What does it mean to exist?

MysticMonist

I saw the discussion of idealism which sort of went in lots of directions. But what about the very basic question of what do we mean we say something exists or doesn't exist?

For simplicity sake, the material world exists. Physical objects are physical, you can touch them. It gets complicated because our sense perceptions and mental constructs aren't the same as the thing itself, but assuming we are not delusional in regard to reality that we can say rocks and trees and houses "exist"

But what about thoughts and emotions? They are experienced but don't have material substance, right? Yet neuroscience is beginning to explain to us how these experiences arise out of physical reality.

Then what about spiritual reality (assuming it's not completely fictional)? Obviously it doesn't physically exist (sorry to any Mormons) and I wonder if we can even say it is experienced (in the way we perceive thoughts and emotions). I think the theologian Paul Tillich was right to say God doesn't "exist" by which means God is not subject to any of the rules nor shares any commanalities with any material or experienced thing. In common day terms, "spiritual" reality makes no sense as non-material but can be a ghostly thing caught by cameras of a transcendent thing we can feel in our minds. Obviously it's not totally transcendent or unpercievable or else we would never talk about it.

What do you all think about my existing (body) and experienced (mind) disctiction?

What about the Forms and the Soul? Are these spiritual reality? I think I'd like to say these things don't exist physically nor are experienced directly or fully. Perhaps the Soul is a person's form and all Forms are in and thru the "mind" of God. That is God knows of every thing and has a plan for it and He has a knowledge of our potential and purpose as well. Our soul is God's dream for us (Desmond Tutu talks about God's dream for us and the world).

What do you all think?

Wayfarer

I address some of these points in my reply to your other thread.

Jeremiah

So by your standards gravity does not exist?

Also how do you know thoughts and emotions don't have "material substance"?

Jeremiah

Defining existance seems more like a question for science than philosophy, or more specifically science is doing much much more to address that concern.

MysticMonist

Wayfarer,

Thanks for the reply and the refresher on realism versus nominalism. My philosophy classes are coming back to me now.

I really love the idea of there being a blueprint or Logos or Will that grounds our reality in God. I need to study the stoics more. It's very poetic and comforting, but does that means it true?

MysticMonist

Jeremiah,
I definitely agree that science is becoming more capable of answering these questions.
I'm no physicist, but gravity is a force/energy. Possibly a particle (gravitons).
I sense a trap here (or maybe I'm just reading too much Socrates). If I say energy exists because it's obvious it makes cars move and food cook, then I'm forgetting that energy is really just increased motion on an atomic level. Legs exist but does walking or is it just the movement from one point to another?
There are lots of examples of things that aren't material in and of themselves but is foolish to say they aren't real. A record doesn't hold music but a needle reads it to generate pulses of air movement at particular frequencies. So does the music not exist? Memories and thoughts are in some way simmilar to the record player, memories have to be stored physically somehow and it's electrical and chemical pulses that allow them to be read.
Perhaps the point is that material "existence" is to strict of a criteria and not all that meaningful.
Maybe the question should be what is real? There is a possibility that this isn't an all or nothing answer.

Jeremiah

Personally I think you should forget about "exist", "real" and "truth". They are too subjective to be useful formally, instead you should ask yourself: What is relevant?

MysticMonist

Personally I think you should forget about "exist", "real" and "truth". They are too subjective to be useful formally, instead you should ask yourself: What is relevant? — Jeremiah

I think you are onto something. Especially since we can't pretend to know what we do not. Anyone can make up stuff.

bloodninja

For me that question "what does it mean to exist?" only makes sense as an existential question.

Humans and physical/mental objects are in entirely different ways.

I think exist can be an ambiguous term. It means different things to different philosophers.

It it a typically modern phenomenon? -- this preoccupation with how we can know what really exists? I think it might be? Starting with Descartes. I could be wrong. I'm not very familiar with Greek philosophy aside from Aristotle and Virtue ethics.

Brian

↪MysticMonist

Ah, the question of Martin Heidegger, "What is the meaning of being?"

Perhaps the toughest philosophical question to answer.

But what about thoughts and emotions? They are experienced but don't have material substance, right? Yet neuroscience is beginning to explain to us how these experiences arise out of physical reality. — MysticMonist

Mental states certainly exist. This kind of leads immediately to the mind / body problem. If mental states are actually physical states, then to say they exist is pretty straightforward. If they are somehow distinct from physical states, then they must exist in a way that is wholly different from material entities.

At the end of the day, I think neural firings and mental states are two sides of a coin. So I would say yes, they exist and in a relatively straightforward way.

But what does it mean to exist? That a great question. I guess the intuitive answer that I can think of is "to be a a part of the world." Whatever that means...

MysticMonist

to be a a part of the world." Whatever that means... — Brian

To participate in the world soul, maybe? I guess I am a Platonist after all. The world soul is the interactions of all beings in the universe that are intimately interconnected that in turn are in relationship with God as their Source.

That's a wonderful top down definition of existence. As a mystical monist, I should be more focused on top down perspectives than bottom up of mind/body/soul issues.
Thanks!!! You solved my puzzle.

Cuthbert

↪bloodninja

No, the first recognisably philosophical argument in Greek is by Parmenides, 6th Cent BC. He tied a big knot round the problem that took a lot of thinking to untie. His view in a nutshell was this. Since everything we perceive in the world both *is* something and also *is not* something else, then our customary ways of talking about the world are self-contradictory nonsense. Either a thing is or it is not. It can't be both. Even if philosophers did not agree with Parmenides they could not ignore him, including Plato and Aristotle.

bloodninja

↪Cuthbert

from your description Parmenides is asking an ontological question and not an epistemological one. I was simply suggesting that our culture's conceptions of the ontological and the epistemological aren't always clear cut. And that maybe this unclarity began with Descartes?

Mr Bee

↪MysticMonist

I'm not sure if the concept of existence can even be defined. To me, it sounds more like a fundamental term, one that cannot be reduced to anything else. Thus any attempt at explaining it is meaningless.

Noble Dust

↪Jeremiah

How is relevance less subjective than realness, existence and truth?

TheMadFool

But what about the very basic question of what do we mean we say something exists or doesn't exist? — MysticMonist

It is ''easier'' to define existence for physical objects. If x can be perceived through the senses and their extensions (instruments), then x exists in the physical world.

It appears, therefore, that existence of a physical object x depends on the effects it has on other physical objects. To say the least, that's the way we assign ''existence'' to objects.

The problem is, with this definition, we can't conclusively say that something exists. Imagine a world of two objects, x and y. As per this definition, existence depending on effects of something on another, x exists because of its effects on y and y exists because of its effects on x. The circularity is obvious in a 2-object world and can't be eliminated in the universe as we know it.

So, existence in a physical universe depends on circular logic. What does this mean?

This same reasoning applies to all applications of the term ''existence''. We just can't be certain of the existence of anything.

So, the usual definition of existence, described above, is defective.

MysticMonist

So, existence in a physical universe depends on circular logic. — TheMadFool

Several of you have made this point and I'm beginning to agree.

"Existence means something is or has being" is circular. There's no way around it.

"Existence is when something participates in existence" is also circular, but I like it. There's no way to arrive an a more fundamental understanding of being. I like participation though because it's ontologically top down rather than bottom up.

A top down approach is helpful in general about being. I was driving in the morning and was caught by the blinding light of the sun. You have to look away or you'll crash or go blind. Maybe theologians, Kabbalists, and occultists and so on are all sun starers. They attempt to look directly at the Absolute and think they see Forms or Emanations or a Trinity (or not) or even a whole pantheon. They practice Cataphatic theology, God is this, God is that. Really the shapes they think they are seeing within the Godhead are the burning holes in their retinas!

I think it's okay to be a Christian and believe in the trinity, for example. The Catholics are right, it's a mystery. But what's not okay is claiming that you authoritatively know or to condemn those with a different view. So I can be a Platonist and roll with the Forms, for now, it's an concept that is useful. In the end though I know I'm probably wrong!

Jeremiah

How is relevance less subjective than realness, existence and truth? — Noble Dust

Well go ask 100 random people what truth is and then ask 100 random people what relevance is, and I think you would have your answer.

However, relevance can be subjective and it can also be intersubjective; it is whatever it needs to be. And since it is not a hot topic word, most people tend to agree on the standard definition, which makes conversation easier.

Pollywalls

nigger

MysticMonist

sometimes view the world as my own mind's creation — Pollywalls

You're technically right. We only ever experience our mind's conception, never the thing in and of itself.

Jeremiah

Here's a question: How would you know if you even found "truth"? Just for argument, lets say you find a nugget of truth, the absolute truth but how would you even know that is truth and not just your typical estimation of truth?

MysticMonist

Here's a question: How would you know if you even found "truth"? Just for argument, lets say you find a nugget of truth, the absolute truth but how would you even know that is truth and not just you typical estimation of truth? — Jeremiah

That's exactly the problem with special revelation. A prophet revealed the Truth and gives a revealed message. But it's up to us to decide if it's true with eternal consequences. It hardly seems fair.

TheMadFool

A top down approach is helpful in general about being. — MysticMonist

Can you explain this further? What do you mean?

MysticMonist

Can you explain this further? What do you mean? — TheMadFool

The top down/bottom up expression is used in my work with clinical reasoning (starting with symptoms versus looking at the big picture). I looked it up and I think it comes from design theory and while the universe is designed, I don't think it's the best to use here.
Maybe I should compare it to the question of morality instead. Some people say morality comes from a common source of the Good. I would say this is true and so does being. Something exists because it is has its source of being in the One. It exists because God breathes existence into it and it participates with all the other beings in God's creation. Things that don't exist because they aren't created by God.

A bottom up approach would be saying like in morality that it starts with individual who defines morality, it's not anything external. In being, this would be saying that objects or people exist and looking at from the point of the object or at least from the perceiver.

Rich

↪MysticMonist

To exist literally is to "have memory of". This is how we know that we are from moment to moment, hour to hour. No memory, no existence.

But this leads us to other states of existence, e.g. dreams. In dreams, we have a different line of memory flashing by and defining out existence. How does this change in state happen? BTW, d don't bother looking to science for any answers. Totally clueless as the search for existence in some chemicals. Should one laugh or cry?

Then we switch into a state of no memories. Unconscious of ourselves because there are no memories. And then we wake up! A clear distinction between existence and non-existence. How does the mind move between these states? Is there a spirit that ignites our will to existence?

MysticMonist

exist literally is to "have memory of". — Rich

Yet another wrinkle I didn't immediately think about. If it was from an object' point of view that yes only the immediate present exists. Perhaps even more limited that only the perceived immediate present. Does China or the Moon exist to me Right Now? It sort of dissolves into sophistry.
From the point of view of the object existence just falls apart as a meaningful or verifiable concept. Perhaps all of life does. If we are masters of our existence and the definers of our reality there basically is no reality at all just a jumble.
From the point of view of God, the source of all being, however we are known to God and are remembered by Him. Things become organized and have a purpose. In fact that's the only purpose to receive and seek union with the Absolute. It's the only reason the world exists and is the only context in which things make sense.

Rich

↪MysticMonist

if one wishes to understand the nature of their existence, it is necessary to observe it, not read about it or ask people to explain it. Just observe closely and everything. It is very surprising what is perceived and it changes all if the time. Now we are talking philosophy.

Wayfarer

Nowadays it is simply assumed that 'what exists' and 'what is real' are synonymous, that 'to be' and 'to exist' means the same, but I think they can be distinguished.

Actually, 'existence' has quite a clear derivation - 'ex-' outside of, apart from, and '-ist', to stand. So 'to exist' means 'to be this as distinct from that', to have an identity, to be this or that thing or person.

But 'what exists' and 'what is real' can be distinguished. As I mentioned elsewhere, you can make the argument that number is real, but not existent - certainly not 'existent' in the way complex objects are existent, insofar as a number can only be grasped by a mind capable of counting, so it an 'intelligible object' rather than a 'phenomenal object'. That is one of the reasons that in (neo)Platonist philosophy, the nature of number was an indicator of the 'intelligible nature of reality' - as Mystic Monist says above, this is the origin of the 'top down' approach so characteristic of the (neo)Platonist tradition. It is different to any kind of 'creationism' because 'the One' which is the source or ground of being is always present - the 'ever-present origin' in Gebser's phrase. And the 'meaning of existence' can't be established without reference to that, as it is only by virtue of That, that anything exists whatever. Whereas nowadays, it is simply assumed that the objects of sense exist 'in their own right', or independently of any mind or cognitive act whatever. According to the perennialist philosophies, of which (neo)Platonism is one, this is the source of delusion or ignorance, as it is taking the unreal for the real; a confusion amply reflected in many facets of the modern world.

Noble Dust

Well go ask 100 random people what truth is and then ask 100 random people what relevance is, and I think you would have your answer. — Jeremiah

True, but I'm asking about the subjectivity of the concepts, because you seemed to assume that relevance was less subjective. Opinion isn't subjectivity; at least not as far as I can see. Subjectivity is just simple individual human perception; truth, realness, and relevance are all things that are perceived subjectively. So making a case for relevance vs. truth or realness or whatever, as you did, doesn't square with subjectivity.

Here's a question: How would you know if you even found "truth"? Just for argument, lets say you find a nugget of truth, the absolute truth but how would you even know that is truth and not just your typical estimation of truth? — Jeremiah

To even begin you need to delineate between forms of inquiry. You said earlier that science seems more equipped to define existence. To even begin an inquiry into "truth" you would need to back track from this assumption and re-evaluate your lines of inquiry, otherwise you'll always only be arguing from a position that automatically eliminates the concept of truth in the first place. The pursuit of truth is as ancient as anything in the human experience, and it shows no signs of stopping. Hey, maybe that would be a good place to start; an inquiry into the pursuit of truth over the course of history.

Jeremiah

↪Noble Dust

It is called context, look it up and learn how to read. Honestly, you don't even seem to know what the word subjective means.

Noble Dust

It is called context, — Jeremiah

What's called context?

Honestly, you don't even seem to know what the word subjective means. — Jeremiah

What, this?

What does it mean to exist?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions