• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

define 'exists'

M

methamaniac

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
976
I was recently in a debate with someone on-line when they started the 'define' game. They pretty much asked me to define every term I used instead of directly anwsering/countering my points.
During our dialogue I used the term 'exists'.
When I was asked to define 'exists' my definition was something along the lines of "that which truly is".
I know, my definition was kinda vague, but it was what first came to mind. Of course he didn't accept this definition and continued further in the game of define by asking me to define ' is'. Now, I am all for defining terms in a debate be there comes a point when it can be used as an avoidance tatic.
At this point I just aked him for his definition of 'exists' since mine was unacceptable to him. After some hem hawing around, he replied with something along the lines of , "object (s) with location". He later added that for something to exist it must have "shape". He said things like consciousness, love, truth, etc. are all conceptual and don't actually exist. When I disagreed, he asked me if I could " draw him a picture of "
or "pour him a glass of" love.
I then asked him if he thought light exists and if he could pour me a glass/draw a picture of it.
His definition then changed to include "that which can be seen". I then asked him how sound and other forms of energy fit within his now expanding definition of 'exists'.
He then asked me to define 'energy' , and at that point I just l laughed and said, "I give up".
It was not that I couldn't define energy, but I knew we could go on playing this game ad infinitum.
So to get back to the point of thread....
What is your definition of 'exists'? Does something have to be objective to exist? If something is subjective does that that exclude it from existing?
Can something be more/less existant than something else? Do thoughts exist?
Are these even rational questions?
 
Last edited:
alasdairm said:
philosophically, anything and everything is a definition of terms.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can never really define anything exactly, only describe it.


alasdairm said:
you're basically talking about objective reality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my thread directly relates to objective/subjective reality. Thanks for the links!

The questions I posed have been asked (exactly or in similar fashion) for thousands of years.
The study of quantum mechanics seems to reveal that the observer plays a part in reality.
The material world could very well be an illusion.
This makes the debate on OR/SR much more interesting.
 
Definition of something requires the absence of everything else that is not that which is being defined. Like a physical element for example.. you define Oxygen by excluding all other elements so you have pure Oxygen and then you can measure it accurately and define what Oxygen is. An object which we attach a word too, like 'cat'.. is defined by features that only a cat has. Obviously the latter example is more complicated than an analysis of physical elements but you get the idea.

So, if this is true, then 'exist' can only be defined by the exclusion of everything else.. and intuitively we know that there is only a binary opposite in this case, that of 'non-exist/ence'. This is an absurdity though because non-existence implies oblivion, a true absence of anything at all, and how can this non-existence then be defined when there is nothing else to exclude (given we've just excluded absolutely everything). Non-existence can't happen, which then leaves us with a quandary because now we can't define existence either as it has no real opposite. A paradox.

A more fertile ground for exploration is shifting the wording and approach a bit. Rather than thinking in purely abstract terms bring in your own sense of presence.. do you exist? Who or what are 'you' that exists?

Look at a physical apple. Draw one on paper. Imagine on in your mind. You see an apple in all three places. Do they exist all the same?
 
theres more that ''exist' that our senses can observe.
just look into a microscope, layers after layers of zoom will show lifeforms after lifeforms that you couldnt observe with simply your natural body. we need tools like microscope ect to be able to really see whats out there, in the world.

however, when you go in the smallest of particles, all that we thought was, like a apple, a car, a cat, your body, is simply very small particles collapsing into each other, changing all the time. what you thought that was stuff (apple, car, ect) is in reality only very small particles, basically all with the same nature, as physics shows us.

what exist in physical/material world? this movement of particles, constantly changing and collapsing into each other, so fat that you have the impression that there is some solid particles, but its all imagined. a optic illusion.

what exist in the mind? for that to know, you will have to cultivate mindfulness, which is the essential tool in order to be able to observe what ''exist '' in the mind.

so, the material world is one reality
the reality of the mind another reality which you will only be able to understand, observe, with the most important tool: mindfulness.
 
Last edited:
-=SS=- said:
Definition of something requires the absence of everything else that is not that which is being defined. Like a physical element for example.. you define Oxygen by excluding all other elements so you have pure Oxygen and then you can measure it accurately and define what Oxygen is.
Click to expand...

I see what your saying.
Indeed, one way to define something is to define what it is not, but this really doesn't tell us exactly what this something is.
In defining oxygen, saying it doesn't possess iron, doesn't tell us what unique qualities/properties oxygen possesses.
It also requires us to unnecessarily define another term (i.e iron)
in order to define the term we are intially trying to define.

SS said:
, if this is true, then 'exist' can only be defined by the exclusion of everything else.
intuitively we know that there is only a binary opposite in this case, that of 'non-exist/ence'. This is an absurdity though because non-existence implies oblivion, a true absence of anything at all, and how can this non-existence then be defined when there is nothing else to exclude (given we've just excluded absolutely everything). Non-existence can't happen, which then leaves us with a quandary because now we can't define existence either as it has no real opposite. A paradox.
Click to expand...

I follow your logic, but I'm not sure we can say that for something to exist it must have an opposite.
For example, what is the opposite of mass? What about time? Seems possible to me that the sheer absence of something can suffice in place of an opposite with respect. Does darkness actually exist, or is it just the absence of light?

SS said:
more fertile ground for exploration is shifting the wording and approach a bit. Rather than thinking in purely abstract terms bring in your own sense of presence.. do you exist? Who or what are 'you' that exists?
Click to expand...

All we really have is our subjective experience to determine if something exists. To know if the objective exists beyond our subjective interpretation of it, would we would have to somehow be independent of our subjective mind/consciousness/senses.



SS said:
Look at a physical apple. Draw one on paper. Imagine on in your mind. You see an apple in all three places. Do they exist all the same?
Click to expand...


good point. But what if one has never heard of or seen an apple? would it still exist?


Murphythecat said:
however, when you go in the smallest of particles, all that we thought was, like a apple, a car, a cat, your body, is simply very small particles collapsing into each other, changing all the time. what you thought that was stuff (apple, car, ect) is in reality only very small particles, basically all with the same nature, as physics shows us.

what exist in physical/material world? this movement of particles, constantly changing and collapsing into each other, so fat that you have the impression that there is some solid particles, but its all imagined. a optic illusion.
Click to expand...


Crazy huh! An atom is said to be comprised of 99.9 % empty space. Sounds a lot like an illusion to me.
 
Last edited:
alasdairm said:
philosophically, anything and everything is a definition of terms.

"do i exist?" is, in large part if not entirely, a discussion of the definition of the term 'exist'. they can't be decoupled.

you're basically talking about objective reality. related reading:

Objective [Subjective] Reality
Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm? (Holographic Reality)
lets list disproofs, or proofs, that there is a objective reality

alasdair
Click to expand...

Great inputs Alasdair! The Universe as a Hologram. Very interesting.
 
You yolks can go on yakking but I'm pretty sure that I eggist because I just stubbed my toe.
 
herbavore said:
You yolks can go on yakking but I'm pretty sure that I eggist because I just stubbed my toe.
Click to expand...

Omelettin' you guys know, these egg puns are getting a little fowl. ?☺

Speaking of the painful experience of stubbing one's toe.......is pain purely subjective?
 
Last edited:
Aw i thought my albumen joke was actually allwhite.

Argh :D
 
^
ha.....that's a good one.
I didn't know what albumen means,
I had to get my hencyclopedia to find out :)
 
Last edited:
We know something "is".

But you can't say "I" , the most basic axiom in all of philosphy is that there is something, but beyond that, saying "I exist " is a loaded statement.
For one, we don't know what is this "I", and secondly, we don't know what does it mean for this I to "exsist".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top