Existence

Is it paradoxical to ask what existence is without already knowing the meaning of the term "is"? A statement such as "there is a crate of oranges in front of me" seems like a statement about the "existence of oranges." But at the same time what does it mean to say that the "crate of oranges" exists? Existence seems like the most intuitive and indubitable metaphysical pronouncement and yet at the same time it evades clear definition. I suppose you can say "the orange crate exists because you can pick an orange up or it exists because you can observe it." But it seem like their is something more to saying something exists than that, but I can't put my finger on it.

Comments

I see your point - asking, "What is existence?" does seem to be like asking about the existence of existence. That is, the question seems to presuppose the very "thing" that is being inquired about. Existence surely does seem to evade clear definition. Maybe we define things in terms of attributes and to exist is to be a kind of place holder for predicates. Got me. Thanks for a great question

Yes, we do think that things exist which we cannot pick up or see. (For instance, we say that numbers exist, or that the center of mass of the solar system does.) What precisely do we mean by "exists" then? That's one problem you raise. I'm not sure how to answer it: the notion of "existence" seems so basic, it's hard to imagine much light being shed on it from other, yet clearer, notions.

But you raise another question: whether there's something problematic in even asking what "exists" means. Your thought is that there is, since the question itself involves the notion of existence. I'm not sure that it does: In asking for clarification of a notion, we're not asking whether that notion exists (whatever that means). You might say that we're asking what "exists" means. And although it's not clear exactly what we're doing when we ask what a word means, it doesn't seem right to say that we're asking whether something exists.

Of course, your paradox could perhaps be reinstated by shifting our focus to the word "means". What does "means" mean, you might now ask. Here you might argue as follows: either we know what "means" means, in which case, there's no point in asking this question; or we don't know what "means" means, in which case we don't even understand the question. In sum, if we understand the original question then there's no point in asking it. This issue has been kicking around since Plato's day! It's sometimes known as the paradox of analysis. You can find some information about it here.

Read another response by Gordon Marino, Alexander George

Read another response about Existence