User talk:Richiar/workspace 10.3

User talk:Richiar/Workspace 10 - Existence workspace 10.1 - Existence workspace 10.2

For the philosophical movement, see Existentialism.

For the existence of god, see Existence of God.

The study of existence is a branch of philosophy known as ontology.

Many questions arise concerning existence. Is what we experience and observe all there is to existence? Do abstract ideas, such as virtue, exist? Is existence orderly and knowable or chaotic and unknowable? Does there exist an external reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, and beliefs?

Plato, in the Republic, argued that existence was the world of ideas, and that our everyday lives are but dim shadows of this eternal reality. Aristotle considered that existence was made up of form and substance, and was discovered by the senses. Heraclitus said that existence is change. Descartes argued that we can be absolutely certain of the existence of our own conscious awareness.

Philosophers and mathematicians who study logic use the symbol ∃ to denote the existential quantifier, which asserts the existence of some object with certain properties.

History

Same as 10.2

Early modern

Same as 10.2

Predicative nature of existence

Same of 10.2

The semantics of existence

There are some common ways of understanding the meaning of the world "existence". First, it is used to mean existences of the real, physical world, such as in the sentence, "I believe that elephants are real". Secondly, there is the meaning of existences as "objective principles of truth" beyond the subjective experience: eg., "the existence of five and only five platonic solids has been proven by Euclidian geometry". Finally, there is the meaning of existences as fictional subjective mental processes: eg., "I believe elephants are real but not Unicorns"; "Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character created by Sir Arther Conan Doyle, and existes in books, movies, and the imagination". There have been centuries of debate and research investigating these ideas.

Several schools of philosophy have addressed these issues. Elaborate on: Frege, Dummett, Bretano, Wittgenstein, B. Russell. Nominalist approach. Categories (Plato, medieval concepts). Ockham.

---

In mathematical logic, there are two quantifiers, "some" and "all", though as Brentano (1838-1917) pointed out, we can make do with just one quantifier and negation. The first of these quantifiers, "some" is also expressed as "there exists". Thus, in the sentence "There exist a man," the term "man" is asserted to be part of existence. But we can also assert, "There exists a triangle." Is a "triangle", an abstract idea, part of existence in the same way that a "man", a physical body, is part of existence? Do abstractions such as goodness, blindness, and virtue exist in the same sense that chairs, tables, and houses exist? What categories, or kinds of thing can be the subject or the predicate of a proposition?

Worse, does "existence" exist?

In some statements, existence is implied without being mentioned. The statement "A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith." cannot just be about a bridge, the Thames, and Hammersmith. It must be about "existence" as well. On the other hand, the statement "A bridge crosses the Styx at Limbo," has the same form, but while in the first case we understand a real bridge in the real world made of stone or brick, what "existence" would mean in the second case is less clear.

The nominalist approach is to argue that certain noun phrases can be "eliminated" by rewriting a sentence in a form that has the same meaning, but which does not contain the noun phrase. Thus Ockham argued that "Socrates has wisdom", which apparently asserts the existence of a reference for "wisdom", can be rewritten as "Socrates is wise", which contains only the referring phrase "Socrates". This method became widely accepted in the twentieth century by the analytic school of philosophy.

However, this argument may be inverted by realists in arguing that since the sentence "Socrates is wise" can be rewritten as "Socrates has wisdom", this proves the existence of a hidden referent for "wise".

A further problem is that human beings seem to process information about fictional characters in much the same way that they proceess information about real people. For example, in the 2008 United States presidential election, a politician and actor named Fred Thompson ran for the office of president. In polls, potential voters identified Fred Thompson as a "law and order" candidate. Thompson plays a fictional character on the television series Law and Order. There is no doubt that the people who make the comment are aware that Law and Order is fiction, but at some level, they process fiction as if it were fact. Another example of this is the common experience of actresses who play the villian in a soap opera being accosted in public as if they are to blame for the actions of the character they play.

A scientist might make a clear distinction about objects that exist, and assert that all objects that exist are made up of either matter or energy. But in the layperson's worldview, existence incluedes real, fictional, and even contradictory objects. Thus if we reason from the statement Pegasus flies to the statement Pegasus exists, we are not asserting that Pegasus is made up of atoms, but rather that Pegasus exists in a particular worldview, the worldview of classical myth. When a mathematicians reasons from the statement "ABC is a triangle" to the statement "triangles exist", she is not asserting that triangles are made up of atoms but rather that triangles exist within a particular mathematical model.

Discussion of semantics of existence

The fifth paragraph of this section has an interesting idea, but the paragraph is grammatically very difficult to understand, and I'm not sure what its saying, if anything. Maybe a rewrite might help (keep content but less complex sentence structure). Richiar 01:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That fifth paragraph has been the subject of a lot of controversy with no consensus. I'm going to be bold and try a rewrite. Rick Norwood 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick, you have added the sentence " On the other hand, the statement "A bridge crosses the Styx at Limbo," has the same form, but does not imply existence." This is POV statement – certainly some philosophers would claim that that "A bridge crosses the Styx at Limbo," does not assert the existence of such a bridge, but the dominant view is that it does assert existence (for example, the statement seems synonymous with "at least one bridge crosses the Styx at Limbo", which is a number statement, thus asserts existence (the statement "zero bridges cross the Styx at Limbo" would be taken to be a denial of existence).

This reminds me of a few things that would be needed to be added at this point. But the sentence you have added needs to be qualified, or referenced, nonetheless. edward (buckner) 10:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, but you may want to work on this paragraph as well. Rick Norwood 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about how others feel, but I think this article has vastly improved in a meaningful direction since Edward requested assistance back in July. Nice work. Maybe improvements can be made, but I like how its going so far. Rick,Your work on the paragraph seems a good improvement. Thanks. Richiar 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, by contrast, that it's getting steadily worse. Can anyone explain what the section 'Semantics of existence' is about? It seems now like a set of random unconnected observations, most unreferenced, some of them rather dubious. Sorry to be critical. I'd help, but I find the subject too difficult at the moment. edward (buckner) 08:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the paragraph is that the word "existence" is used in at least three ways. First, it is used to mean "exists in the real, physical world", as in the sentence, "I believe in the existence of elephants but not in the existence of unicorns." Second, it is used by mathematicians in a highly technical sense, as the scope of a particular quantifier with particular properties given by axioms and definitions, as in the sentence, "The existence of five and only five Platonic solids has been proven within the axioms and definitions of Euclidean geometry." Finally, it is used in the sense in which fictional objects exist within the worldview of human beings. Thus "The existence of Sherlock Holmes is thanks to the writing of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle." Rick Norwood 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. But 1. is that what the paragraph is saying? Shouldn't it be amended to say that? and 2. Suppose it is claimed that 'fictional objects exist within the worldview of human beings'. Then I might reply: are there such things as fictional objects? I.e. (and spelling the problem out) I can validly ask whether fictional objects exist. Do you now see there is a problem with what you are saying here? If it is correct to say that there is a sense of the word 'exist', according to which fictional characters exist, then the question whether there are such things as fictional characters, i.e. do they exist, makes no sense (it would be like asking whether bachelors are unmarried). Do you see the problem now? edward (buckner) 13:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks edward. Your comments seem appropriately candid, and a critical perspective will help the article. If you can direct us to the version that seemed more appropriate we can look to see where it maybe currently fails, when you have time.Richiar 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richiar. The problem is that there are certain fundamental and very difficult questions about the topic of existence (see my reply to Rick above). If this article is to be any good, it should be illuminating people about those problems. But it isn't working, because even the people who are involved in writing the article itself are having the same problems. This is probably one of the most difficult subjects to write about coherently, which is why I despair. Thanks for you kind support, however. edward (buckner) 13:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Existence"

Modern approaches

Same as 10.2

Existence in the wide and narrow senses

According to the "two sense" view of existence, which derives from Alexius Meinong, existential statements fall into two classes.

1. Those asserting existence in a wide sense. These are typically of the form "N is P" for singular N, or "some S is P".

2. Those asserting existence in a narrow sense. These are typically of the form "N exists" or "S's exist".

The problem is then evaded as follows. "Pegasus flies" implies existence in the wide sense, for it implies that something flies. But it does not imply existence in the narrow sense, for we deny existence in this sense by saying that Pegasus does not exist. In effect, the world of all things divides, on this view, into those (like Socrates, the planet Venus, and New York City) that have existence in the narrow sense, and those (like Sherlock Holmes, the goddess Venus, and Minas Tirith) that do not.

However, common sense suggests the non-existence of such things as fictional characters or places.

European views

Influenced by the views of Brentano's pupil Alexius Meinong, and by Edmund Husserl, Germanophone and Francophone philosophy took a different direction regarding the question of existence. Existentialism has been a major strand of continental philosophy in the twentieth century.