Firstly I don't think any non-linguistic idea could be rightly thought of as an abstract idea. You might say that prior to language thinking is "private/ subjective" but I think that is kind of misleading,because it seems that such non-linguistic thinking of existence would be akin to an unmediated apprehension of existence and hence instinctive, which would be native to and shared by all members of whatever species we are considering. — Janus

That is a nice point.

But, let me propose a few more things:

I would say that thinking is dependent on existence, and for the existing thinker, "existence" is primary, and "thought" secondary. Then, thinking about existence would be tertiary.

So ...

When you mention "non-linguistic thinking of existence" as "akin to an unmediated apprehension of existence and hence instinctive, which would be native to and shared by all members of whatever species we are considering", I cannot agree that this qualifies as "thought" without further qualification. As it stands here, it would say that it represents cognitive immediacy, in which a primitive, nonlinguistic mode of thought may or may not exist. But the abstraction of primitive ideation into linguistic thought, is where direct existence (including primitive ideation) is properly mediated into a rational concept.

One more thing, just for fun

One's direct existence/cognitive immediacy can never be communicated directly, for it is dependent on its abstraction into a rational concept in order to be adequately communicated, hence all communication of "existence" can only come indirectly.

I'm not sure how you can extricate ontology from epistemolog, other than as an epiphenomon of taking an absolutist stance. — fresco

That is what empiricism attempts. Of course it has been completely debunked, so you are probably right. And Nietschze point this out in his own particular manner.

Well, I want to be even more difficult and say that there is nothing which does not exist or has not existed in some sense. Of course, if you don't agree you could give me an example. :wink: — Janus

Wait a second, I think you are setting me up. I'm gonna assert something that doesn't exist, and you are going to tell me how the non-existing thing derives a virtual existence within the presupposed content of my assertion.

So...unicorns, no wait, pink elephants?

:grin:

It is in those where I claim that 'relative utility' rather than 'absolute evidence' comes to the fore. — fresco

This is getting more into epistemology, where the real meat of the relative-absolute dichotomy is. It is much easier to prove the relativism of knowledge than existence.

If you want to know my personal position, which is nonnegotiable, I hold existence to be absolute, while I hold my knowledge of it to be relativistic. Yet, any time I relate my opinion of existence to another, I enter the domain of relativism; and, when in Rome...

That's fine, but the supplementary story is that language enables us to talk about different kinds of existence. — Janus

The key here, is that language allows me to communicate my abstract, non-linguistic ideas about existence. Prior to this, any notion of existence is private/subjective.

The idea of existence or being is just the broadest most general concept we can apply to all objects of thought and experience. — Janus

I just wanted to be difficult, and say: "that which is nonexistent is probably a broader more general concept". :blush:

But, in all "seriously", existence is more like a vast category that includes many many, many many many things

Could we also not say that the thing is existentially dependent upon other things? — creativesoul

Yes. That's probably better.

And I would add, any 'existenstential dependency upon other things' indicates a relation.

...and,

If it is correct to presuppose that any relation between two existing things is existentially dependent upon necessary and sufficient conditions, then this picture of existence is indeed relativistic.

Existential dependency includes both internal and external elements. — creativesoul

Yes it does. And the more we discuss this, the more it appears that many of those external elements that are necessary to a thing's existence include "other things", that have some relation to "the thing" in question. Then it would be correct to say that "the thing's" existence is relative to "other things", other things which it is dependent upon for its existence.

So...

Verbatim...

A tree's relations are described as...

..all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for it's existence.
— Merkwurdichliebe

I've no need to mutilate something already so butchered. I'm trying to help. — creativesoul

You always help me. :up:

I'm sure it could be stated better. But it still holds.

Now I will try to help you understand.

If we consider that the external conditions which are necessary for the tree's existence (like a source of water) have no relation to the tree...then, we have to determine by what means the tree accesses water without having some relation to the water. That leads to very problematic conclusions.

One such conclusion is that the tree's existence requires no relations because it is totally dependent on itself, and nothing else. It provides for itself all the necessities for its existence (water, light, &c.). Unfortunately, that conclusion is repugnant to common sense.

I can think of no other explanation for how a tree can exist in the absence of any relations? If there are any others, I'm sure they are detrimentally absurd.

...

That works too.

Nuh. There are things that no one has seen. — Banno

Like gravity, right? We only infer its existence indirectly through the observation of other things that are affected by it. Nevertheless, it still requires an observer to confirm it.

Ok, so I am presuming that there must be something that each of these kinds has in common, such that they are all the one attribute. — Banno

One thing they all have in common, is that any confirmation of any type of existing thing is dependent upon an observer.

You'd need a lot more than just that to have me take any more interest in your line of thought. — Banno

You have no argument against my line of thought. Every point you have made, I have shown to be confused and mistaken. So it is to be expected that you would prefer to take no interest.

But that's not what you said — Banno

Oh Banno, you goof you. Do you really not understand what I'm saying? Or are you just altering my words so you have something to argue about?

It's quite basic.

Let's review.

Are you now saying that the need of a tree for water is not inherent in the tree itself...

Honestly, I am having difficulty thinking in such a confused fashion. — Banno

I'm saying the tree is dependent upon water which it does not provide for itself. — Merkwurdichliebe

You seriously don't understand? Let me explain again, in one stroke, instead of scattered posts.

Really...it's really not that difficult.


Inherent to the existing tree is its dependency on water. In other words, the tree needs water for its existence, yet because the water it needs exists independent to it, certain conditions are required that provide direct access to existing water. In other words the very water it depends on is not intrinsic to the tree, thus it depends upon proper conditions, or a set of relations, to obtain this water. The tree depends upon many relations beyond itself that provide what is necessary for its existence.

This, at minimum, shows that a tree's existence is relative.

Are you now saying that the need of a tree for water is not inherent in the tree itself... — Banno

Actually, simpler. I'm saying the tree is dependent upon water which it does not provide for itself.

AH, well, that's that thread, then. I enjoyed the Life of Brian quotes. — Banno

Another one bites the dust. :cool:

Where does water come from? The tree?

Either there are conditions for the existence of a tree, or there are not... Just as existence is either blue, or it is not blue; and if I say it is not blue, you will insist i tell you what other colour existence is... — Banno

But the conditions for a tree can be easily enumerated. It is sensical. The conditions for "existence is blue" are ridiculous, nonsensical.

There is a big difference here.

That which is prior to something else cannot be intrinsically bound up in that something else. The presupposition of existence is prior to language. Thus, on that level, it is not bound up in language. — creativesoul

But we are talking about existence. So how is it not "bound up" in language?

Water is not a relation. — creativesoul

Then you agree that a tree provides it's own water. Peculiar. I wonder how that happens.

Is a tree dependent upon it's relations?

Is a tree's existence dependent upon it's relations?

How are we to make sense of this? — creativesoul

Is a tree dependent on water for its existence? Does a tree provide it's own water?

Yup. I'm beginning to arrive at the same conclusion. — creativesoul

It's easy to disagree with a statement when you mutilate it into something absurd.

Necessary conditions not inherent to the tree itself"... What? "... which are nonetheless required for its existence"...

Looks like word salad.
— Banno

So there are no conditions that are required for the existence of a tree? Explain yourself — Merkwurdichliebe

Never mind, I know you won't/can't.

Necessary conditions not inherent to the tree itself"... What? "... which are nonetheless required for its existence"...

Looks like word salad. — Banno

So there are no conditions that are required for the existence of a tree? Explain yourself

Is a tree existentially dependent upon all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence? — creativesoul

No. That is not what I said. At best, its is a poor poor translation. Best to stick verbatim.

A certain approach is discarded, not refuted. — g0d

Discarding has no comparison to refutation when it comes to argument. Discarding is a cowardly retreat

Stringing stuff together is easy. — Banno

You don't want my pearl necklace? But it is the Queen's jewel. :kiss:

What are we counting as a tree's relations? — creativesoul

One example would be all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence.

By using the term "existence" as a predicate. — creativesoul

Fresco says it is not a noun.

What is it? :chin:

I'm unimpressed. — Banno

That argument is impotent, it will convince no one.

Phenomenology, rather than psychology. — Banno

You are correct. Psychology is fundamentally phenomenological.

I've no clear understanding of what the "psychological context of 'existence'" might be. Is it the context in whichi we might use the word 'existence'? — Banno

Any psychological context has to do with cognitive immediacy, like "my toe itches".

Is a tree existentially dependent upon it's relations?

That question is very incomplete. — creativesoul

It is definitely vague. But you know what its getting at. And what it is getting at is spot on.

The presupposition of existence is not existentially dependent upon language use.
All notions of "existence" are. — creativesoul

That is also a very good point to consider.

Language is certainly not existence as such. Yet each are it intrinsically bound up in the other. Language only exists, because something else existed prior to it. And language, as a compounding mediation, extrapolates existence from it's own existing (including all its dependecy) by the power of it's own device. As you say, all thought/belief presupposes the existence of it's own content regardless of any further qualification.

You are doing a nice job mapping it out. Maybe, not perfect, but it's a start.

I ask because I want to be sure I understand you. — Banno

I referred to the psychological context of "existence".

I also invoked the consideration of whether or not a thing's existence is dependent upon its relations.

Both are examples of how "existence" and the "absolute-relative" dichotomy are relevant.

Existence does not require our account. All notions of "existence" do. — creativesoul

I can roll with that. Does this mean that fresco is correct in saying:

I assert 'existence' to be on the same level of every other concept which humans denote by a socially acquired languge in specific behavioral contexts. — fresco

???

What is salient is that "Existence is relative, not absolute" lies outside these grammatical spaces. That is, it is not something that could be parsed into such language.

And that is the same as creativesoul's question: what is added to our understanding of a thing by saying that it exists? — Banno

But even if the topic lies outside of those grammatical spaces, those grammatical spaces do little to discount the outlying grammatical spaces in which it does lie. And I've already shown the relevance of those spaces.

We can observe and infer these relations, exchanges and interactions; and then the question becomes 'Are these relations, exchanges and interactions totally dependent on our observations and inference of them, or do they have some kind of independent existence or reality? — Janus

It's like a fractal - however we magnify our cognition, the same pattern keeps appearing. That is where propositional logic has its merits, it explains the pattern.

asking the questions expands the poetic imagination, and the sense of the numinous. It shows us just what kinds of question we are capable of imagining. — Janus

I don't think propositional logic can do much more beyond explaining the pattern (despite its quasi-ethical prescriptions for how we should talk, as if any mode of natural language can be rendered so as to entirely reflect it). Imo, there is something going on in natural language that elludes propositional logic... the mere power of poetic imagination over the human psyche is evidence enough.

SO there is a pretty straight forward grammar for true. Some statement 'p' will be true only if: p. Tarski's T-sentence, disquotation, redundancy and so on. Within this grammar we can manage much of what was once considered philosophically contentious.

And another, not unrelated, grammar for necessity, using possible world semantics to set out how to use necessary and possible.

And running through both is a rather good grammar for existence - existential quantification. — Banno

Interesting. Could you please elaborate?