There is an entity c such that the statement 'x wrote Waverley' is true if x is c and false otherwise." It seems to me the point of this is to avoid the confusion that is caused by treating existence as a predicate, as in Anselm's proof that God exists. That is, you don't say that a certain thing has the properties of blueness, roundess, hardness, awesomeness, premature balditude, and existence. Modern logic makes it clear that that last one is an error. But what is wrong with taking "Scott exists" to mean "There exists x such that statement 'x is Scott' is true." The theory of descriptions makes essential use of statements of identity, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply here.