All use of the term "existence" is language use.
All language use is existentially dependent upon language acquisition.
All language acquisition is existentially dependent upon rudimentary level non-linguistic thought/belief. All rudimentary level non-linguistic thought/belief is existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations and/or associations between different things.
All use of the term "existence" is existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing a correlation and/or associations between different things.
All thought/belief is meaningful to the thinking/believing creature.
All use of the term "existence" is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic rudimentary level thought/belief that is meaningful to the thinking/believing creature.
All non-linguistic meaningful thought/belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between different things.
All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content.
The presupposition of existence does not require language use for it happens in autonomous fashion within non-linguistic thought/belief.
That which is prior to language use cannot be existentially dependent upon language use.
The presupposition of existence is not existentially dependent upon language use.
All notions of "existence" are.

Try formulating your usual arguments without using it, and see how far you get. — Janus

There it is. Let's critique it.

So here, the term "existential" demarcates a kind of dependency not a kind of existence. — creativesoul

I think you're being a bit slippery here. The term 'existential' demarcates a kind of dependency which is understood in terms of existence, not of some or other mere function.

To be sure it doesn't demarcate any particular kind of existence. For example something which has only fictional existence is existentially dependent on an author, and you might argue, (since its existence is only imagined and if it obtains its existence only in the act of imagining) it is ongoingly dependent on those who imagine it; that is, the readers.

The presupposition of existence does not require language use for it happens in autonomous fashion within non-linguistic thought/belief. — creativesoul

Right, so it is not an empty concept, that adds nothing to our understanding of things, at all.

I think you're being a bit slippery here. The term 'existential' demarcates a kind of dependency which is understood in terms of existence, not of some or other mere function. — Janus

Not on my view.

For example something which has only fictional existence is existentially dependent on an author, and you might argue, since its existence is only imagined and if it obtains its existence only in the act of imagining, by those who imagine it; that is, the readers. — Janus

What happens when we lose the talk about kinds of existence?

Clarity.

For example fiction is existentially dependent upon an author.

The presupposition of existence does not require language use for it happens in autonomous fashion within non-linguistic thought/belief.
— creativesoul

Right, so it is not an empty concept, that adds nothing to our understanding of things, at all. — Janus

I was mentioning it.

It can be completely removed from the argument without losing meaning. This can be shown if you'd like. Because it can be dropped without loss, it's use as a noun/predicate is shown to be a superfluous and/or redundant use of language.

My position explains this...

Just don't call me on it...

I may be overstating the case by overestimating my current ability. :wink:

Reframe the argument then without using the terms exist, existence or existential. In any case even if you can do it, it remains the case that the idea of existence or being is basic to human thinking, and there is certainly no confusion involved in using the terms prudently.

What happens when we lose the talk about kinds of existence?

Clarity.

For example fiction is existentially dependent upon an author. — creativesoul

It remains to be seen whether your argument will be clearer when you have eliminated ( if indeed you can) the terms 'exist', 'existence' and 'existential' from it. I doubt you can do it, but even if you can, I doubt it'll make much difference.

Here's a question for you: what's the difference between a real character and a fictional character?

So...

Verbatim...

A tree's relations are described as...

..all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for it's existence.
— Merkwurdichliebe

I've no need to mutilate something already so butchered. I'm trying to help. — creativesoul

You always help me. :up:

I'm sure it could be stated better. But it still holds.

Now I will try to help you understand.

If we consider that the external conditions which are necessary for the tree's existence (like a source of water) have no relation to the tree...then, we have to determine by what means the tree accesses water without having some relation to the water. That leads to very problematic conclusions.

One such conclusion is that the tree's existence requires no relations because it is totally dependent on itself, and nothing else. It provides for itself all the necessities for its existence (water, light, &c.). Unfortunately, that conclusion is repugnant to common sense.

I can think of no other explanation for how a tree can exist in the absence of any relations? If there are any others, I'm sure they are detrimentally absurd.

My notion of existential dependency does not require talking in terms of a thing's existence. That's true and is shown.

That argument is taking account of notions of "existence". I cannot effectively stop following the practice of using "existence" as a predicate and/or subject matter in it's own right and remain capable of accurately reporting upon such usage.

Hamstrung.

If we consider that the external conditions which are necessary for the tree's existence (like a source of water) have no relation to the tree...then, we have to determine by what means the tree accesses water without actually relating to the tree. — Merkwurdichliebe

Existential dependency includes both internal and external elements.

All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content. Some correlation is prior to language use. The presupposition of existence is prior to language use. That which is prior to language use cannot be existentially dependent upon language use.

The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.

Thus, there is a sensible way to talk about and/or use the term "existence" without talking about kinds of existence. Existential dependency is not a kind of existence, it is a kind of dependency.

The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.

Thus, there is a sensible way to talk about and/or use the term "existence" without talking about kinds of existence. — creativesoul

So, you agree that the idea of existence predates language. The idea of different kinds of existence may also predate language. That's fine, but the supplementary story is that language enables us to talk about different kinds of existence. I can see no problem with that; proliferation of distinctions can only be a good thing provided the finer distinctions that are created don't, by virtue of their very existence, create confusion, and then trouble us with their need to be eliminated.

...it remains the case that the idea of existence or being is basic to human thinking... — Janus

I cannot agree. The idea of existence comes after something to talk about. Thus, in terms of being basic to human thinking, the idea of existence is attached to something. Prior to talking in terms of a tree's existence, we first learn to talk about the tree.

The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.

Thus, there is a sensible way to talk about and/or use the term "existence" without talking about kinds of existence.
— creativesoul

So, you agree that the idea of existence predates language. — Janus

No, and you've got me re-considering the best way to parse non linguistic correlation.

It may be interesting to compare/contrast our different methods. I mean I'm wondering what would happen if I attempted to translate the practice when one is setting out different kinds of existence into terms of existential dependency and/or vice versa.

Interested?

Existential dependency includes both internal and external elements. — creativesoul

Yes it does. And the more we discuss this, the more it appears that many of those external elements that are necessary to a thing's existence include "other things", that have some relation to "the thing" in question. Then it would be correct to say that "the thing's" existence is relative to "other things", other things which it is dependent upon for its existence.

I cannot agree. The idea of existence comes after something to talk about. Thus, in terms of being basic to human thinking, the idea of existence is attached to something. Prior to talking in terms of a tree's existence, we first learn to talk about the tree. — creativesoul

No, and you've got me re-considering the best way to parse non linguistic correlation. — creativesoul

And yet you said this,

The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language. — creativesoul

which seems inconsistent with your later avowal of disagreement.

It may be interesting to compare/contrast our different methods. I mean I'm wondering what would happen if I attempted to translate the practice when one is setting out different kinds of existence into terms of existential dependency and/or vice versa.

Interested? — creativesoul

On the face of it I imagine that the kind of existential dependency will vary with the different kinds of existence. I don't generally think in terms of existential dependency though; it's not really my thing. Laying it out in various contexts just seems to consist in elaborating on the basic notion that things are determined by what precedes them, and for me that is something that may safely be taken for granted.

The way 'things are' depends on our conception of 'things' and our conception of the duration of 'are'. Other species with different physiologies and different needs would 'see' a different world.
This is crux of the philosophical rejection of naive realism which is a parochial anthropocentric 'rationality'.

Then it would be correct to say that "the thing's" existence is relative to "other things", other things which it is dependent upon for its existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

Could we also not say that the thing is existentially dependent upon other things?

I cannot agree. The idea of existence comes after something to talk about. Thus, in terms of being basic to human thinking, the idea of existence is attached to something. Prior to talking in terms of a tree's existence, we first learn to talk about the tree.
— creativesoul

No, and you've got me re-considering the best way to parse non linguistic correlation.
— creativesoul

And yet you said this,

The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.
— creativesoul

which seems inconsistent with your later avowal of disagreement. — Janus

There is a difference between the presupposition of existence within non-linguistic thought/belief and an idea of existence. The latter is existentially dependent upon language use. The former is not.

"Correlation presupposes it's own content" can replace "correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content" without loss of meaning.

An idea of existence consists entirely of terminological use.

On the face of it I imagine that the kind of existential dependency will vary with the different kinds of existence. I don't generally think in terms of existential dependency though; it's not really my thing. Laying it out in various contexts just seems to consist in elaborating on the basic notion that things are determined by what precedes them, and for me that is something that may safely be taken for granted. — Janus

I'm thinking that all the talk about kinds of existence can be effectively replaced by better language use. The "better" would be earned by keeping all the benefits while losing some of the detriments, maybe all?

There may be mistaken assumptions hard at work. That can happen when we take things for granted.

Could we also not say that the thing is existentially dependent upon other things? — creativesoul

Yes. That's probably better.

And I would add, any 'existenstential dependency upon other things' indicates a relation.

...and,

If it is correct to presuppose that any relation between two existing things is existentially dependent upon necessary and sufficient conditions, then this picture of existence is indeed relativistic.

There is a difference between the presupposition of existence within non-linguistic thought/belief and an idea of existence. — creativesoul

Is a presupposition not an idea?

I'm thinking that all the talk about kinds of existence can be effectively replaced by better language use. The "better" would be earned by keeping all the benefits while losing some of the detriments, maybe all?

There may be mistaken assumptions hard at work. That can happen when we take things for granted. — creativesoul

This is all very vague. You haven't made clear what you think the "mistaken assumptions" might be or what we might be "taking for granted".

Also you haven't provided an alternative schema involving "better language use", or explained how the "benefits could be kept" or how the "detriments could be lost", or even what the supposed benefits and detriments are.

The idea of existence or being is just the broadest most general concept we can apply to all objects of thought and experience. — Janus

I just wanted to be difficult, and say: "that which is nonexistent is probably a broader more general concept". :blush:

But, in all "seriously", existence is more like a vast category that includes many many, many many many things

Well, I want to be even more difficult and say that there is nothing which does not exist or has not existed in some sense. Of course, if you don't agree you could give me an example. :wink:

I agree that existence is a vast category that includes many things, that much seems to be a no-brainer.

I agree its usage varies non philosophically, but I maintain that what those significant occurences have in common are 'a dispututed exstence' context , It is in those where I claim that 'relative utility' rather than 'absolute evidence' comes to the fore. Note that the agreement or otherwise on 'existence' is significant only interms of subsequent action (or inaction) on the part of the disputees.

That's fine, but the supplementary story is that language enables us to talk about different kinds of existence. — Janus

The key here, is that language allows me to communicate my abstract, non-linguistic ideas about existence. Prior to this, any notion of existence is private/subjective.

It is in those where I claim that 'relative utility' rather than 'absolute evidence' comes to the fore. — fresco

This is getting more into epistemology, where the real meat of the relative-absolute dichotomy is. It is much easier to prove the relativism of knowledge than existence.

If you want to know my personal position, which is nonnegotiable, I hold existence to be absolute, while I hold my knowledge of it to be relativistic. Yet, any time I relate my opinion of existence to another, I enter the domain of relativism; and, when in Rome...

Well, I want to be even more difficult and say that there is nothing which does not exist or has not existed in some sense. Of course, if you don't agree you could give me an example. :wink: — Janus

Wait a second, I think you are setting me up. I'm gonna assert something that doesn't exist, and you are going to tell me how the non-existing thing derives a virtual existence within the presupposed content of my assertion.

So...unicorns, no wait, pink elephants?

:grin: