How should we use it. As a verb? An adjective? — Merkwurdichliebe

:yum:

Well, if it's not a personal question, are you a virgin? — Banno

It depends why you're asking. You wanna wrassle?

She is.

A

She is. — Banno

Are you asking if she is a "virgin", or if she is "actually" a virgin?

Yeah. Must be. She is. Definitely...

Oh, don't worry about him, sir. He's ma-- he's m-- he's ma-- he-- he-- he's m-- m-- m-- he's m-- he's m--

He's mad, sir.

What do you think about the proposition:

"actually exists" does not include the term "actually"?

???

I think that the person who would say that is very confused. Not the least reason for which is that "Actually exists" isn't a proposition.

I think that the person who would say that is very confused. Not the least reason for which is that "Actually exists" isn't a proposition. — Terrapin Station

Very good sir. I concur.

The question mark is a bit of a giveaway, too.

Anyway, get on with the story.

So do I.

Right. That's the motion to get on with it, passed with, uh, one abstention. I now propose that we go without further ado. May I have a seconder for...

@Merkwurdichliebe You could've just said actual existence is conceived existence, and just add a 'not' before each term for the opposite.

So and so.

We don't want any more Samaritans around here.

Alright, continue wanting not wanting. :victory:

:razz:

You don't have to do this. You don't have to take orders.

Enjoy it. It's your last chance, anyhow. So,...

I'm not deleting all that. Too much work. But if we could just call cut on the Life of Brian redux and get back on topic. Pretty please.

I did answer your point by asserting that only 'philosophers' tend to talk about 'a tree's existence' (period).
Merdwurdichliebe is correct in saying disputes about 'existence' have important psychological implications with respect to 'social norms of thinking', but IMO, philosophers are producing word salad unless they recognize that 'trees exist' is either a tautology in the sense that all concepts 'exist', or that the word 'tree', implies a contextual expectancy of potential interaction for the user.

expectancy of potential interaction for the user.
1h — fresco

Do you expect a potential interaction with the Big Bang? How so?

Of course ! The concept of the 'Big Bang' immediately raises my potential interaction with at least the literature on the subject, and related concepts like 'time'.
Compare your question with : 'Do you expect a potential interaction with 'splonk'?...the point being that 'the Big Bang' is already in the social domain of shared projects, whereas 'splonk' is not (until now maybe !:wink: )

At least you recognised it. What does this say about the state of modern education, when reciting the classics goes unnoticed?

The point, of course, is that this thread, like so many here, is a muddle. Relative and absolute are not the sort of thing it makes much sense to predicate to existence. So if one is going to so do, one is obliged to make sense of it all by connecting it to our other understandings of these terms.

SO

This proposed 'relativity of existence' seems to me to render most philosophical discussion of 'ontology' to be what Wittgenstein called Geschwätz (idle chatter). — fresco

drew my ire. Thou shalt not take His name in vain; that is, don't invoke Wittgenstein when what you are proposing is so unclear...

when reciting the classics goes unnoticed? — Banno

Even more classic are "the meaning of life" and "holy grail".

*Runs away*

Relative and absolute are not the sort of thing it makes much sense to predicate to existence. — Banno

It just needs to be unmuddled. Consider a thing that exists. What makes it exist as a tree? Does its existence as a tree depend on its relations to other things? Or is its existence as a tree restricted to its own device and independent of any relation?

I don't think it can be un-muddled.

The question "what makes it exist as a tree?" is full of philosophical presumption.

The question "what makes it exist as a tree?" is full of philosophical presumption. — Banno

You could put the question another way: "what is necessary for a tree to exist?"

the point being that 'the Big Bang' is already in the social domain of shared projects, whereas 'splonk' is not (until now maybe !:wink: ) — fresco

'Splonk' is a term (perhaps no longer) used in the automotive body repair industry (in Adelaide at least) to refer to the two part body fillers that are used to fill dents. There are also other idiomatic usages of this term it seems:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SPLONK
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Splonking

It's still a dreadful question. Look at how necessity and existence are used in modal logic.

It's still asking if existence is red.

Hm. No need to go even that far. @Merkwurdichliebe used "splonk" as an example of a word with no use...