Existence

Is "exist" an overburdened word? We say that ideas exist, processes exist, and substances exist, but doesn't "exist" mean something different in each case? When we say a particular apple exists, we mean the apple takes up space in the world. When we say the sport of baseball exists, we mean there's this process that people could enact. When we say the color red exists, we mean that there's this shared subjective experience that arises from certain stimuli. When I think about whether or not certain things exist, e.g. mind, time, morality, etc., it's really tricky to know which standards to apply, that of processes, materials, or ideas. Might it be more useful to say that substances exist, processes occur, and ideas arise? Then whether or not the mind exists wouldn't even be a valid question, any more than asking whether apples occur or baseball arises. I suggested this to a professor of philosophy who's dating a friend of mine, and he said he didn't think reserving a special meaning for "exist" would make any difference. Is he right, and if so, why wouldn't it?

Comments

Great question! Some philosophers have actually disparaged the term "exist," possibly for similar reasons. They have thought that "exists" may be redundant, as the sentence "There is a baseball game today" seems more tidy and less odd than a sentence like "A baseball game exists today." A similar point is sometimes made about the term "true" --it appears that the sentence "Snow is white" gains little if we add "It is true that snow is white." And yet other philosophers (like Meinong) even introduced the term "subsist" to refer to things that hover between existence and non-existence. All that to one side, I suggest the terms "exist" and "true" are perfectly respectful, even if they may sometimes appear redundant. It would be apt, for example, to say that an atheist thinks God does not exist, whereas a theist believes that God exists. What you are on to with the terms you suggest (something occurs or arises) also can play an important role in articulating what it is we are talking about. There is a difference, for example, between a concrete individual thing (like a baseball) and an event (a baseball game) and it would make more sense to say "Here is a baseball" rather than "A baseball is occurring." One more point is worth noting: to say that something is the case or something exists may need a frame of reference. In ordinary contexts, the fame is evident, e.g. Bush thought there was evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But we sometimes refer to what is the case in novels, short stories, theater or in our dreams and so on. So, one can say truly that Dumbledore is the headmaster of Hogwarts, but the framework is in Rowling's novels or the movies based on them.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Existence