How do you personally distinguish these terms:

Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality. — Marty

If you want people to respond, you'll have to give us more than this. Look the terms up in Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Then come back, tell us what you found, and give us something to disagree with.

I'm not asking for disagreement. Though I had a friend recently give me his spin on it:

Being is. [Ontology]
Reality is a qualitative determination of being (e.g. real as opposed to unreal; the category you use to differentiate from negative qualities of a being). [Ontology]
Existence is the being of essence (i.e. if all conditions for a thing are met, a being can come into existence). [Metaphysics]
Actuality is absolutely necessary being (e.g. as opposed to possible or contingent or mere necessary being). [Metaphysics]

I'm not asking for disagreement. Though I had a friend recently give me his spin on it: — Marty

I was sort of joking about the disagreement, although you'll find that people enjoy disagreements. It can be a pretty competitive environment. It also makes sense to check to see if a subject has been on the forum recently. Topics can be overdone.

So, pick one and say something more about it. There's not much meat on the bones of your definitions. I'll respond, although it's getting late here in the eastern US, so it might not be tonight.

Look, I've been on these forums since they've been built. And then I read the post on the ones prior to this before this one was built. I know the environment, I know people generally like content, but I'm asking a question; I'm not trying to debate anyone as of yet.

The question I think is fine. It's interesting in the sense of the ambiguity of the terms. So I'm interested in how people dissolve that ambiguity. If nobody posts that fine too - I'm not gonna lose my mind over it.

Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality. — Marty

Reality: whatever "is the case". The actual state of affairs, how things really are independent of our beliefs. That which can kill you if you're not careful. Political.

Existence: what something that exists has that makes it the case that it exists and differentiates it from non-existence.

Being: ???????, basically existence, but not? Existence vs existants, Being vs beings...A mode of presentation of objects by intentional consciousness?

Actuality: that which is the effect of some cause, the manifestation of a possibility in reality. I guess actuality would basically be the same thing as reality, but more so in the sense of that which is the culmination of some process, the final metamorphosis to "perfection". Also whatever is "illuminated", an actor with a name and a lead role surrounded by the forgettable and dispensable supporting cast.

All of these come across as fairly circular. Or co-dependent on something else. Being is what distinguishes that which is from that which isn't. Non-Being is what distinguishes that which is not from that which is.

I think it's best not to approach these terms with any pre-set meaning, as it were. Generally, their significance changes depending on what one is trying to do with them. Reality as distinct from what? Being as opposed to what? And what difference is such a difference trying to capture? When you read the history of philosophy, alot of the time it becomes clear that often, when two people talk about say, Being, they don't just advance two different perspectives on 'Being' - they are literally talking about two different things altogether, that just so happen to share the name 'Being'.

Of course, there can be overlaps and so on, and it's sometimes very productive to track what differing conceptions of 'Being' or 'Existence' or whathaveyou might be, but alot of the time this also entails tracking how the kind of work they do - the kinds of problems they are formulated in response to - changes along with them.

I was thinking this, but then it would be strange because truth would be determined by how one chooses to begin philosophy, and at the bottom there would be a fundamental incommensurability, no?

And I'm not sure, man. Being is generally used pretty vacuously. A rather indeterminate notion that can't be conceptualized. We say Being is, but nothing more about it.

Therefore pragmatism?

I'm not espousing a form of pragmatism, no. I've honestly never been able to make much sense of that. It seems evidently clear that the world around us has being, that being reveals itself to me as being meaningful, it has a particular ordering and form to it. We probably don't impose these forms, or ordering. I start with fairly basic beginnings - that is, if there even are beginnings at all in philosophy that aren't always-already developed.

Look, I've been on these forums since they've been built. And then I read the post on the ones prior to this before this one was built. I know the environment, I know people generally like content, but I'm asking a question; I'm not trying to debate anyone as of yet. — Marty

Trying to be helpful, not condescending. Failed.

I think it's best not to approach these terms with any pre-set meaning, as it were.... When you read the history of philosophy, alot of the time it becomes clear that often, when two people talk about say, Being, they don't just advance two different perspectives on 'Being' - they are literally talking about two different things altogether, that just so happen to share the name 'Being'. — StreetlightX

You don't have to look at the history of philosophy, just look at 60 percent of the threads on this site. I guess it could be a fruitful discussion if it were done with awareness. Too often it just makes for a muddy pool of misunderstanding, confusion, and scorn.

But the truth of what, exactly? If two differing conceptions of existence are talking about two different things, then there's no real incommensuribility.

Like, just advocating for a form of pluralism? I suppose that is interesting, Streetlight. Although, I'm just skeptical of it.

I don't think so.

Existence (from the web):

• the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
• presence; reality; world; actuality; being; essence
• what [would existence] add to an object. What is the difference between a red apple and a red existing apple?
• Empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe.
• Existence exists....something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness
• Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing.
• the world one is aware or conscious of through one's senses, and that persists independent of one's absence
• only universes with (at least the potential for) life and mind really exist.
• Ninety-nine people out of a hundred have not seriously considered what they mean by the term "exist" nor how a thing qualifies itself to be labelled real.
• Irony is the birth-pangs of the objective mind (based upon the misrelationship, discovered by the I, between existence and the idea of existence.
• All existence is particular. Only being is universal.
• the manifested world of things and beings
• Existence proceeds essence
• Essence, described as that whereby a thing is what it is. Existence is that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being.

What's interesting about your questions about philosophical terminology (at least 'being' predominantly) is that there's no ostensive definition available. It's quite a qualia if you ask me.

Like, just advocating for a form of pluralism? — Marty

Depends what you mean by pluralism of course! Perhaps I can put it this way: different conceptions of 'existence/being/etc' ought to shed light on different aspects of whatever it is that's under investigation. So when Heidegger's conception of Being differs from Aristotle's - to use a completely arbitrary example - it's not that Heidegger would be simply 'improving' on Aristotle's definition, it's that his conception would responding to different concerns and different motivations from Aristotle. He's trying to understand or work through a different set of problems than Aristotle was.

There's a post by Levi Bryant on his Larval Subjects blog that touches on some of this, worth reading in full, but here's a snippet:

"What philosophy interrogates or investigates is not what appears in the frame, but rather the frame which allows something to manifest at all. And in this respect, philosophy will be a battle of the frames, not a battle of truths. The great debates among philosophers are about something that precedes truthful or veridical statements. The great debates of philosophy are questions of how existence should be framed. See the issue is that existence is overwhelming. Frames make a selection from the infinity of existence, and in doing so draw attention to these features of being rather than those features of being. A frame is an imperative that says attend to or notice this type of existence." (in the context of this post, I'd amend the language here so that when Bryant says 'existence', I would replace that word with 'problems' or 'issues').

Differing understandings of being/existence, etc, are meant to do just this: draw attention to different things (even while they share the same 'name').

Thank you. I say we need Austin's Sense and Sensibilia to make a start on this job. ".... Austin examines the word ‘real’ and contrasts the ordinary meanings of that word based on everyday language and the ways it is used by sense-data theorists. In order to determine the meaning of ‘real’ we have to consider, case by case, the ways and contexts in which it is used. ... Only by doing so, according to Austin, can we avoid introducing false dichotomies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin

I shared this intuition after reading enough Heidegger -- mostly due to the idea of the ontological difference, which invoked multiple different ways of interpreting being. And that ulimately lead to a type of ontological pluralism for me,... but I'm sure not, man.

I'm skeptical because there's always people who just reject being, essences, substances, and fundamentally want to monopolize philosophy within their own system. I'm not one of those people, but certainly what's at stake in any philosophical debate isn't going to be accepting that any system works according to its own intrinsic system, but showing how certain terms are often incoherent. Take for example Schelling and Hegel, or Heidegger and Carnap.

How do you personally distinguish these terms:

Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality.

Of course the question concerns things like: Is existence actual, or actuality also entail existence? Are things with being also things that don't necessarily exist, etc? Are things with essences necessarily real, or exist? Does the world include the fictional? — Marty

Here's another term that is I believe is related: "Nature"

Is one's nature one's being?

Reality, existence, being, nature and actuality all seem to refer to the same thing - some state of affairs.

I have always thought about "world" referring to the Earth, or a planet, not all of existence. It seems that the term "world" being associated with "reality" or "existence" stems from the time when we used to think that the world Earth was all there was.

multiple different ways of interpreting being. — Marty

To be clear again, what I'm speaking of is multiple ways of talking about multiple things which just so happened to be named 'being'.

I'm not one of those people, but certainly what's at stake in any philosophical debate isn't going to be accepting that any system works according to its own intrinsic system... — Marty

Not according to it's 'own intrinsic system' no, but according to how well an approach allows us to see things in a new and productive light - what kind of new inferences we can make on it's basis, what new things it tells us about the phenomena it claims to investigate. Deleuze, as usual, gets to the heart of it: "Philosophy does not consist in knowing and is not inspired by truth. Rather, it is categories like Interesting, remarkable, or Important that determine success or failure. ... We will not say of many books of philosophy that they are false, for that is to say nothing, but rather that they lack importance or interest, precisely because they do not create any concept or contribute an image of thought." (Deleuze and Guattari, What Is Philosophy?).

How do you personally distinguish these terms: — Marty

By context.

Sorry, I don't see the difference between what you and I said. Yes, I realize you're invoking conceptual differences for the same word. I know you're not arguing semantics.

Well, see, I'm not sure if that really answers my question? Take for example, how Heidegger and Hegel speak about nothing could be seen as problematic by analytic philosophers? It might have a use-value, or say something interesting, but for a lot of people it ends up being incoherent, and then it to be repudiated for a better system. Not accepted as a system among other systems that all work in their own light.



Well yeah, I'm actually an eliminativist about qualia - at least in most contexts. But I'm not sure its completely vacuous since it generally talks about the subjective sensations - the "what is it like?" This isn't merely about nothing, though it is about no-thing in general.

Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality. — Marty

It's a verbal soup that that can vaguely be equivocated with "truth".

These terms can only be made useful if we give them specific and robust definitions at the outset, or at least provide direction or a scope of inquiry if we're to create useful ones ourselves. When people casually bust out words and phrases like "essence of self" feel free obligated to stop them and question exactly what they mean.

It takes too much effort to address every meaning that can possibly be interpreted from a string of ambiguous words (especially the various permutations when such terms are packed like sour sardines into a single paragraph). It makes much more sense to have the speaker clarify as best they can exactly what they're referring to (if context doesn't make it clear) when they use such semantically controversial terms.

P.S, in response to the intent of your OP: "actuality" is just a fancy word for "reality", which is the place in which we "exist". I can only explain what existence is by pointing to examples of it: chair; dog; log; you. Existence is a property of some things. It might also help to define (point to) non-existence: flying pigs; extraterrestrial abduction of humans; free energy; corporate benevolence... "Being" and "world" are more vague, so I'll opportunistically define "being" as a thing capable of "perceiving" a "world", where "perception" entails some gleaning of data from things which exist in actuality/reality, and where "world" comprises a series of perception based "understandings" that are ultimately limited by the being's mechanisms of perception. "Understanding" is when the world of a being reflects some aspect of actuality/reality/existence in a useful or demonstrable manner...

P.P.S. I could continue cooking up definitions that sound like arguments indefinitely, and maybe I can even provide to some what seems like clarity, but writing like this glosses over so much so quickly that really nothing of value ends up getting said at all. The hard rewards of such ontological approaches are quite fabled indeed. Long and boring logical and epistemic approaches (such as empiricism) should be exhausted before anything resembling final conclusions be reached concerning the topics you have mentioned. Until I can tell you the exact and best definitions of "true", "nature", and "existence" (let alone dealing with a question mark at the end) we're going to have to settle for boring and lengthily defined specifics when we reference and investigate something with controversial and ambiguous terms.

Wasn't "real" Austin's example of a "trouser word" -- a word whose negative wears the trousers, does the most work, is used more often?

Take for example, how Heidegger and Hegel speak about nothing could be seen as problematic by analytic philosophers? It might have a use-value, or say something interesting, but for a lot of people it ends up being incoherent, and then it to be repudiated for a better system. Not accepted as a system among other systems that all work in their own light. — Marty

I don't think those sorts of objections are worth much. They arise from a lack of understanding, and a failure to appreciate the conceptual work that those terms do. They speak more to the incomprehension of the objector than what it is they object to, imo.

Well, I guess I'm surprised in the level of confidence you have in some of these major continental thinkers. But I guess you read a lot of unusual secondary sources, and thinkers.

I'm not sure. Talk of essences are used quite colloquially, even. As if its intutive for people to know exactly what it means to talk about the essence of a thing. I think Plato and Aristotle in general can use quite clear images to speak about it.

And honestly, really ambiguous thinkers and text are the ones that survive time and are the most interesting. I'm not one to buy into the idea that things need to be concise, clear, offer particular definitions.

Yes, that is why I think it's a useful reference for this discussion. If we want to know what reality is then let's consider what is fake, illusory, fictional and all the other ways there are for things to be other than real. Reality is everything except that stuff. The approach makes us look at conceptual detail.

Reality, Existence, Being, World and Actuality.

Reality is when your card is rejected for lack of funds. Existence is what said funds lack. Being is all you have money left to do. World is the place this all happens in. And actuality is a guy who calculates risk for the insurance industry. Hope that clears it up.