In my opinion, concepts are concepts and the things they signify are the things they signify. For example, a circle can be taken purely as a concept. A circle as a concept is not round, it doesn't have a radius, etc. - it's just a concept. However, that which the concept of the circle signifies does have a radius, is round, and can exist or not exist. We get confused because we don't have two different words to distinguish between the circle, and the concept of the circle so we equivocate. It's one thing for a concept to exist, and it's another for that which it signifies to exist.Existence is a property. One simple reason can be drawn from science. Entities are theorized, predicted and then sought for. Imagine a hypohetical particle x. We look for its existence. In that sense ''existence'' is a property and finding x we assign the property ''existence'' to x — TheMadFool
∀x∈S[¬∃x] — Joseph
How about if you wanted to state that a set contains at least one member? — Joseph
The only sensible way to write it is ∃x∈S. — Joseph
That is a case of a standalone quantifier. — Joseph
Next, how would you state that a set is empty in predicate logic? — Joseph
There does not exist a predicate (x) in language (S) which has the meaning, 'exists' (φ). — unenlightened
To exist, logically speaking, is generally just to be the subject of a predicate. — jamalrob
Philosophy and forums? In my own case, also looking for (in)consistencies among different things, e.g. ∃ and quiddity (old post).why should we care about answering this question? — Agustino
In this case, any such meanings (including hypothetical) already exemplifies existence. Seems in some ways, existence is auto-presupposed.Well, what does it mean to exist? — Michael
Is "to be a predicate" a predicate? I suppose so, but haven't figured out whether that's problematic. — jorndoe
But "is a fiction" is a predicate, yet fictional things don't exist. — Michael
To exist, logically speaking, is generally just to be the subject of a predicate. — jamalrob
The whole conundrum seems a bit nonsensical to me. Nothing can be "proven" to exist. You can't even "prove" other minds exist. Classical theism does not claim to "prove" God in the sense of showing that it is irrational and illogical not to believe in God. Rather classical theism tries to give a defence of the faith which means to give very compelling reasons for believing in God, not a deductive and bullet proof argument. The premises of Aquinas' arguments can be denied for example. They are certainly sensible propositions that many people would be inclined to acknowledge, but one can still do the mental gymnastics required to deny them.For one thing, classical theism is in jeopardy. To claim that God can be proven or believed to exist, despite not knowing his essence, becomes a nonsensical distinction if existence isn't a predicate. — Thorongil
That's nothing but an argument from authority. I asked you to use your head and give me an actual reason. Philosophers of the past may have thought it is important to debate whether existence is a property or not (because they were interested in the ontological argument) but maybe they were bothering to address unimportant and sterile matters to begin with (and later philosophers like Russell merely picked up on such sterility without questioning it). Maybe they were asking the wrong questions, and discussing dead ends. So just because philosophers have thought it important to discuss it, doesn't mean it really is important. So again, why is it important? Why should I care about resolving this issue? How will it change anything?Philosophy and forums? — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.