I did read it, and didn't see a definition (e.g., 'existence' is <...>, 'existence' = <...>, etc.). What was it?

The closest I see is:

Existence as a whole, is the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved

Which is the same definition you gave originally, with the addition of more clarification of what you mean by 'everything'. This has the exact same issues as my response I linked; and you still haven't addressed any of it.

Am I missing something? Is that ^ your definition? Do you not see how that is circular (as I described in my response)?

Also, I am not asking for a definition of what the 'totality of existent things' is: I am asking for a definition of the concept of 'to exist'. It almost sounds like you may be conflating them, with "existence as a whole".

Also, I am not asking for a definition of what the 'totality of existent things' is: I am asking for a definition of the concept of 'to exist'. — Bob Ross

This was not in your initial request. You just asked me to define being, then in the next request, existence. Lets go over those first instead of continuing to add new requests.

Which is the same definition you gave originally, with the addition of more clarification of what you mean by 'everything'. This has the exact same issues as my response I linked; and you still haven't addressed any of it. — Bob Ross

No it does not. Please go down my response where I lay out what existence is. I do not say, "Existence = everything. I'm trying to answer your question adequately Bob, please address the answers I give adequately as well. Your old example no longer works. If you wish to apply everything as a synonym to existence, that's fine. But that's not the concept. Please go over the concepts I put forward and demonstrate where I fall into circularity please.

This was not in your initial request. You just asked me to define being, then in the next request, existence. Lets go over those first instead of continuing to add new requests.

It was the initial request, because we were referring to different things by the word ‘being’.

I was meaning in the traditional and common sense of ‘to be’; and you meant is as ‘a part of existence’.

To avoid getting into a debate about that, I simply semantically refurbished the term in my challenge. You have not succeeded in beating my challenge as of yet. You defined something which was not meant by ‘being’.

Please go down my response where I lay out what existence is

You did not provide a definition in this response, and you gave the definition “Existence being defined as 'everything'” in this response.

Philosophim, a really easy way to help, would be if you just clarified what the definition is. I have tried to be charitable here, but you are starting to evade the question. Just answer it clearly, or quote where it is that I missed it.

If you wish to apply everything as a synonym to existence, that's fine.

This is a straw man. I said that ‘being’ is a synonym for ‘existence’; and this is true in standard terminology (in both colloquial and formal areas of discourse). I think you are confusing ‘a being’ with ‘being’. Either way, it doesn’t matter: all I want you to do is define what it means ‘to exist’: does that make sense?

Please go over the concepts I put forward and demonstrate where I fall into circularity please.

Philosophim, I have linked TWO TIMES my demonstration; and you have ignored it TWO TIMES.
I will link it again: here’s my response.

Please go down my response where I lay out what existence is

You did not provide a definition in this response, and you gave the definition “Existence being defined as 'everything'” in this response. — Bob Ross

And I clearly stated that it was not a formal definition, just an off hand remark because I was trying to define being. So scratch it. You're supposed to analyze the formal definition I gave you as I asked you to.

Philosophim, a really easy way to help, would be if you just clarified what the definition is. — Bob Ross

Here it is again. This is what you should be analyzing.

No, that was not a formal definition. If you wish that, I will.

We observe the world in discrete identities. A discrete identity which is confirmed to match our perceptions (I claim that is an apple, and that is actually apple), is being. Existence as a whole, is the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved. As such, it is an abstract logical concept.

This requires me to amend being, as I had not formally defined existence. So a discrete identity is existence, but unless it is confirmed that the perceived identity is not contradicted by real application, it is not being. — Philosophim

Philosophim, I have linked TWO TIMES my demonstration; and you have ignored it TWO TIMES. — Bob Ross

And I've told you two times that it doesn't apply because you analyzed existence = everything as if that was how I was defining existence. I was not. But if you need, I'll demonstrate.

If ‘existence’ = ‘everything’, then: — Bob Ross

No. I did not say existence = a synonym as the definition. Below is the definition.

" Existence as a whole, is the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved."

1. ‘to be’ = ‘to exist’ = ‘to be everything’. the latter presupposes a concept of ‘to be’, ‘to exist’, which was supposed to be being defined.

I never stated these equivalencies above. I never even used the phrase 'to be'.

2. “this exists” = “this is everything”. Same problem as #1, and it makes no sense.

I never stated this either. So yes, it doesn't make any sense.

2. “that should not exist” = “that should not be everything”. this clearly makes no sense, and same problem as #1.

I agree. I have no idea where you got this.

3. “discrete existence” = “everything that exists discreetly”. Same problem as #1.

In no way did I note that an individual discrete 'existence' was the same as everything. I noted that being was a discrete slice of existence.

And that's enough. Please take what I posted above, go through that using the words I used, not phrases or words I didn't mention, and demonstrate where exactly the circularity occurs please.

I appreciate you re-quoting your definition!

So, here’s your definition:

Existence as a whole, is the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved

The first thing I am going to do, is slash out ‘as a whole’, because I am not asking you to define the totality of things that exist but, rather, what it means to exist (and ‘as a whole’ is indicating your are speaking about the totality of what exists, and not what it means to exist). So, your definition is really:

Existence as a whole, is the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved

So we have:

Existence is the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved

Now, remember you supposed to be defining what it means ‘to exist’.

To be charitable, I don’t think you even tried to define existence in the sense of ‘to exist’ but, rather, are defining ‘existence’ as the ~‘the whole’. I can demonstrate really easily how ‘to exist’ cannot be defined as what you have defined as ‘existence’:

If ‘existence’ is ‘the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved’, then we should be able to substitute anything relating to the word ‘existence’ in for ‘the sum of all <...>’. But if we do this, we get weird results. For example:

‘this thing exists’ = ‘this thing is the sum of all discrete identities <...>’.

At best, your definition of ‘existence’ can’t be used to refer to many instances of the usage of ‘existence’ (such as ‘to exist’, ‘exists’, ‘existed’, etc.) and thusly you haven’t answered my original question, other than to use the term ‘existence’ to refer to something it normally doesn’t refer to.

At worst, your definition is circular, if I assume you mean to define:

’to exist’ is to be the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved

‘to be’ is ‘to exist’. See the circularity?

To be fair, I think you are just defining ‘existence’ in a rather peculiar way, which is obvious in many examples (e.g., ‘this thing existed’ = ‘this thing was the sum of <...>’, etc.), and I think all you are noting is the totality of existence, instead of what existence is itself. If I, to be charitable, assume you mean it in this sense, then it is not circular but equally doesn’t answer my challenge: I was asking about what it means ‘to exist’? That is what ‘existence’ usually refers to.

Do you see what I mean? You seem to be confusing ‘what is the totality of what exists?’ with ‘what does it mean to exist?’. I don’t believe you are even claiming to answer the latter, which was the subject of discussion.

Bob

To be charitable, I don’t think you even tried to define existence in the sense of ‘to exist’ but, rather, are defining ‘existence’ as the ~‘the whole’. I can demonstrate really easily how ‘to exist’ cannot be defined as what you have defined as ‘existence’: — Bob Ross

No charitableness to it, I did not bother trying to define 'to exist'. As noted earlier I wanted to cover existence and being first, as this needs to go step by step. Now that we're good there, I will.

Knocking out existence's 'as a whole' is fine. It was meant to emphasize we're talking about existence, not existences. You don't say "Existences to exist". You say, "That" exists. And when something exists, its a 'to exist'. In other words, 'to exist' is just another terminology to note that something is a slice, or discrete part of existence. To exist, is being.

No circularity. Just a few base words of existence and being, then followed by synonyms based on sentence structure.

You didn't define what it means to exist; and that was the whole point.

It irrelevant what you call the entirety of reality, or a parcel of reality. I want to know how you define what it means to exist (which is what 'existence' commonly refers to).

It was meant to emphasize we're talking about existence, not existences.

"existence" here is supposed to be referring to the general and generic quality of existing; and not 'the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved': your definition just doesn't cover what the word refers to. If I take your definition seriously, then:

"It was meant to emphasize we're talking about existence, not existences." = "It was meant to emphasize we're talking about the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved, not multiple sums of all discrete identities observed and unobserved."

If existence = X, then existence = plurality of X. Your use of 'existence', and its variants, betray your own meaning.

This completely misses the mark, and is confusing.

You don't say "Existences to exist". You say, "That" exists

Correct. But do you see how the word 'exist' here isn't referring to what you have been calling 'existence' and how that is really weird?

According to your logic:

"that exists" = "that is the sum of <...>"

There's no escaping that under your terminology, because that's how you defined it. Obviously, this doesn't work, as 'that exists' is referring to the quality of existing; and you haven't defined that. This is what I have been trying to get you to define.

'to exist' is just another terminology to note that something is a slice, or discrete part of existence

The quality of existing, property of existence, 'to exist', does not refer to a slice of existence: it refers to existing itself.

So, let me ask one more time in different terminology: how do you define the generic quality of existing?

Or another way: how do you define what it means to exist?

Or another way: how do you define the concept of existing?

I feel like, at this point, my question is very clear: do those questions not make sense to you?

Bob

"existence" here is supposed to be referring to the general and generic quality of existing; and not 'the sum of all discrete identities observed and unobserved': your definition just doesn't cover what the word refers to. — Bob Ross

You ask me to give you a definition of existence that doesn't devolve into circularity, then when I do, you're saying my definition doesn't fit what you think it means. Do you see the problem? You can't ask me to give you a definition, then say, "That's not what I wanted you to define it as."

If existence = X, then existence = plurality of X. Your use of 'existence', and its variants, betray your own meaning. — Bob Ross

No, now you're disregarding things I've written. Existence = X. Being equals "some piece of X". Existences are the reference to beings, so "pieces of X".

This completely misses the mark, and is confusing. — Bob Ross

Because its not what I stated or implied. You seem more confused that I defined it in a way you wouldn't. As you consider existence a circular definition, obviously I won't be defining it the same as yourself. That's not an argument against me when you asked me to give you definitions that were non-circular. If you want other people to define a word a certain way, its best to do it yourself instead of asking.

Correct. But do you see how the word 'exist' here isn't referring to what you have been calling 'existence' and how that is really weird? — Bob Ross

No. Because I already mentioned that 'to exist' is a synonym of being, not existence.

There's escaping that under your terminology, because that's how you defined it. Obviously, this doesn't work, as 'that exists' is referring to the quality of existing; and you haven't defined that. — Bob Ross

So every time I define words, you're not going to take a word I didn't bother defining and pull it into the conversation as if I agree to your definition of it, then say its confusing?

The quality of existing, property of existence, 'to exist', does not refer to a slice of existence: it refers to existing itself. — Bob Ross

No. You told me to define a word. I did. You don't get to then say, "No, that's not the word." I have been more than generous entertaining this, and its enough. You are not engaging with me or my definitions and seem caught up in your own understanding which you seem unable to accurately communicate. You keep making up new words I have to define as we go without first addressing what I've defined so far as I've defined it so far. I don't take it personally, as it can happen in any discussion we get passionate about. I think its time to gently cut it off now though, because it isn't going anywhere productive at this point.

The entire point was to give you a platform to come up with a moral theory that would contradict mine right? We've gotten too far away from that. If you want to continue to discuss your theory of morality in its own thread, feel free and see if you can make better headway. As it is, I think you need to think on it some more, organize your thoughts, and try again at a later time. As such, I'm not buying into an intrinsic values morality for the reasons I've stated earlier. It doesn't mean I'm correct or that you're wrong, it means that at this point in the conversation, I have not seen a substantial enough reason for me to consider it a complete enough theory, and its just time to move on.

If you would like, we can continue the conversation on the moral theory that's the topic of this thread, or take a break. I leave it to you.

If you would like to end our discussion, then I completely respect that. I am more than willing to continue, but I only want to if you want to—afterall, this is your thread!

I will respond to your post, and will leave it up to you, since this is your thread, if you would like to continue the discussion, segue into a different discussion, or end the discussion (altogether).

You ask me to give you a definition of existence that doesn't devolve into circularity, then when I do, you're saying my definition doesn't fit what you think it means. Do you see the problem? You can't ask me to give you a definition, then say, "That's not what I wanted you to define it as."

I completely understand the frustration you are expounding here; but I don’t think you are being charitable to my challenge. Let me briefly explain.

Imagine I asked you: “Can you non-circularly define what an orange is?”
Imagine you answer: “Of course, an orange is a really fast truck”.

Technically, you “beat” the challenge; but, in a more meaningful sense, you evaded, inadvertently, the challenge. I was asking about the fruit we are both thinking of, what is commonly referred to by an orange, and not whether you can come up with any non-circular definition that you could semantically assign the term “orange” (such as “a really fast truck”).

So, since this doesn’t address the intentions of the challenge, I have no choice but to try to guide you to what I mean by an orange, which is that fruit, to try to get you to try to define that thing. You could easily, and analogously, complain, rightly, that you did exactly what I asked (technically); but it misses the intentions of the question.

I was asking you to define what it means to exist (which is what is usually referred to as ‘existence’), and not asking you to come up with any definition that you could semantically assign the word ‘existence’. Do you see what I mean?

If existence = X, then existence = plurality of X. Your use of 'existence', and its variants, betray your own meaning. — Bob Ross

No, now you're disregarding things I've written. Existence = X. Being equals "some piece of X". Existences are the reference to beings, so "pieces of X".

I apologize: that’s a typo. It was supposed to say “if existence = X, then existences = plurality of X”. My point was that in your own sentence, which referred to ‘existence’ in a singular and plural fashion, betrayed its own meaning; insofar as the plural version didn’t make any sense.

No. Because I already mentioned that 'to exist' is a synonym of being, not existence.

Philosophim, do you see how that indicates you have a bad schema? That ‘exist’ doesn’t refer or relate whatsoever to ‘existence’? That violates basic grammar rules. A better explanation would be that ‘being’ is a synonym for ‘existence’, which is how it is usually used.
That’s like me saying ‘red is the number 2 and blue is the number 3’ and then saying “but ‘to be red’ is referring ‘blue’, not ‘red’”. It’s ungrammatical, even if one accepts the semantics.


Bob

Honestly I'm a little peeved that you disregarded my points about values, took a complete tangent to a discussion of being, then put it on me to prove your point for you. Let me be clear. You did not make a good point about values or existence. It is sorely incomplete. This did not distract me from those points. And when I give a good faith effort to address something so far from the original subject of morality, I do not expect to be accused of evading or misunderstanding what you wanted when you never clearly defined the parameters well to begin with. A little more humbleness on your part and a little less accusations towards myself would be welcome.

My advice again is to regroup, think about your theory from the bottom up again, and see if you can address your point clearly enough that you don't need another person to define things for you. My first pass at my knowledge theory didn't quite work at points, and I had to do some revisions to find the right wording. So don't feel bad if this first go around didn't work. If that takes time its fine, I should be around. If for now you want to address other issue of the moral theory in the OP, we can continue there. You may have had some other criticisms or points that didn't involve the intrinsic values theory. But the current discussion on existence and being is unsalvageable from my viewpoint and needs to shift elsewhere.

I am sorry you feel that way. From my perspective, I gave you two different ways to think about intrinsic value, you ignored both, and segued immediately into a discussion about how you will reject the whole theory if I cannot define 'value' other than as an unanalyzable, simple concept.

Therefore, I had no choice but to try to convey to you the Moorean idea of primitive concepts; but that didn't latch. So I tried giving the example of 'being', because that is the most obvious example of it (that every philosopher I have ever known recognizes as such); but that didn't latch either. I was hoping to then, by analogy, demonstrate why some of your critiques of an unanalyzable concept were completely off (such as claiming it is 'subjective'); but I have failed to even get the idea across to you of what an absolutely simple concept is: if you don't understand how it is impossible to define what it means to exist, then I am at a loss of words how to explain what a simple concept is to you.

My ethical theory is Moorean, insofar as it posits the concept of 'good' and 'value' as primitive and absolutely simple. Ironically, I don't think people are going to care about that part of the analysis: when I say 'value' is 'worth', people will understand sufficiently what I mean, just like how they will understand that 'being' is 'existence'. Maybe I am wrong about that, but we will find out soon enough when I open a thread on it.

In terms of your theory, I think I understand it more than adequately (at this point), and disagree with it. So I don't think there is much more to discuss.

Until we speak again!
Bob

From my perspective, I gave you two different ways to think about intrinsic value, you ignored both, and segued immediately into a discussion about how you will reject the whole theory if I cannot define 'value' other than as an unanalyzable, simple concept. — Bob Ross

I did not ignore both. I had to understand an objective term of 'value' before 'intrinsic value' made any sense. I also had a definition of value that was analyzable that you did not refute. So its fairly reasonable that I wouldn't consider intrinsic value if I had no reason to accept your definition of value right?

if you don't understand how it is impossible to define what it means to exist, then I am at a loss of words how to explain what a simple concept is to you. — Bob Ross

Its a hard lesson, but if a person is genuinely open to understanding what you're trying to convey, and they respond that it does not make sense and disagree with your viewpoint, that's not on the reader. That's on the writer. The reason I'm shutting this aspect of the conversation down has nothing to do with your or my points. Maybe we could have hashed out a solution with a normal approach. It has to do with the fact that you have had the attitude that it is my fault I don't understand what you're trying to explain. At that point, it is no longer a discussion but a one-sided view. It happens. Passions run high. But I've learned that that's when a discussion needs to end.

Ironically, I don't think people are going to care about that part of the analysis: when I say 'value' is 'worth', people will understand sufficiently what I mean, just like how they will understand that 'being' is 'existence'. Maybe I am wrong about that, but we will find out soon enough when I open a thread on it. — Bob Ross

A good idea! Maybe your idea as a fresh take apart from the context of this conversation I'll see what you're trying to convey more clearly.

In terms of your theory, I think I understand it more than adequately (at this point), and disagree with it. So I don't think there is much more to discuss. — Bob Ross

Not a problem, you already got a free handwave as I mentioned earlier. :) I appreciate the discussion and had a lot of fun diving into it with you. I'll catch you on another post Bob.

I just want to clarify, that I was in no way intending to convey that it is your fault that you don't understand what I mean by an absolutely simple concept; I was just noting that, for whatever reason, I was unable to convey it to you. It happens, unfortunately.

I also had a definition of value that was analyzable that you did not refute

If you are referring to the definition that it is 'what ought to be', then I did counter that.

So its fairly reasonable that I wouldn't consider intrinsic value if I had no reason to accept your definition of value right?

I agree insofar as, at the end of the day, you could say "Bob, I reject your view because I disagree with your definition of 'value'"; but not in the sense that you should shut down the conversation without one (in my opinion).

I could have easily shut down the conversation about your theory at the beginning with your proof that 'existence is good' is objective, since I completely reject it altogether, but I granted it to see where the conversation goes.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't see why you can't grant 'value' as 'worth', even if that disatisifies you, to discuss the aspects of intrinsic value we were conversing about. I don't think the definition is as important as you may think; and perhaps that is the real source of our disagreement (;

Not a problem, you already got a free handwave as I mentioned earlier. :) I appreciate the discussion and had a lot of fun diving into it with you. I'll catch you on another post Bob.

To you as well, my friend!