Excellent post, I find it very enlightening.

In other words, the non-existence of an object is understood to refer to a constructed object within one universe, that has no equivalently constructed partner within another universe, thereby making non-existence a relation between two universes. — sime

It could get very complex. Unicorn as idea is one thing, unicorn as image another, unicorn as dressed up horse is yet another, and finally unicorn as progeny of unicorn, all represent different types of existence for the unicorn.

Conversely, constructive logic guarantees that an existential quantifier can always be replaced by a reference to a particular bearing the relevant properties.

By constructive logic, "X exists" doesn't refer to a spiritual essence of a particular to which one is presently acquainted,i.e. uniqueness, but merely expresses the ability to locate or to create at least one object possessing the observational properties described by the predicate 'X'. — sime

This is very applicable to the notion of "I exist" in its sentiential existence. But in the immediate identification of myself as the existing "I" , there is something that can only be discovered/created by me, since I am the one object possessing the observational properties described by the predicate. It is much more difficult to mediate my actual existence, than it is to mediate my abstract thought/belief about that existence. What is required is that I objectifiy the "I" as much as possible through abstraction, so that it can become a quantifiable variable, like the unicorn or Elvis.

Surely you guys are missing the point that human word 'existence' implies 'functional for human purposes'. — fresco

Doesn't that depend on how an individual is thinking about the term?

Doesn't that depend on how an individual is thinking about the term? — Terrapin Station

Actual existing and thinking about existence are two different things.

Actual existing and thinking about existence are two different things. — Merkwurdichliebe

What does that have to do with my comment about what words imply?

Perhaps, that what words imply does not necessarily correspond to what is.

Perhaps, that what words imply does not necessarily correspond to what is. — Merkwurdichliebe

Okay, but my comment wasn't in the vein of "what words imply corresponds to what is." So I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment.

Sorry if I missed your Q about 'fact' vs truth'. My own position is that all words, including 'fact' 'truth, and 'existence' denote concepts , not 'things in themselves' which I take to be a meaningless concept.
Words are the 'currency' of thinking and I am arguing that 'existence of X' implies only the 'utility' of the concept X, for human purposes. It does not imply that 'X hs a state of being' independent of human utility.
As for 'facts' (from the Latin facere to construct) I take these to denote 'agreement as to what is the constructed case'. 'Is-ness' is a construction.
I take 'truth' to be a word denoting 'confidence about what is the case'.

That’s a big problem. I’m outta here!

who knows what 'dead flies' humans may be 'missing' ? — fresco

A question that's always haunted me (in a good way :smile: ). But it's another topic, and I doubt there is much appetite here to discuss such things.

Is there?

Instead of talking about 'exhibiting' why not talk about 'expectancy of physicality' or otherwise...'physicality' being merely one form of relationship users ascribe to a concept. (Santa Claus is a concept with differential physical expectancies for children and adults). I don't think you need evoke 'different universes' on the basis that all concepts 'exist' on the basis of 'functionality for the user'.

Anything and everything we can know about existence is a reletavisic truth approximation. — Merkwurdichliebe

This is a perfect example that proves the point I made earlier about unnecessarily complex language use.

Think about it this way... if what you say here is true, then anything and everything knowable about existence is relative, and the term "relative" is not doing anything at all. It's not telling us anything about our knowledge, unless it is being invoked against claims of absolute knowledge. Are people still claiming that too?

I find the dichotomy yet another linguistic bottle to get trapped within. There are better ways to account for the world and/or ourselves. The concept of "existence" is determined entirely by us. Not all concepts of "existence" are on equal footing. Common sense helps discriminate between notions/conceptions/frameworks/schema.

The term "existence" exists. All terms are existentially dependent upon language use. All language use is existentially dependent upon pre-linguistic thought/belief. All thought/belief consists entirely of meaningful correlations drawn between different things. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, regardless of further subsequent qualification.

All philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon same things as terms are. After-all, they are existentially dependent upon terminological use.

What does the notion of "relative" existence add here? Better yet, does it help or hinder our understanding?

The term "existence" has meaning attributed to it that is relative to the users. Things existed prior to language, and thus prior to the term.

That which exists has an affect/effect.

The term "existence" has meaning attributed to it that is relative to the users.

Things existed prior to language, and thus prior to the term.

Your second sentence does not follow from the first. 'Things' are focal interaction events (or predicted interactions) by current users. And the concept of 'prior' may also be contingent on current user's concept of 'time' . These points illustrate what I mean by 'the relativity of existence'.

Doubtful. The relativity of existence itself depends on the absoluteness of existence.
Without an absolute, you can't have relative proportions.
Relativity deals with each bread slice, but you can't have bread slices without bread - and that's the realm of the absolute.

'Existence' is a human concept, and like all concepts requires context in which it is meaningful. — fresco

That's not so. Now, there are human concepts of existence, but they deal with the understanding of existence.
Existence itself is not a human concept and does not require anything save for itself; whereas everything else does require it.

Sorry if I missed your Q about 'fact' vs truth'. My own position is that all words, including 'fact' 'truth, and 'existence' denote concepts , not 'things in themselves' which I take to be a meaningless concept. — fresco

What do you figure the concepts are about? For example, the concept "dog." You don't think that's about "things in themselves" that we're calling "dogs" but it's about what instead?

Concepts are 'expectancies of potential events involving the conceiver'. The concept 'dog' (represented by that word ) brings to kind either a general or detailed expectancy which differs from that of say 'horse'. Other cultures may not have expectancy boundaries like ours. The Zulu word luhlaza for example can mean what we call either 'blue' or 'green'.

The first thing I'm confused about there is what people are expecting. Do you mean expecting experiences? Of what--concepts?

Yes they are expecting potential 'experiencies'.

Yes they are expecting potential 'experiencies'. — fresco

Experiences of concepts? "Things-in-themselves"?

If a Brit hears a report that "a football player kicked the ball" his experience ( mental imagary) will be different to that of an American hearing the same sentence. In neither case of 'the report' need there be an actual situation involving a 'physical ball in itself referred to in order to understand that 'conceptualization' is transcendent of of the time\place\identity requirements normally attached to a lay idea of 'thing in itself'. Concptualization always involves a behavioral contextual social backcloth against which 'things' denote significant focal events.

So experiencing language that others utter?

It includes experiencing a projected context in which 'others or 'selves' might do the uttering.

Experiencing a projected context? I have no idea what that refers to. How does anyone (or anything) project a context, and just what would it consist of (physically, for example)?

Do we ever, in real life, utter a single word without a contextual scenario ?

Does a stranger suddenly stick his head round your door and say 'dog' ? ...Okay, lets say that happened...if you actually heard the word 'dog' (and even that might not happen if you weren't expecting it)...would you not immediately embellish that word with a scenario ...has he lost his dog ?....has he found a dog and think its mine?....is he being abusive?...etc

IMO discussion the word 'dog' in the abstract is an example of what I have called 'seminaritis', and such seminars operate on a 'representalist' view of language which I have already discounted.

You seem to have not understood that I was literally asking you to explain the phrase "projected context."

So it's just another way of saying that there is some context, and that people usually speak in sentences, paragraphs, etc., relative to some context?

(the word "projected" seems weird to me for that, but okay, if that's all you had in mind)

But it is the assumption of no context which fuels the idea that the concept of 'existence' implies 'an absolute state of being',
Are you following me ?

At the moment, I'm interested in your account of concepts. So that's why I'm asking questions about it.

Your account of concepts is important for the thread, because you're hinging your argument on claims about what we're doing with concepts, how concepts work, etc.

Common sense helps discriminate between notions/conceptions/frameworks/schema. — creativesoul

Good.
—————

Not all concepts of "existence" are on equal footing. — creativesoul

Better.
—————

The concept of "existence" is determined entirely by us. — creativesoul

Best.

Existence: an absolutely necessary empirical condition for human experience, because its negation admits an impossibility.

It isn’t existence that’s relative; what is relative is the paradigm under which existence is understood, re: things exist as they are, or things exist as they appear to us. And THAT is the problem: we do not have the means to know with apodeictic certainty which paradigm is true.

All language does is fuel the war.

The term "existence" has meaning attributed to it that is relative to the users.

Things existed prior to language, and thus prior to the term.

Your second sentence does not follow from the first. — fresco

Nor need it.

Are you claiming that nothing existed prior to language? Are you claiming that nothing exists prior to our reporting upon it?

I don't think that those two options are exhaustive/adequate.

Exhaustive.....perhaps not; but the two options are certainly adequate for conceptualizing that particular problem. Unless one does not accept the classic rendition of “relative existence” as the proper problem.