Talk:Existence/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HI An excellent and effective piece of literature toward understanding human existence is a book written by Dr. Viktor E. Frankl titled "Man's Search for Meaning". Frankl's idea is generally known as the "Third School of Viennese Psychiatry" and is an introduction to logotherapy. Logotherapy is a unique and plausible theory used in the treatment of mentally and/or spiritually disturbed individuals. Although his theories are discussed from a psychological, and psychiatric standpoint, Frankl's account and discussion regarding his experiences and observations within a Nazi concentration camp, are profoundly effective toward understanding the conditions of human existence. In fact, through Frankl's perspective in man's search for meaning, one can equate said "meaning" to the state of "being".

Does "contemporary philosophers at least are wont to treat existence as a " make sense? ~Apokryphos

Contents

[edit] Added Definition

I added the definition between the first and second paragraphs, is it a good definition? Please edit this section with responses.

What you have used is the existential quantifier \exists but the analysis could go the other way around. The symbol is explained in terms of the ordinary use of the concept of existing. And one view in free logic is that logic should not be ontologicaly commiting. Personally I think it is to demand to much to ask for a definition of existence. Bur I am not really sure. RickardV 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You're alive but can't experience the life you have. You're a slave to death the ultimate freedom. Right, Wrong, Good, Bad all simple directions. Black & White(the colors):Indentical Opposites Telling Time = measuring the distance of existence. Universe=One Existence/Nonexistance=Death. Where Light originates there is no dark. Where Dark dominates there is no light. Look into a lightsource. What do you see? Nothing Look into the darkness. What do you see? Nothing Stars(1) generate what Blackholes(2) dispose of. (1)Stars burn, a function that comsumes something. (2)something that is Disposed is put in its proper place. What stuff is a Star or Sun burning? Nothing! What becomes of stuff that goes into a Blackhole? Nothing The Future is blank, full of nothing but what is possible. The Past is Solid,Unchangable,the Truth,The Foundation. The Present is where the opportunity of the Future and the foundation of the past meet and is moldable by the ultimate Human power:Choice. The Present is the equal balance of all that which is in the middle. The Present is the Gray area between all the Universal Opposites. The Present is where we exist, our home, and is ours to control. Embrace your humanity,embrace your power,embrace your being.


THIS ARTICLE HAS A PHILOSOPHICAL BIAS The article takes too fickle of a lexical analysis of the word, "existence." This is precisely why there are complaints about its ambiguity. Although philosophy is a discipline that investigates what "existence" is more often than many other disciplines, it in no way explains it. This article was obviously written from the perspective of lexical philosophy. Rather, it should describe how several different disciplines, as well as philosophy, approach "existence." The sources cited at the bottom are both from philosophical references. They may be relevant to the article, but are insufficient alone. Although I enjoy philosophy, I have read many philosophers that have acknowledgeable points but are as strikingly unclear as this article. Therefore, this article should be cleaned up and written less by the perspective of a philosopher of language.

[edit] Somebody Explain

I've never studied philosiphy, but this seems interesting. It's just that it seems like the whole thing is about sentance structure and grammar. What difference would grammar make when talking about such a universal subject as existence. I'm sure I'm just missing something here, but I think the article makes some huge assumptions about the prior knowledge of the reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.13.88 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Encyclopaedia Article

I am wondering what is so "unfortunate" about the possibility of discussion about existence beyond first order logic, as is stated at the beginning of the last sentence of the first paragraph of this article.

Is this article actually classable as an encyclopaedia article. It seems to me like a meaningless rant. Especially the comments that are placed throughout, and have been there since the original article. If no one can come up with a good reason for the article I will put it up for deletion. MyNameIsNotBob 09:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC) <----J.D. agrees, Feb '07

Putting it up for deletion is not appropriate, deletion is not for articles that are "sub-par", it's for articles that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia at all. What you're probably looking for is Wikipedia:Cleanup or a related page. The material currently in this article is largely derived from a group of documents called Larry's Text, which were lectures given by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger in courses that he taught at Ohio State University. Larry is a philosophy professor so this is good quality information, but lectures are a different format of presentation from encyclopedia articles so these things usually need a lot of rewriting. Bryan 18:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE HAS A PHILOSOPHICAL BIAS The article takes too fickle of a lexical analysis of the word, "existence." This is precisely why there are complaints about its ambiguity. Although philosophy is a discipline that investigates what "existence" is more often than many other disciplines, it in no way explains it. This article was obviously written from the perspective of lexical philosophy. Rather, it should describe how several different disciplines, as well as philosophy, approach "existence." The sources cited at the bottom are both from philosophical references. They may be relevant to the article, but are insufficient alone. Although I enjoy philosophy, I have read many philosophers that have acknowledgeable points but are as strikingly unclear as this article. Therefore, this article should be cleaned up and written less by the perspective of a philosopher of language.

Hi folks. Don't despair. I've got some ontology. The subject is a tough one to those who want to define. That is because all definition assumes existence a priori. It is like trying to build the first machine tool using the machine tools you already have at hand. This is not really a bad article, mentioning various views on existence. If you like I will try to add just enough ontology to make it make sense. And you know, philosophers think on a more abstract level than ordinary people, so their language is typically seen as "gobbledegook." Sometimes it is, more often not.Botteville 08:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraphs

I do apologize and I hope it is in the spirit of Wikipedia if I apologize again while saying, I took these out:

The words (and concepts) 'existence' and 'being' are treated in slightly different ways in Western philosophy. Aristotle pointed out that there are various ways in which a thing can "be" and inaugurated ontology as a field with his notion that there are categories of being, such as substance, attribute, and acting-upon. Similar claims, however, are not as often made on behalf of existence. That is, contemporary philosophers at least are wont to treat existence as a univocal, unambiguous concept, as if the only sense of 'existence', or the only sort of existence worth talking about, were the existence of physical objects. Consequently, some discussions of existence have an unclear bearing on, for example, the sense in which numbers, possibilities, and properties exist (or might be thought to exist).

Even if the ambiguity of 'exists' is sometimes overlooked, oddly enough, the ambiguity of 'does not exist' is not. That is, ontologists are fond of pointing out that there are various ways in which things can be nonexistent.

  • Sentence 1. The ways are not at all slight.
  • Sentence 2. Aristotle did no such thing. Questions of existence go right back to the Pre-Socratics. Those categories are not of being but of substance and accident. The ancients were pretty much hylomorphs (except for the atomists) so you have to understand Aristotle's language rightly. Read some pre-socratics. The formal field, ontology, is later and scholastic.
  • Sentence 3. Let's not confuse being, the thing that exists, with existence, the principle by which it exists. No reason to take a materialist view here. Materialism is only one hat in the ring.
  • Other sentences. Existence applies to anything whatsoever. Nothing conceivable, utterable, perceivable or imaginable is left out. The "univocality" comes from the binary nature of existence, either on or off. Existence is not a kind of thing. All the modern philosophers are not reinventing the metaphysical wheel but are doubting or trying to doubt or trying to find alternatives to classical metaphysics. If they are confused, it is because they don't succeed.66.30.94.153 20:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, I removed another paragraph. I saw it as so abstract as to contain an over paucity of data; i.e., it doesn't say anything. Moreover, it is based on a suspect article on phenomenalism. Here is the paragraph:

Though often not discussed under the heading of existence, disputes among realism, phenomenalism, physicalism, and various other metaphysical views concern what might be called the criteria for existence. For example, phenomenalism, generally speaking, is the view that everything that exists is mental. Most phenomenalists would want to deny that this claim is a definition of 'exists'; if phenomenalism were treated as a definition of 'exists', then others might accuse the view of trying to be "true by definition." Accordingly, it might be dismissed as a trivial exercise in redefining the ordinary concept of existence, which is, perhaps, of little interest to anyone. Exactly what relation, however, definitions (or analyses, or explications, etc.) and criteria have is an interesting and vexed question. See definitions vs. criteria.

This characterization of phenomenalism seems to have left the phenomena out of it. The phenomenalists wanted to use data, especially scientific data, as ground. Ground is definitely not mental. It includes the mental, but also the objective; that is, they are both aspects of the data. These philosophers hoped to be the spokesmen of science, but they did not become that.

This mention of the criteria of existence comes from mathematical modeling, not from metaphysics. Whether or not specific things exist is generally not of interest to the ontologist, though it is to the scientist. The ontologists are concerned with principles governing everything collectively, not specific things.

Beyond these few observations I must say I could not really see what the writer was trying say. For example, phenomenlalism is not a definition of exists, but is a school of thought. The writing is not very clear, but even if it were clarified, I'm not sure it would make sense philosophically, either.Botteville 21:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is another such deletion:

There are many philosophers today, following Hume, Kant, Frege, and Russell, who claim that existence is not a property, or that 'exists' is not a predicate. Sometimes they say that 'exists' is a second-order predicate (or "second-level" predicate); or they make other sorts of claims about it, such as that it is a unique sort of predicate. Typically, the discussions in which this claim arises are discussions of the existence of physical objects. So, for example, the Eiffel Tower exists. This is a true claim; what makes it true? One would like to be able to say that it is the fact that the Eiffel Tower has the property of existence. It seems that the claim asserts that existence is a property of the Eiffel Tower. Yet the philosophers listed--with qualifications the philosophical Wikipedian is encouraged to elaborate--deny that existence is a property. In fact, this is the common view among philosophers today.

One might wonder why it matters at all whether or not existence is a property. Consider: if existence is not a property, then the concept of existence cannot be defined, or at least, not as it has been defined here. The foregoing definition of 'exists' is incorrect, many philosophers would say, just because the definition does treat existence as a property.

You can't really do anything with these two paragraphs, mainly because the author's understanding is not equal to the subject. This is not an attack ad hominem, and if it seems like it, I apologize. You can't write an article on this topic without knowing any metaphysics. The author knows he can't do it, as he inserts such comments as "the philosophical Wikipedian is encouraged to elaborate". In a nutshell, the whole point of getting philosophic about existence is that it does not behave like a property, it is special. It is in fact not a property, and that is where ontology begins. If it isn't a property, what is it, then? In answering that, you have to rise to the level of everything, and mathematics falls far short of that. Moreover, the author uses such terms as "typically" and "common view" when it is clear that he does not know what is typical and what the common view is. Also there is no indication that he is aware of the struggle between the scholastics, who are determined to perpetuate classical metaphysics, and the non-scholastics, who are equally determined to overthrow it. More study is required, I would say! Meanwhile, I'm trying to retain as much of the author's approach as sems credible and viable.Botteville 03:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's another excised paragraph.

Of this view, one might ask: does this entail that existence is not a property at all? It seems not. If one lists out all the properties of the apple, the list would include 'being located in the universe with which we are in contact'. An advocate of the definability of 'existence' for physical objects might claim that that particular property just is what constitutes the apple's existence. That property would, of course, be included in a list of all of the apple's properties; so Kant's claim, that existence is not another property over and above all its other properties, seems true enough, but that by itself does not mean that existence is not a property at all.

The author and Kant are not on the same wavelength here. Kant's point applied to the apple would be that the apple you assert with the existence is not the same apple you asserted without it, so either you are talking about different objects and the predicate is not predicated of the subject or you are talking about the same object and there is no property, existence. But, there is a worse problem with the author's view. He confuses the existence of physical objects with ontological existence. Time and place are not and can never be and never were criteria for existence, as I explain in the replacement text. I am truly sorry to take such liberties but the article was marked as needing work and the author invites us to work on it.

--dammit! why'd you go and erase those first paragraphs? they are what made this article interesting! -S.F.

[edit] Needs Attention

I'd say an article such as this needs all the attention it can get; moreover, the brave soul who first took it on deserves a medal. It was proposed the first article be dropped, but the editors decided to retain it. So, that decision determined the direction it is going, just like campers telling a round-robin story. It could go in almost any direction. What would you like to see? How do you want it to go? What is most appropriate to Wikipedia? How can we Wikipedize this better? Speak. I'm still game. I love it, but I am not going to add anything new without direction from the public.Botteville 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Certainly Needs Attention

In defence of Larry Sanger: he never wrote any of this. I edited a lot of his work in the early days of Wikipedia after he left, but always tried to keep his material and style. This is recognisably NOT his work. Sanger is a professional philosopher. His style was often informal.

Here's the earliest version of the "existence of physical objects" material (some of which has been merged into other sections of the current article) that I can find: [1]. It was placed there by Larry Sanger, so whether he wrote it himself or not he at least approved of it sufficiently to include in Wikipedia. Note that this is neither a defence of the material nor an indictment of Larry, just trying to establish facts. Bryan 15:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

OK it's not very good, is it? Not one of his best. User: dbuckner.

[edit] So give the attention

I believe I logged in all right. Moreover, as this is a very emotional topic (religion and philosophy always are), I expected some such comment. That's all right. Emotion often drives us to higher things. I would say this to you. Attack the article. Bleed all over it, as they used to say in the editing business. Contribute some agony of your own! I don't mind in the least. Philosophy is an apple. One just doesn't know where to bite. Hack the whole thing away if you want to. Put something in its place.

Larry doesn't need any defence, whoever he is. He gave it a shot. Wikipedia folk didn't like it. Someone suggested it be deleted. Wikipedia didn't like that either. We could either let it sit there indefinitely or try to fix it. Unfortunately it is a pretty big topic. I'm coming from a classical point of view. It has the advantage of giving an established tradition. But, here is what I think. Larry, wherever you are, delete my version. Make your own corrections. Or, Mr. critic, whoever you are, you do it! I invite you to climb higher, as high as you can. Tell you what I will do. I will not touch it but will open a dialog with you on anything. What about this article strikes you as drivelish?Botteville 22:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I give it the attention

My apologies, that was unkind of me. I have edited out these comments. I meant that these thoughts, however good, are mostly your own, and to not represent a summary of other philosophers and authorities.

I have written a completely new article. Somewhat centred around the Analytic tradition, but I have put a space for the "European" view.

After a decent interval I have just taken a look at it. I like it. I am sure the public will appreciate it better. I know the classical terminology but not the modern. Thank you for your effort.Botteville 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wtf?

The second problem is that both a singular sentence like "Pegasus flies" and its negation seem to imply the existence of a subject. If "Pegasus flies" is true, then something (namely Pegasus) flies. So if the sentence is true, "Pegasus" has a referent. But if the sentence is false, its negation is true. But the negation of "Pegasus flies" is "it is not the case that Pegasus flies". If this is true, then something (namely Pegasus) does not fly, and so "Pegasus" still has a referent. Whether "Pegasus flies" is true or not, "Pegasus" has a referent, and so "Pegasus" has a referent. But common sense suggests that "Pegasus" does not have a referent.

K, what the heck does this mean? Notice especially "Pegasus" has a referent, and so "Pegasus" has a referent. I have nothing to say to that but wtf? Is there actually deeper meaning to this tangle or is it just a stream of words? Citizen Premier 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement "Pegasus flies" is subject to an Existential fallacy. It makes an unproven assumption, namely the existence of a being like Pegasus. If the statement is not 'deconstructed' and the underlying assumption shown then you can reach an invalid conclusion by positing only two possibilities: 1) Pegasus flies 2) Pegasus does not fly. Constructing such a limited set of possiblities is in itself a False dilemma as a third possiblity exists, namely that Pegasus does not exist. So, if you allow the false dilemma to continue to exist (only those two possibilities) you cover up the fact that there is also an existential fallacy built in. You also then force someone to agree to the existence of Pegasus no matter which of the two statements they accept as true. If someone were to harp on the false delema they would (in effect) be employing a Ignoratio elenchi (red herring) to distract you from the presence of the existential fallacy in their statements. KeyStroke 20:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Just in case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonexistence. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHA: the only reference to Nonexistance is the "See Also" section, which simply sends you to the top of the page... --HantaVirus 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

Someone has queried whether the following makes sense:

If "Pegasus flies" is true, then something (namely Pegasus) flies. So if the sentence is true, "Pegasus" has a referent. But if the sentence is false, its negation is true. But the negation of "Pegasus flies" is "it is not the case that Pegasus flies". If this is true, then something (namely Pegasus) does not fly, and so "Pegasus" still has a referent. Whether "Pegasus flies" is true or not, "Pegasus" has a referent, and so "Pegasus" has a referent. But common sense suggests that "Pegasus" does not have a referent.

The argument here is an instance of the following valid schema

1. If p, then q 2. If not p, then q 3. Therefore q

I.e.

1a If Pegasus flies, "Pegasus" has a referent 2a If Pegasus does not fly, "Pegasus" has a referent 3a Therefore "Pegasus" has a referent

Dbuckner 05:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the basis for this argument comes from the fact that by using the word "Pegasus", you have established a referant. The word itself is it. I.e., using the name automatically implies the existence of a concept behind it; additionally, there is NO way for a person to declare a concept NOT to exist, for in order to declare its nonexistence, it must exist. Thus, any referent thus used must, circularly, exist. --VinnyR

[edit] Hilarious intro

The introduction is so inaccurately incomprehensible that it parodies nazi propaganda. First, the purported "first-order sentence" is not even a sentence of a first-order language; it is a sentence of Minglish, or Mangled English (i.e. English including first-order expressions such as e.g. variables). Worse, logic does not dictate any particular reading of the existential quantifier '∃x', let alone the very particular reading 'for some x' which prima facie carries with it no existential import! (Generally, if one wishes to give it an existentially weighty reading, then they give it 'there is an x' where 'is' is to be understood in the sense of 'exists'. But of course this just makes the definition of 'existence' circular.)

Just what is stated by statements of first-order logic? Outside of a model (or interpretation or the like), they have no meaning. Inside (or under) one, they do have meaning, but their meaning equates to nothing more than a truth-value (in classical logic anyway, which is non-intensional). Also, it is ridiculous to say that existential FO statements "assert" anything (notice that this is precisely what the article says) let alone existence! In some strange Fregean sense, maybe they assert something, but it is the "proposition" (assuming they exist) expressed by the sentence, not a singular notion that may be contained in the proposition (or referred to in some manner by the sentence).

At best, first-order logic with identity captures existence by the definability of what may be called an existence predicate, i.e. 'x exists', of the form ∃yy=x. But of course, this only holds weight under an objectual (referential, Tarskian, etc.) semantics.

I hope to finish reading the rest of the article when these fits of laughter subside. Nortexoid 07:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You make some good, if robustly expressed points here. Taking them in order

>>>First, the purported "first-order sentence" is not even a sentence of a first-order language; it is a sentence of Minglish, or Mangled English (i.e. English including first-order expressions such as e.g. variables).

It is standard practice in analytic circles to represent the upside down 'E' as 'for some'. Also, how do you pronounce the upside down 'E', when you are speaking, rather than writing. Anyway, I can find you a thousand references for this claim. E.g.

  • The universal quantifier, written 'E', corresponds to the English phrase "for all" or "for each". (Anton Cox)
  • If we want to assert a predicate of some objects (at least one), we use the existential quantifier, "(x)". For example, "(x)Mx" says that, for some (at least one) x, x is mortal; or idiomatically, something is mortal. (Peter Suber)

Note that Suber (a respected author on mathematical logic) uses the word 'assert'. See below.

That wasn't the point. The expression, if it is to be an expression of a first-order language, will not contain English words. It should be a formula of some symbolism, such as '∃xFx'. I admit, I was nitpicking.

>>>Worse, logic does not dictate any particular reading of the existential quantifier '∃x', let alone the very particular reading 'for some x' which prima facie carries with it no existential import! (Generally, if one wishes to give it an existentially weighty reading, then they give it 'there is an x' where 'is' is to be understood in the sense of 'exists'. But of course this just makes the definition of 'existence' circular.)

Logic dictates the reading that logic dictates. To say 'Ex x is a unicorn' is true is to say that there is at least one object in the universe such that the sentence 'x is a unicorn' is true when 'x' is thought of as naming that object. The claim being made in the introduction is that there is a dominant view in AAA philosophy that what the formal sentence means is the same as what the ordinary English sentence 'there are unicorns' means. Note the introduction is being NPOV about this. It is not saying that view is true. It is simply saying that the view is widespread. (Quine held something like it, also my own prof, who wrote widely on the subject).

Logic does not dictate that we read the quantifier in an objectual, rather than e.g. a substitutional, way. Logic doesn't dictate that e.g. model-theoretical semantics is the semantics. (Even Quine considers a substitutional interpretation of the quantifiers in Philosophy of Logic.)

>>> Just what is stated by statements of first-order logic? Outside of a model (or interpretation or the like), they have no meaning. Inside (or under) one, they do have meaning, but their meaning equates to nothing more than a truth-value (in classical logic anyway, which is non-intensional). Also, it is ridiculous to say that existential FO statements "assert" anything (notice that this is precisely what the article says) let alone existence! In some strange Fregean sense, maybe they assert something, but it is the "proposition" (assuming they exist) expressed by the sentence, not a singular notion that may be contained in the proposition (or referred to in some manner by the sentence).

On the use of 'assert', I could have said 'express' or 'say that'. Note the quotation from Suber above. I can get citations from Quine and others if that is an issue. Why do you say that 'existential' FO statements do not assert 'existence'. Why are they called 'existential'? Why is the 'existential quantifier' called the 'existential quantifier', I wonder? If you study a little of the history of logic, you may find the answer to this question!

The reason that the ∃-quantifier is so-called is historically interesting but beside the point. Every formula beginning with an existential quantifier is not necessarily expressing anything about existence. E.g., take the formula ∃x∃y(x>z & z>y & x>y) in one free variable which expresses the property of lying between x and y. Any formula in n-free variables, whether it begins with an existential quantifier or not, does not express existence unless it is of the form Eyy=x or the like. Suppose we ignore open formulas (and interpret ∃ objectually). Then it still seems strange to say that e.g. the sentence ∃x∀yx≤y expresses simply existence rather than the property of the existence of a least number. I take those to be quite different properties or propositions (if they exist).

>>> At best, first-order logic with identity captures existence by the definability of what may be called an existence predicate, i.e. 'x exists', of the form ∃yy=x. But of course, this only holds weight under an objectual (referential, Tarskian, etc.) semantics.

The introduction does not mention this form of statement, but only statements like 'An F exists'. Dbuckner 08:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The prevalent view in the philosophy of logic is that existence is expressed in the binding of variables; whence Quine's famous slogan "to be is to be the value of a bound variable" (or however it goes, exactly). I think it would be more suitable to revise the current intro explaining this notion which involves an explanation of the existential reading of '∃'. What do you think? Nortexoid 16:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You say >> Then it still seems strange to say that e.g. the sentence ∃x∀yx≤y expresses simply existence rather than the property of the existence of a least number.

Er, it expresses the existence of a least number. So it expresses existence (of something – a least number). Who was saying it didn't? The view this is implicitly being contrasted with is that existence is a predicate. i.e. so that Ex Exists(x) says that some things exist, Ex ~Exists(x) that some things do not exist.

In terms of improvement, suggest you read the rest. The first order stuff in the introduction is somewhat tangential. Certainly no article on this subject should be without a competent treatment of Quine's slogan. Note someone has inserted another personal essay quite recently (search on 'Tao'). I gave up writing for WP some time ago. I would be prepared to put a little work into this if you are. But frankly, look at the rest of the stuff in the philosophy and logic department. I don't really care much. Well I do, but can't see how anything I can do will help. Thanks for the comments, anyway. Dbuckner 16:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie

I am new to philosophy, but not this service. I mean no offense, but the article on Existence is not well written, clear, or helpful. I humbly request that it be deleted and those of you who are writing about existence, check out the format of other entries and strive for clarity. . . Existence for dummies, as it were.Tszora 02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting would be a step backward rather than forward, surely? WhiteCat 08:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless there's truly nothing salvageable about a version of an article, it's better to edit what's there rather than starting over. A blank page is usually even less well written, clear or helpful, after all. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you think needs fixing? Bryan 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this version of the article almost from scratch. There have been some changes, but most of it (particularly the opening parts) are not too different. I have no problem with deleting and starting again. But would like to hear from readers where the difficulty lies. I have already agreed with Nortexoid that the references to first order logic are unnecessary and confusing. The very simple message of the opening paragraph is that existence is what is claimed by sentences like 'there is a bridge crossing the river at Hammersmith', which is equivalent to 'a bridge crossing the river at Hammersmith exists' or 'at least one bridge crosses the river at Hammersmith' and so on. But please let me have your questions. Dbuckner 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the article and found it very informative. It is a very important topic. I think you should add some links to external sources, and perhaps more info on historical work.

[edit] A development attributed to James Steven Harris, "JSH"

I found something on the UseNet newsgroup sci.math which attributes an existential result to James Harris, a well known UseNet poster. It goes something like this :

There are 3 existential forms or types.

1) That which exists

2) That which does not exist

3) That for which existence is indeterminate

I dont know if that would constitute original research per Wiki, because it has already been published on UseNet.

Although James Harris did not invent these ideas, apparently he provided inspiration to others who have named the work in his honour.

Harris' Theorem 1.1 "The existence of a Trivial is Indeterminate"

Here, a trivial is considered to any object which violates the uniqueness of another object. An identical clone of an object is considered nonexistent, but there is no way to determine if the object is itself, or if it is the clone. Hence, such objects are not strictly nonexistent. They are "quasi-existent" because their existence is strictly indeterminate.

Not sure if that would be suitable material for the article, or if it would belong in the research area.

Also, would be interesting to see something about Ayn Rand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.68.72 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

The term 'exist' has two basic connotations 1) An entity exists - it has physical presence within the Universe 2) A condition exists - it has occurred

[edit] Problems with this article

Even a cursory glance at this talkpage demonstrates that the primary concept of "existence" that is in general circulation is (roughly), "something exists if it can actually be found in reality", "the state between birth and death" and such similar ideas as the general public hold. The article has to mention that, before zooming off into the deep waters of Anglo-American philosophy.Newbyguesses - Talk 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, er, are there things that can't actually be found in reality? edward (buckner) 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I just looked this over for the first time. It is a highly technical subject, and good luck to anyone who wants to simplify the analytic parts. The "European" section is a non-event. I would suggest that, if Meinong is to be mentioned, he should be mentioned right alongside Russell and Frege - he's involved in just that debate. This could lead to a separate section on Brentano and Husserl ("existentialism" is really irrelevant). But what about Hegel? What about Kant? Very important views on "existence". I have no better idea than to deal with this in chronological order, so that Aristotle would shift up the article, then a mediaeval section (which is for someone else to write), then the Big Germans, then Russell/Frege/Meinong leading in one direction to the analytics, the other to Brentano and Husserl.
And no mention of Christopher Williams's "What Is Existence?"?- shame on you, edward (buckner) ! KD Tries Again 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)KD

[edit] Last revision

I just removed this.

There are many difficulties in arriving at a definition of the word existence which is suitable for use in the many different contexts in which existence is discussed. A primary meaning associates the word 'existence' with the concept of "the act of being". Existence is also "to have place as part of what is real", to "occur or be found" in Reality, and "to continue living". This general sense is amplified or modified appropriately when the word 'existence' is used in specific contexts.

I don't like it because

  • 'which is suitable for use in the many different contexts in which existence is discussed' is lumpy.
  • 'A primary meaning associates' is bad English.
  • What seems to be meant is that one important meaning of the word 'existence' is 'the act of being'. Is that true? What is an 'act of being'?
  • 'This general sense is amplified or modified appropriately' is also clumsy.

edward (buckner) 10:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A Google on the word 'existence' gives this article top ranking (over the SEP one which is somewhat better). The time has probably come to improve this one, but needs to be done carefully. I have asked for help on this before. edward (buckner) 10:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In looking at this article, the first problem I see is the negative first sentence—why not say it as follows: "Existence is a concept in philosophy which has been used in many contexts and with different understandings. One dominant view of 20th century Anglo-American philosophy portrays existence through precise statements related to 1st order logic".
Other attempts to do something like that have been made [2]. The last objection was to lumpy grammar, bad English, confusing "acts of being", and clumsy grammar. I agree "acts of being" confuses the mind, but it seems elementary to me that existence has to do with states of being. (Kenosis addressed this, but there was an objection).
Nortexoid made some comments and then left the scene. To delve right into the sentence ". . .for some xFx. . ." seems to get too technical too fast in the introduction. I've always had problems following the mathmatical formate in philosophy: I understand it has a place, but it would seem appropriate to ease into it a little. Richiar 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The criticism(s) of the section removed by User:DBuckner are valid. It was not written in best style. The article Fact was recently made over, with an extended "dictionary" type introduction, an attempt to do that here has been made, but DBuckner has seen all this before; a lot of work put in by different editors in the Philosophy Project and then what. Anyway, this article is not the only one in need of attention, by any means. Good to see more editors are making useful comments on this talkpage, at any rate. And, thanks, User:DBuckner, for looking over the articles you do. The phrase just posted (above) by User:Richiar is an improvement, that should go in the introduction. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I will take out the bit about predicate calculus and think of a way to present that idea in a more user-friendly way. Perhaps add something on the lines of what the SEP opens with (that it is at once a very familiar concept, and yet very hard to explain). I asked KD tries again to help with the 'existentialist' section - surely no article on existence should be without it - but he seems to be hiding at the moment. edward (buckner) 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

"To most people, existence consists of growing up, going to school, getting married, raising a family, shopping, working and playing, and dying. But many people have wondered if there is not more to existence than this. To a majority of the people on earth, existence is God and God's creation."

This article is a joke, isn't it? Informal speech, apparently giving credibility to the existence of a personal god... Arguably, the worst article I've ever seen here, and it came as a surprise, I didn't expect such low quality in a Wikipedia article. --Taraborn 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is a terrible article. It needs a rewrite but I'm not sure how to tag it. Jimmyupt 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to these users for the present comments. Care to re-read that bit, and take the time to look over the references that are supplied? The World Almanac and Book of Facts, World Almanac Books, annual is the source cited for the last sentence in the above quote. Verifiability, and accuracy are Wikipedia's primary content criteria. The above quote, and indeed the article in toto satisfies both, despite it's informal qualities, though being a newish draft in places, some references could be expanded. Actually, it is my understanding that it is considered good practice not to over-reference in the lead section, so that general references can support most of the text, at an early stage of development. Any editor may get involved in developing articles that they can cite references on, or otherwise contribute meaningfully, so thinks about that by all means, and thanks again.Newbyguesses - Talk 02:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As the author of the original article, which I always felt was too technical for a general audience, I've no big problem with the rewrite to the introduction. An informal style is often a good way of easing a reader into a difficult subject. I do have some problems with the technical changes further on. But clearly this has aroused strong emotions. To those who have complained, is it just the style of the introduction? Or more? edward (buckner) 07:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Re references, I have plenty. Will supply in due course.edward (buckner) 07:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The original article began with questions of symbolic logic, the scope of the existential quantifier, and the question of whether existance could ever be a predicate. I did a rewrite to provide an informal introduction to what must, in the later sections, be heavy philosophical going. I regret upsetting Taraborn and Jimmyupt and apapreciate Newbyguesses more understanding reading and Dbuckner's willingness to allow his philosophical contributions have an informal introduction. In particular, Taraborn, please note that the article does not assert the credibility of a personal God, but simply states the fact, verified by the source quoted, that a majority of people on earth believe in a personal God.

As for the question of whether informal (I would say "lively") writing is appropriate for an encyclopedia, I think formality is a virtue that can easily turn into dullness. Rick Norwood 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, the problem is that the opening few sentences basically deal with the question "What is the nature of the world we live in?" They address largely empirical problems. But the article is really about a wholly abstract, philisophical issue: That of what it even means to say that there is a world (emphasis on "is"). The issues touched on at the beginning of the article are just completely separate from the issue that most of the article addresses. Thus the introduction clashes horribly with the article as a whole.
I also strongly dislike the informal writing style, but that's a relatively minor quibble.

(above comment added by 24.145.207.78)

As I said, I have no problem with the informal writing style. I do tend to agree with the comment about the huge disconnect between the introduction and the rest of the article. Also some of the things that Rick has added in the body of the article contain technical errors. I'm not up to writing anything useful at the moment. I still have no real idea of how to introduce this difficult subject. edward (buckner) 07:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your corrections to any technical errors I introduced, when you have time. And, since some people are so offended by my informal introduction, I'll try to make it clearer that the intent is to contrast the common view of existance with the philosophical view.

(postscript/comment added by User:Rick Norwood)

[edit] Newbyguesses edit

I think Newbyguesses edit has greatly improved the article. I've shortened the introduction, and tried to make it clear in the second sentence that this is an informal lead-in that will be followed by profounder considerations.

I've made a few changes, Newbyguesses. I hope you don't mind. I look forward to Dbuckner fixing any errors I've introduced. My own training is in mathematical rather than philosophical logic. Rick Norwood 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've completed my copy edit -- caught a few typos. This now seems to me a very good article -- I certainly enjoyed reading it. Rick Norwood 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I think the opening paras of the SEP article are a model of what such an article should be. On reflection, I have doubts about the current intro. No problems, as I said, about informality. It's the accuracy I am a little worried about.

  • 1st sentence. Is the everyday meaning 'growing up, getting married, raising a family ..'? I think this involves a confusion between 'existence' and 'everyday existence'.
  • 2nd sentence. It then says that many people have wondered if there is more to existence than this. i.e. more to existence than everyday existence. But this article is about existence, not everyday existence.
  • 3rd sentence says that to the majority of people 'existence is God and God's creation'. Doesn't this contradict the first sentence? If the everyday meaning is 'growing up, getting married, raising a family ..', how can the majority of people think it means 'God and God's creation'? edward (buckner) 16:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than these beginning sentences, the article Existence, in its philosophical reaches, treats ontological matters and the findings of philosophers on ontological matters.

Ontology has one basic question: "What exists?". Also, any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, time, truth, causality, and God, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy.[1]

The current version of Existence has much ontology in it, seems on the right track. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dbuckner says the article is not about "everyday" existence. Of course, that is correct, in that there is not much for an encyclopedia to say on that subject. What there is would come under sociology, and maybe under "life styles". On the other hand, philosophers begin in the everyday and extend into more esoteric realms. If they don't, they wind up talking about words instead of about reality, like the Scholastics. How would you bridge the gap between the everyday and the profound?
In any case, here is my thinking. Begin with what "existence" means to the average Joe. Go on to how Joe answers philosophical questions: God. Point out that this really isn't an answer, because of the general disagreement about God. Give a very brief rundown of a few of the major answers.
The addition of Descartes to the intro was a good one.

Rick Norwood 13:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is rapidly getting worse. What is meant by 'In everyday usage, existence is the property of being; that which is in the category of what is'.

The SEP article rightly begins with the observation that 'existence' and its cognates are a set of words that we unthinkingly use, but which are at the same time difficult to define. This, by contrast, assumes that there is such a thing as an everyday meaning of the word, which is easy to define, as though there were a philosopher's sense of 'existence' that is different from the ordinary one. Wrong. The notion that the philosophers struggle with, is precisely the ordinary concept.

Why Descartes? Why any philosopher when so many have talked about it? Why not Aquinas, Suarez, Plato, Scotus, Heidegger and Sartre? There should only be a philosopher mentioned in the introduction if that philosopher made a notable contribution that is recognisably and provably distinct from any others. edward (buckner) 09:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Dbuckner. 1) On words. Philosophers, like mathematicians, sometimes examine the difficulties in commonly used words. At other times philosophers, like mathematicians, use common words with a specialized meaning. I would say that when the word "existence" is used in the sense of predicate logic (the sense mathematicians express by a backwards capital E), then it has taken on a specialized meaning. Thus, the structure of the article is: first, the naive meaning of the word, then philosophical considerations of some of the problems associated with the naive meaning of the word, and then a discussion of the more technical uses of the word. 2) Descartes. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," is the first real advance beyond the ontology of Plato and Aristotle, and therefore has an especially important place in the article. Currently, the introduction includes Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, and Descartes. Who would you add, and who would you dismiss? Rick Norwood 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buridan's edit

The balance here between "general" interest and particularly "philosophic" interest is quite reasonable. We still have a general introduction, so now it is best to scrutinize the body of the text to ensure that each reliable source is accurately reported (philosophy-wise). Newbyguesses - Talk 05:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The balance is between general interest and some construction of what is or may be the case. To cite a poor encyclopedia article in order to put god is existence into the first paragraph is promoting significant bias. That people believe in something, has no relationship to its existence beyond that belief. I mean really, what are you trying to accomplish with that line? Assuming good faith and neutrality, I'd think that you want a statement of the majority of opinions about what is, but given that God/god/gods are the key ideas being promoted as fundamental to most people's existence, it seems like it promotes the point of view that this is the general understanding of those believers and I don't think that it is as simple as that. So, while I have no problem with the blatantly general and obvious statement about living and dying, i do take issue with the idea that there is anything beyond vague generalization behind the cited reference, and it should be snipped and replaced with something that actually discusses existence. If you wish to address the relationship between God/god/gods and existence, that surely belongs in a subsection, but it should not be a blanket statement in the introduction of the article. --Buridan 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buridan's comment

Buridan has once again deleted, without justification, the inclusion in this article of majority beliefs about existence. He says, "what I see is a non-sequitur, lack of definition, uncited, and unverified". Evidently, he missed the citation and was unable to follow the sequence. I've added more citations, and will outline (again) the sequence, which is based on the belief that Wikipedia articles should begin with the simple, the general, and the common, and only then move on to the complex, the specialized, and the esoteric. Thus, the sequence is: 1) what people generally think of as "existence", 2) what most people think of when they go beyond the everyday: God, 3) why that really isn't an answer (because there is no general agreement about beliefs based on religion), 4) some answers offered by major philosophers.

My goal in working on this article has always been to ease the general reader into the deep waters of the article. Before I came, it began with formal logic. I have explained my reasons several times now. I would like Buridan to explain his. Rick Norwood 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

and i cut it again. if you want to talk about beliefs about existence, perhaps you should start an article 'beliefs about existence' or perhaps 'what people believe exists' both, i suspect would be deleted in short order. talk about what existence is not about what the myriad of beliefs. if you mention god, then you should as well mention every other entity that someone or other caused existence to spring forth. and i said it was uncited because it is defacto uncited, no page number, no edition of the annual, no author. in short, there is no way of verifying it. --Buridan 17:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'll restore it again. Stubbornness is not an argument.
This article is entirely about what various people believe about existence. Everything in the article, without exception, is about what somebody believes about existence. You want to exclude certain classes of belief, but have never offered any reason for excluding those classes of belief.
Re: citations from established sources. The World Almanac is a well-known and widely respected source of information. I didn't give a page number because, as an annual, the page number varies from year to year. I didn't give an author because the book does not cite an author. But religion is in the index, and so finding a page number is trivial, not, as you suggest, impossible. The book is in essentially every English language library or book store. In the 2006 edition, the page number is 714. Of the approximately 6.5 billion people in the world, approximately 5.6 billion believe in some religion.
Clearly, this article cannot cite every view of existence that anyone has ever held. In fact, rightly, most of the article sticks to scholarly views. But to totally exclude the view of the vast majority of human beings will not increase the value of the scholarly view, but will rather exclude the majority of the human race. You still have not answered my question: what is your objection? Why should the article not even mention the majority view? What is gained? Rick Norwood 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
precisely, what is gained? it adds nothing, and contextualizes the debate as a religious one straight from the beginning. I have no problem with existence being mentioned in the every day context in the intro, but to contextualize it as a religious issue, seems to violate npov. Keep it clean, simple and about the the topic in the intro, make it complicated and present all sides of the issue later in the article. --Buridan 18:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buridan's most recent edits

I've been reading your edits as you make them. They seem to me hasty, and I don't see that they add anything to the article. For example, it does not seem necessary to mention more than one of the dialogs of Plato in the introduction, and the Republic is the most well known. The article does not confine itself to Western philosophy, and so that restriction is unnecessary in the introduction. A footnote should cite a source, not contain a parenthetical remark. However, I will do you the courtesy of allowing you to finish, in hopes that the final version will be better than the work in progress. Rick Norwood 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

the republic is only where the theory of forms is mentioned and some argue that the theory of forms is actually only a theory of epistemology, the phaedo and statesman actually have clear ontological implications the first paragraph is the western tradition, but it read like all of the world, that's bias, so i put it in context. later the article goes into non-western traditions, that is fine. check wp:footnote on the use of footnotes. have a great day. --Buridan 18:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also unclear to me what is gained by making your comments hard to read by avoiding standard punctuation and capitalization. But, to take your points one at a time.

I'm not going to fight over whether we include one reference or three to Plato. I think one reference is sufficient, but have left in the two you added.

Whether there were earlier systematic theories of ontology before Plato and Aristotle is a battle I have fought before -- and I have been accused of Western bias before. The fact remains that claims for earlier systematic theories of ontology depend on choosing the earliest date for manuscripts whose dates are uncertain in a range of a thousand years, and reading a lot of modern ideas into fragmentary or poetic comments. Nothing like Plato or Aristotle survives from a date earlier than Plato and Aristotle.

Footnotes that include material that would break the flow of the article are allowed, but your use of a footnote for a parenthetical comment seems non-standard.

Should this article dismiss, at the outset, the beliefs of most of its readers? In other words, should Wikipedia address itself only to intellectuals, or should it at least begin articles with material familiar to a general audience?

But the main point is that you replace referenced material with unreferenced material, and that is clearly unacceptable. Rick Norwood 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

we should wait for more feedback. All i did was cut the unrelated referenced material. as for my comments, try to stay on topic. as for the ontology comment, go read it again please. read what it said before, read what it says now, one is basically true, the other is biased toward western presentations. i should note that I do not dismiss from the outset, I said it belongs in the body, not in the intro. An encyclopedia is not a populist document, it is not to collect the some total of the beliefs of the readers, but the some total of knowledge. those are two very differen things. the god is fine, it just does not belong in an introduction, it belongs in the body, with a thorough presentation of its significance and its problems. it has to be neutral. The changes that I made are perfectly addressed to the general audience. The changes that you made are aimed at a segment of that audience. why should we serve the segment above the whole? It is fine to remove referenced material that is unrelated to the topic or the basis of a npov issue. --Buridan 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have made those changes all together. Keep the lead short is best. The factual material which was rm'd by User:Buridan may fit better somewhere in the body of the article, to avoid arguments. My edit removed references, in fact, from the lead, as a style issue. Any references important enough to be used in the lead sect. are important enough to feature in the body of the article. If Descartes fits better somewhere else, that could also go (from the lead). I am willing to discuss any problems which my edit may have introduced. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The god material recently rm'd by User:Buridan; concerned the existence of a 'belief' about god creating all of "existence". OK, leave it out then. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there could be a whole section on beliefs about the relationship between religions and existence. I don't think it should be in the intro, as the intro should be universal. --Buridan 12:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pegasus flies

Has someone tracked down a citation for this bit? Newbyguesses - Talk 02:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that bit. It is standard logic. The move from 'Pegasus flies' to 'something flies' is existential generalisation, sometimes called particularisation. But I can't find a reference in Wikipedia itself for that. It ought to be somewhere. edward (buckner) 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] supply some references, please

These reffs need expanding (section 1) Earlier views -

Book I of his Summa Totius Logicae (Treatise on all Logic) (date of publication required)

[Logic, II.3, Buroker p. 82]

...proved by sentences like "A centaur is a poetic fiction" (Mill) or "A greatest number is impossible" (Herbart).

Quine's slogan "To be is to be the value of a variable.").

All quotations should receive proper treatment. These must be easily available, though I am not sure who Buroker is. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All these references have now been supplied - except for Herbart. Thanks Newbyguesses - Talk 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newbyguesses edit

Newbyguesses's edit is much less arbitrary than Buridan's edit, but still has problems. However, since Newbyguesses apparently agrees with Buridan on several points, I'll try to make a fresh start, and come up with something we can all agree on. Rick Norwood 14:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

and on what basis are you claiming the arbitrariness of my edit? kindly either stake positions on content and wikipedia principles and assume good faith. my edits were made on the basis of establishing a neutral article as opposed to one that was biased toward let's see... we had god, marriage, raising kids.... we had a claim toward the aryan or great tradition narrative of history as universal, and other npov content. in short, we had several things that didn't much do anything about existence. please stop talking about x or y's edit, and start talking about existence and make arguments about the article, not the editors. --Buridan 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)