Kant criticized Anslem's ontological argument for God's existence on the basis that existence is not a property. — EnPassant
’Existence’ requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation.
Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. Within the finite realm issues of conflict between, for example, autonomy (Greek: 'autos' - self, 'nomos' - law) and heteronomy (Greek: 'heteros' - other, 'nomos' - law) abound (there are also conflicts between the formal/emotional and static/dynamic). Resolution of these conflicts lies in the essential realm (the Ground of Meaning/the Ground of Being) which humans are cut off from yet also dependent upon. i
I see it as a state of being, but of being commensurable. If nothing truly exists, it is incommensurable and therefore meaningless. — gloaming
Existence’ requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation. — Bishop Whalon
Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. — Tillich
In traditional cultures - including Anselm’s - this was understood through an implicit understanding of the ‘uncreated’. It was understood that everything ‘here below’ - that is, created being - existed in a relation of dependency on ‘the uncreated’ — Wayfarer
In short, first the objects must have properties and only then can we say that a given object exists. Look at the way we define objects in the real world. Isn't it through properties? — TheMadFool
Part of the problem with existence, in philosophy, is that existence is seen as a verb or a process. Existence, in itself, is a noun, a substance. If X has properties X is not brought into existence by its properties. If that was the case reality would be just a set of properties with no supporting substance, which is absurd. It is worth showing why existence cannot be a property, or a result of properties, to see the thing more clearly.
Existence cannot be a property:
Assume X has the property 'existence'. In this respect we consider X and existence to be distinct entities (otherwise X is equivalent to existence and there is nothing to prove). We now ask the question; Does X exist (as a distinct entity)? There are two answers;
1. X exists.
If this is the case existence, as a property of X, is superfluous since X exists anyhow. Therefore X is equivalent to existence.
2. X does not exist.
It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties, let alone the property existence.
Clearly, if X is to have properties, it must exist 'first' in which case its existence cannot be conferred upon it by its properties.
'X exists' is incoherent if by that it is meant that X is in some kind of process.
'Existence has property X' is correct.
For all X, X is existence or a property of existence. Existence is the substance of all properties.
Consider an amorphous lump of bronze (existence). The bronze can be shaped into a horse. The horse is a property of the bronze. Likewise with existence and its properties.
Existence, as a noun, evolves by way of aquiring properties (star, dolphin, city etc) and becomes active. One only needs to understand that existence is a substance. It is what is, before anything else. — EnPassant
So for existence2 properties (except existence itself) are prior to the claim of existence. — TheMadFool
We say dragons have scales, wings, claws and breathes fire. In other words, in an imaginary world existence is prior to properties. — TheMadFool
And what amounts to proof?
Properties of objects right? An elf has to be seen, heard, touched, photographed, etc. Existence2 is dependent on properties exhibited by an object (an elf). — TheMadFool
Clearly, the perfections of an imaginary God are nothing if such a god does not exist. — EnPassant
What then is existence if it is not a property of anything but has properties?
It is the potential to actualise properties.
In this respect existence must be a substance. An eternal substance that contains all possible properties and sustains all actual properties.
we cannot work back through the chain of properties endlessly. It cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. We must come to some entity that is not a property of anything. In which case it is a substance. This substance is existence. It is the true supporting substance of all properties and there can be no properties without it.
We cannot say, of such a thing, that 'It exists' because there seems to be two things there; 'It' and 'exists'. We should simply say 'Existence is'. It is existence that actualises properties and without it, there would be nothing. — EnPassant
Yes, but that does not tell us what existence actually is. It cannot be simply a collection of properties. If you examine any property you will see that it requires some substance to actualise it. (see the example of the coin, below). — EnPassant
Your ''substance'' is real insofar as it is perceptible to our senses or through instruments. We can't talk of ''substance'' without properties, right? Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. — TheMadFool
...to make properties actual? What does "actual" mean? — Michael Ossipoff
That just has arbitrarily-made-up sound. An unnecessary multiplication of entities, making for a crowded, assumption-heavy metaphysics.
That's not 'existence' - it is 'being', 'esse' is the Latin term. 'Existence' is a compound word derived from 'ex-' apart from and 'ist', to stand. So I would argue that something that 'exists' is by definition compound and temporal, whereas if you are speaking of 'being as such', nearer in meaning to 'esse' or 'ouisia' (which is the Greek term from which 'substance' was derived), then this is something that transcends existence (as per the references in my post above.) — Wayfarer
This ultimate substance must exist if properties are to exist. To say that properties can create existence is like saying 'hot' can create the metal that actualizes (makes real) the property 'hot'. — EnPassant
Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. It's the way the world is.I don't like it but that's how it is. — TheMadFool
Hahaha, funny! Do you wish you had an essential substance that didn't rely on properties? — Marchesk
I do think you have a point but to talk of your ''substance'' without properties is extremely difficult if not impossible. — TheMadFool
I think I have an analogy. Your friend is in New York and you're in Washington. His existence can only be known to you through a phone for example. The phone is your senses and detects the properties, the only evidence of existence, of your friend's ''substance''.
Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. It's the way the world is.I don't like it but that's how it is. — TheMadFool
But without the property ''hot'' or ''cold'' or whatever we couldn't say that metal or any other thing exists. — TheMadFool
How do we discuss this unnameable substance? — TheMadFool
Plotinus talks about unknowable 'first things' in God/the void. — EnPassant
There's another situation which is similar to trying to understand the unanameable -that of a baboon trying to understand calculus. Are you saying we're like the baboon? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.