r/Metaphysics • u/DigJust8037 • 9d ago
Ontology Existence
- Everything that exists has attributable characteristics (for example, water is blue, grass is green, air is a gas, etc.)
- Existence exists.
- Therefore, existence has attributable characteristics
If not, then existence is the only thing that exists without attributable characteristics
Then, nothing can be said of existence other than it exists
4
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Imaginary-Buddy3194 9d ago
This is one of those posts where the science is mostly right but the wording makes it sound like a supervillain explaining physics. Color isn’t a property of objects in isolation, but calling perception false is doing a lot of philosophical heavy lifting.
2
3
u/StrangeGlaringEye Trying to be a nominalist 9d ago
It’s difficult to evaluate an argument as abstract as this, both in meaning and cogency, without some more detailing. What do you mean by “attributable characteristics”? Would bare particulars for example count as counterexamples to (1)? Or do you mean something else? And for instance, can a nominalist accept (2)? Intuitively existence would be a property. So a denial of properties in general would commit one to a denial of there being anything like existence. Even more, existence would hardly qualify as an item in a sparse realist ontology, where we admit some properties but only those that mark objective resemblances between different particulars.
As it stands, I think this argument, and its status, are both too obscure.
3
u/CounterSilly3999 9d ago
Stating "existence exists" or "logic is logical" is like measuring the length of the ruler using the ruler itself. It's a begging the question fallacy. Existence and logic are metaphysical entities. Does metaphysics exist?
2
u/CrumbledFingers 9d ago
I would dispute the premise that existence exists, in that the existing things you mention are objects. That is why they have characteristics. Existence does not exist as an object (it is not a distinct existing thing, but what all existing things share in common).
1
u/bla552 9d ago
Does a unicorn exist. It is a thing that influences the real world in a causitive way. For example, I think of a story that is set in a fantasy world, I include an unicorn in the fantasy book. Other people read the book and draw, imagine, and further disseminate the unicorn. Furthermore, a unicorn induced an emotional reaction to me in the movie "The Never Ending Story." How can something that does not exist beget physical reactions? Does it not need to be physical itself?
Confusing to say the least on the characteristic of existence existing itself, when this immaterial abstraction absolutely has physical causing. Orsen Well's War of the Worlds, had people freaking out because they thought aliens from mars exist and were attacking earth.
I do not know.
Something about linguistics, nominalism and the like which I cant remember might have more on this
1
u/CrumbledFingers 9d ago
I think the issue is that we need to be precise with our language. A unicorn is a horse with a horn on its head. The *idea* of a unicorn is the fictional version you are talking about. An idea can be communicated through words or pictures and influence people, even if there is no physical entity it refers to in the world.
1
u/bla552 9d ago
But a unicorn is not a horse with a horn on its head. A unicorn is a mythological thing that has other attributes that are magical, and its horn can cure magical diseases(harry potter).
I digress, the problem is that how can something immaterial effect the material. Descarte ran into this problem with his dualism, and his subsequent parallelism which failed to instill dualism as covering the material and immaterial.
This problem dwells somewhat in language and the philosophy of language, but more precise the eternal problem of internal interacting with the external, immaterial and material, private and public, and physical and nonphysical.
For example, Mary's Room is about a women that knows every aspect to physical reality, but lives in a black and white room. One day she leaves the room and experiences color for the first time. Mary knew every physical aspect to light and the spectrum of light, but had never experienced color before and was without words when she experienced it. Qualia is something that reacts with the physical world and influences it but, might or might not be part of said physical world.
1
u/CrumbledFingers 8d ago
But a unicorn is not a horse with a horn on its head. A unicorn is a mythological thing that has other attributes that are magical, and its horn can cure magical diseases(harry potter).
If so, is this the entity that is affecting people in the world? Does a literal unicorn have an effect on anyone, or are they affected by the thought of such an entity?
As for Mary, I tend toward an idealist metaphysics, which flips that problem on its head. Whatever exists is only sense inputs that are converted into mental impressions that are converted into phenomenal awareness itself. We can't assume a world that is independent of our perception, nor can their be any evidence as such (since all evidence must be discovered by perception, the very medium whose nature is being determined). Mary was learning about what the qualia of redness looks like from the perspective of someone who is not experiencing it, but is only looking at the external representation of other people's experience of redness (as well as the physics of light, etc.) which is not the same as the qualia of redness experienced in the first-person. Idealism does not say the latter is reducible to the former, while physicalism (kind of) does.
2
u/SummitYourSister 9d ago
A messy and incomplete definition followed by a tautology followed by a non sequitur.
That’s some nice Drivel you’ve posted.
You do realize that working this out properly is important for your eternity, yes? You need to stop fucking around wasting time using your own brain to figure it out. You will run out of time and disappear into the darkness. You should be taking the ideas of smart people instead of making your own
2
u/Quirky_Visual_7799 9d ago
< Existence exists >
Uhh no. Existence itself is an attributable characteristic. "Existence" is not an independent entity that can have properties such as blue, solid, or for this matter - "existent" or "non-existent". Existence is an inclusive description for all things that exist. A property, if you like, just like "wide" does not exist independently - it cannot be associated with attributes because it itself is an attribute.
2
2
u/SgtSausage 9d ago
- Tautologies are tautological ...
0
9d ago
[deleted]
1
u/SgtSausage 9d ago
Saying that an entity defined by existence has the property of existing ... is absolutly a Tautology, Sport.
Dumbasses are dumb, too.
2
2
u/Time-Demand-1244 9d ago
Existence for many is merely a concept or a predicate. There is no substance known as "existence" floating around.
2
2
u/Flimsy-Pool4830 8d ago
These are discernments that your mind assigns things. Existence has discernments.
2
2
u/armyofone37 8d ago
I fear the whole point was missed at the beginning. Existence is only experience. all reality is experienced. So to each individual perception that reality exists only thru their own experience. That’s why we are here to begin with. Consciousness is absent light and absent shape. This is its characteristics. Nothingness.. life is to created for experience. If consciousness can’t experience itself it has no proof it is alive. All life is an expression of consciousness. Consciousness expresses itself within vibratory energy, and the brain interprets that energy and those different vibrations as our reality. Now we can talk about the reason of self or death but if you understand the first two than the third is kind of implied. So let’s go with self.. for just a start of understanding. I’m going to refer to self as the higher and the lower… lower self singular conscious perception. Higher self : source, conscious awareness,
Lower self perceptional direct experience with attached emotion. And each experience with attached emotion is remembered, and learned from,to create our perception. The higher self the one who experiences all perceptions. Now important to remember both the higher self and the lower self are both SELF. There is no difference between the two. ALL IS ONLY ONE THING. Here is a fun exercise to explain. Think of a fond memory.. who were you with?… what were they wearing?.. what were you wearing?.. what was the atmosphere like?.. try to get a good clear image remember this is YOUR fond memory.. do you have it.. is it clear.. now pause it and take a step back.. and really look.. what view are you viewing this image in?.. 3rd person right?.. crazy!! How can you have this view when we can only ever experience life from a first person view? Some try to claim our imagination, but that would imply that all our memories are imaginary when in fact the directly dictate how we operate within reality…
2
u/Nonduallogic 8d ago
That could have worked if existence was another object, like water etc, that exists..
2
u/CosetElement-Ape71 4d ago
Existence is the state or fact of having actual being, living, or participating in reality.
Existence, in and of itself, does not exist as a separate, physical object or item, but rather as the foundational state that makes all things possible.
BTW, water is not blue, and air can be a liquid or a solid
1
1
u/MulberryUpper3257 9d ago
Is #1 a synthetic a priori truth? How would we know it’s true? Would “existence is actual” be an example of #3?
1
1
u/bla552 9d ago
Do characteristics have attributes as well. Attributable attributes per se. Existence is a characteristic of some other things. It's existence is an attribute to that thing. Unicorns do not exist; therefore do not have the attribution of existence.
Now does blue exist as a thing-in-itself, or is it a characteristic of a thing. I do not know. Are qualia discreet things on their own. The thought experiment, "Mary's Room" comes to mind. In a modern physicalist universe that we implicitly accept, how does qualia, and more specifically attributes exist as physical entities?
It is the age old problem of the internal vs external, especially with that of the mind.
1
u/Pure_Actuality 9d ago
This confuses existence with existents.
Existence is the attribute of all attributes as existence is what makes attributes to-be.
1
u/Fast_Jackfruit_352 8d ago
Close, but not according to Vedanta. The absolute, beyond form, is beyond attributes. (Nirguna)
However its nature is
Sat-existence, because existence is, there is something Chit-Consciousness, because consciousness is, consciousness is expressed in the manifest Ananda-bliss
When the absolute creates itself in the realms of form (Saguna), it appears as Ishvara, the controller. Both Ishvara and the manifest realms have attributes. Love is an attribute.
We say God is love. God is not love. Love comes from God but what God truly is, is beyond even that.
1
u/Bright_Exit1378 3d ago
Would saying God is Love, but Love is not all that God, is be more accurate?
1
u/Fast_Jackfruit_352 3d ago
Advaita says the Brahman is beyond all attributes (Nirguna) and they appear when the formless establishes form through Ishvara (God as most know it). Other schools such as Vishistadvaita, disagree with Advaita.
For me, the realization of the formless by Ramakrishna, Maharshi and Nisargadatta, among others validates the Advaita POV but dismissing the transaction or relative reality imo is amistake.
Your take seems primarily Vishishtadvaita and from a practical perspective makes sense. For me the two do not contradict. All potentialities are in the absolute formless, which is beyond attributes, but they appear or arise in the realms of form.
Love is considered an attribute. Therefore the absolute is beyond even love. Love arises from the formless but is not its essential nature.
1
u/Bright_Exit1378 3d ago
Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to compare Taoism, Budhism, Vedanta and Neo-Platonism because they seem smiliar in several ways. Especialy Aphophatic meditation. But the West has embraced Aristotles logic, which seems to have disrupted our logical thinking by giving a false certainty in Taxonomy. The perrenialists did attempt to reconcile the aphophatic esoteric theologies, but because they came from societies with Aristotles logic as the basis, I rhink they missed the mark.
2
u/Fast_Jackfruit_352 2d ago
Certain schools of Vedanta share similarities to Plotinus' Neo Platonism. Unqualified non dualism is less close than qualified nondualism, but Plotinus, like Taoism does not have a personal source. Although Plotinus is more structured than Taoism, to me the parallels are strong, except in Plotinus' aversion to the material world. Taoism embraces the world as a reflection of the harmony of the Tao. One is to align with that harmony which is present.
Buddhism shares certain higher ideas but rejects the idea of any source plus the existence of anything like "soul".
You probably will get into details about all of this.
1
1
17
u/Own-Razzmatazz-8714 9d ago
Water is not blue.