Try formulating your usual arguments without using it, and see how far you get. — Janus
So here, the term "existential" demarcates a kind of dependency not a kind of existence. — creativesoul
The presupposition of existence does not require language use for it happens in autonomous fashion within non-linguistic thought/belief. — creativesoul
I think you're being a bit slippery here. The term 'existential' demarcates a kind of dependency which is understood in terms of existence, not of some or other mere function. — Janus
For example something which has only fictional existence is existentially dependent on an author, and you might argue, since its existence is only imagined and if it obtains its existence only in the act of imagining, by those who imagine it; that is, the readers. — Janus
The presupposition of existence does not require language use for it happens in autonomous fashion within non-linguistic thought/belief.
— creativesoul
Right, so it is not an empty concept, that adds nothing to our understanding of things, at all. — Janus
What happens when we lose the talk about kinds of existence?
Clarity.
For example fiction is existentially dependent upon an author. — creativesoul
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
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 actually relating to the tree. — Merkwurdichliebe
The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.
Thus, there is a sensible way to talk about and/or use the term "existence" without talking about kinds of existence. — creativesoul
...it remains the case that the idea of existence or being is basic to human thinking... — Janus
The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.
Thus, there is a sensible way to talk about and/or use the term "existence" without talking about kinds of existence.
— creativesoul
So, you agree that the idea of existence predates language. — Janus
Existential dependency includes both internal and external elements. — creativesoul
I cannot agree. The idea of existence comes after something to talk about. Thus, in terms of being basic to human thinking, the idea of existence is attached to something. Prior to talking in terms of a tree's existence, we first learn to talk about the tree. — creativesoul
No, and you've got me re-considering the best way to parse non linguistic correlation. — creativesoul
The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language. — creativesoul
It may be interesting to compare/contrast our different methods. I mean I'm wondering what would happen if I attempted to translate the practice when one is setting out different kinds of existence into terms of existential dependency and/or vice versa.
Interested? — creativesoul
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. — Merkwurdichliebe
I cannot agree. The idea of existence comes after something to talk about. Thus, in terms of being basic to human thinking, the idea of existence is attached to something. Prior to talking in terms of a tree's existence, we first learn to talk about the tree.
— creativesoul
No, and you've got me re-considering the best way to parse non linguistic correlation.
— creativesoul
And yet you said this,
The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.
— creativesoul
which seems inconsistent with your later avowal of disagreement. — Janus
On the face of it I imagine that the kind of existential dependency will vary with the different kinds of existence. I don't generally think in terms of existential dependency though; it's not really my thing. Laying it out in various contexts just seems to consist in elaborating on the basic notion that things are determined by what precedes them, and for me that is something that may safely be taken for granted. — Janus
Could we also not say that the thing is existentially dependent upon other things? — creativesoul
There is a difference between the presupposition of existence within non-linguistic thought/belief and an idea of existence. — creativesoul
I'm thinking that all the talk about kinds of existence can be effectively replaced by better language use. The "better" would be earned by keeping all the benefits while losing some of the detriments, maybe all?
There may be mistaken assumptions hard at work. That can happen when we take things for granted. — creativesoul
The idea of existence or being is just the broadest most general concept we can apply to all objects of thought and experience. — Janus
That's fine, but the supplementary story is that language enables us to talk about different kinds of existence. — Janus
It is in those where I claim that 'relative utility' rather than 'absolute evidence' comes to the fore. — fresco
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
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.