Talk:Existence

Why is existence a solid system of existence?

Our objective. Aldoada (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Existence 47.15.43.65 (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the article

I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. In its current form, it has various problems. The lead is too short and states controversial opinions as facts. The body of the article contains maintenance tags and about half of the text is unsourced. The structure is confusing. It's not clear why there are two separate historical sections ("Historical conceptions" and "Modern approaches") rather than one. For some reason, they are separated by another section called "Predicative nature". It's not clear why the subsection "Semantics" is called "Semantics" and why it is a subsection of the section "Predicative nature".

Based on a short initial review of some reliable sources, I think it would make sense to have a separate section on the nature of existence (is it a property of individuals or not?) and another on what types of existence there are (possible vs actual vs necessary; concrete vs abstract; physical vs mental;...). Some of the current contents of the article could be reorganized to fit into these sections but many would have to be rewritten. It might also be helpful to have more information on the contrast between existence and non-existence as well as the contrast between existence and essence. The discussion of the role of existence in logic should probably be expanded. It should also mention free logic, which has a very different way of dealing with existence.

I was thinking about doing more in-depth research and preparing a draft to fix and implement the ideas pointed out here. I thought it might be a good idea to hear what others think on these issues since this is a difficult topic and preparing a draft could take quite a while. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Short update: I started a draft at User:Phlsph7/Existence to address the points discussed above. This draft is still in a rather early stage. It's not yet properly copy-edited, lacks a lead, and has maintenance tags. But it shows roughly the direction in which this is going. I put more focus on a thematic approach and rearranged the topics into different sections with history being only one of them. In the process, I had to rewrite many passages and add additional sources. Some topics were replaced by others. For example, it discusses the 3 marks of existence in general instead of just focusing on Anicca and Nagarjuna. It also includes many new ideas. I would be happy to hear some feedback and other editors are also welcome to make their own changes to the draft. It will still be quite a while before it is ready for mainspace. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and published the draft. I tried to include most of the ideas from the previous version in this one. Some only survived in summarized form and a few without proper sources did not fit in. Please let me know if you think that some essential information was removed in the process so we can figure out a way to include it in the new version. Other feedback on on possible improvements is also welcome. There are still several minor issues. I intend to resolve them in the next few days. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

being

being and existence has a lot of differences

new article of being is needed 41.121.121.137 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Existence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Of the universe (talk · contribs) 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article. Of the universe (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article! Very interesting and clear. Will begin the in-depth review soon. Of the universe (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7, regarding the sentence: "Ontology is the philosophical discipline studying what existence is." I'm not sure whether this sentence means "Studying what existence is is within the scope of ontology." Or "Studying what existence is is a central focus of ontology." Or "Studying what existence is the central focus of ontology." Can you please clarify? Thanks, Of the universe (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That depends on whom you ask. Existence is one of the key concepts in ontology and some philosophers define ontology as the study of existence. Our formulation leaves it open so either interpretation of the sentence works. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 I see. I'm wondering whether a few sentences explaining the disagreement belongs in this article, or whether that's outside of the scope of Existence and just belongs in Ontology. Of the universe (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the differences in how ontology is defined matter much. The standard definition of ontology is "the study of being" but many philosophers do not draw a strict distinction between being and existence. I reformulated the sentence so it does not imply that ontology is defined as the study of existence. This way, we avoid the problem of how exactly to define ontology, which is probably better left to the article ontology. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Congrats! Of the universe (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing this article and your helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall, I enjoyed the article. Reading about different philosophical views on existence was thought-provoking, and I learned a lot.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The prose is great! The article is a pleasure to read. I didn't notice any grammar or spelling issues.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead nicely summarizes the context and the important points. The layout is good too. The tone is appropriate (complies with words to watch).

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Passed citation spot check

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Passed citation spot check

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   It covers contemporary philosophical views as well as historical views in different philosophical traditions from Eastern and Western philosophy. I especially enjoyed the logic section, and learning about (E!).

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It stays focused, and is well-populated with links to other articles to learn more. (Unfortunately many of those articles are much worse quality haha)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Many viewpoints on the nature of existence are addressed and explored. The article has no preference for which is correct, but also makes it clear how mainstream the different views are.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The picture of Pegasus is a nice touch.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass! Congrats

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 16:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that there may be some things that do not exist? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that it is controversial whether there are non-existing objects? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites (experiment)

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Existence; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

References

• @Phlsph7: No issues with the article - GA status, length, neutrality and sourcing all looks good. No copyvio in spotcheck. I'm concerned that ALT0 provides a opinion that would require an attribution. Perhaps an alternative to the first hook could be:

• ALT0a ... that it has been theorized that some things do not exist?

Otherwise, ALT1 looks good. Let me know how you feel about the alt hook and I'll approve it ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: Regarding ALT0, I used the formulation "there may be" to have a simpler formulation that does not require attribution. But I understand your concern. To make the weaseling in ALT0a not as obvious, we could use:

• ALT0b: ... that it is controversial whether there are things that do not exist?

I would also be fine with using ALT1. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good (in fact, I think ALT0b is even more hooky than the original). ALT0b and ALT1 are approved. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 and Freedom4U: Interesting, but we have a 55% score at Earwig with some copying that should be addressed. Bruxton (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they are quotes (Ronald McDonald does not exist, it is not the case that there is a unique happy hamburger clown), chapter titles that are being cited, (1. Existence as a Second-Order Property and Its Relation to Quantification, 3. How Many Ways of Being Existent?, 1. Frege and Russell: Existence is not a Property of Individuals, 3. An Anti-Meinongian First-Order View), or stock phrases (the domain of quantification, the property of being, existence is a first-order property, existence is a universal property). I found one close paraphrase and reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

minor historical notes

Hey @Phlsph7,

Congrats on another GA! Two notes with respect to historical figures:

The serious one is that Heidegger is not correctly represented. He uses the term Existenz only to refer to Dasein's "mode of being". Paraphrased in normal language (which Heidegger would reject), Being and Time presents existence as something like the base-level activity of human life. Although it is hardly a model article, I cleaned up fundamental ontology a while ago, which elaborates on this point somewhat.

According to Heidegger, everyone else mentioned in the article is wrong because they are all proceeding upon a set of assumptions that are false. The real question of being is a question about meaning; fundamental ontology is hermeneutics. He claims in this way to have "overcome" metaphysics. (In my own judgment, he just changed the topic of conversation...)

I see, however, that you have four sources for two sentences on this. Are you sure you're reading them correctly? I'm confident of my grasp of this material, but that does not mean I might not be wrong!

In sum, I think Heidegger should either be jettisoned entirely or else given a more substantial treatment, perhaps in the section on "Modes and degrees of existence".

Second, I was surprised by the absence of Spinoza! I was going to add a few sentences about Hegel, but the most natural way to do this, in the context of this article, would probably involve reference back to Spinoza's substance monism (as well as Aristotle, of course—who is already represented, of course).

I'll wait for your comments (or those of anyone else!) before making any edits.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: Thanks for the feedback and the insightful comments. I adjusted the formulation to get it a little closer to Heideggers contrast between beings and being and added one more source. The formulation in its current form reflects Nicholson 1996 and Boyle 2017. Their relevant passages are available online. I also added a footnote to clarify Heideggers own terminology. But let me know if you think that it is still problematic. In that case it might be better to not mention Heidegger.

I think having a short discussion of Spinoza and Hegel would be a good addition. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Phlsph7,

I made some edits to the short paragraph on Heidegger. Since he makes such a big deal out of the etymology of Existenz and uses it only for the mode of Dasein's being, I think this article should adhere to his own practice, even if some sources occasionally use the term "existence" when glossing the ontological difference. You footnote is good on this.

Also, you'll see that I added a source, but I can't make my inline citations appear correctly in the multiref template, which I've never used. I expect it's something simple and obvious, but I can't see what. Can you fix this? All of the bibliographic and citational information is there.

I'll keep my eyes out for a good source to support a few sentences on Spinoza and Hegel.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: Your adjustments sound good, thanks for ensuring that the article stays faithful to the terminology. I fixed the multiref template, it was only missing the closing tag "}}" at the end. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For instance, to deny that dinosaurs exist means that the property of being a dinosaur has the property of not being instantiated.

I need help from someone with a better understanding of the article. Should this be reworded to: For instance, to deny that dinosaurs exist means that the property of being a dinosaur has not been instantiated? User1042💬✒️ 15:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Your paraphrase is correct and more concise. Normally, it would be preferable. However, I feel that, in this case, the more lengthy expression is better since it makes it more explicit in what sense existence is a property of properties. I slightly reformulated the passage to better clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Queries

This is actually very well written IMO, excepting some concepts which drop in a bit quick. So not a copy edit, but here are some queries:

• Ontology: you get into this in the lead without giving much of an idea of what it is: The main philosophical discipline studying existence is called ontology. The orthodox view is that it is a second-order propertyor a property of properties. - something is needed between these two sentences to bridge the gap

  The lead section is probably not the best place to go into this since its purpose is to provide a concise summary of the body of the article. The term has a wikilink so people can follow it to learn more. I added a footnote to the section "Definition and related terms" to clarify this term. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There are also things in the MOS about the lead that ask that everything is comprehensible, and that people don't have to follow links to understand terms. See WP:EXPLAINLEAD and WP:TECHNICAL: they ask that the "lead section [is] understandable using plain language", does "not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject" and that "Terminology in the lead section [is] understandable on sight to general readers". Difficult I know. On links, see MOS:NOFORCELINK, "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" --Jim Killock (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a footnote to provide a short definition. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Some editors frown on footnotes as a means to deal with this issue, as they cannot be accessed on some device, but I will leave that for your future conversations on these points. Jim Killock (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• they state that there are some individuals that do not exist. Oh right? This made me laugh out loud, I am sure it is not meant to do that but it needs more explanation for the drive-by reader. An example would help, eg "such as fantastical creatures, or false gods".

  Agreed, Meinongianism can sound like quite a paradoxical view depending on how it is expressed. I added an example. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Careful tho, as now it sounds like universalists don't believe in Santa Claus. Jim Killock (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I hope they are not offended. :) Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• `Meinongians - needs a brief explanation as to what these are (ie, people following the thought of Meinong or something.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• A closely related issue is whether different types of entities exist in different ways or to different degrees. Degrees of what?

  Degrees of existence. I reformulated the sentence to make this clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• metaphysics - needs a brief explanation of what this is

  I added a footnote to the section "Definition and related terms" to clarify this term. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  that works for me Jim Killock (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• But the concept of nonexistent objects is not generally accepted - presumabluy because fantasies exist on some level - this might warrant a mention.

  I added a short explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Stopping there. This is an easier read than I expected but it's also a bit late. I may come back to this tho. Jim Killock (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jim Killock and thanks for your suggestions. I hope to nominate this article for featured article status soon so more feedback would be welcome. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's another one:

• An example of a thin concept of existence is to state that existence is the same as the logical property of self-identity - this feel like it needs an additional sentence to explain it, or an example.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• This distinction was introduced by Martin Heidegger, who calls it the ontological difference and contrasts individual beings with being, the latter of which he presents as the horizon against which beings become the specific beings that they are: this is quite hard work. Could this be explained a bit more?

  I gave it a try but I'm not sure that I was successful. The idea itself is difficult so I'm not sure that there is a concise and accessible way to get it across. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Second-order theorists usually hold that quantifiers rather than predicates express existence Predicates is not described, making this hard to follow. Likewise, the next paragraph, is hard to understand without an explanation of "predicate". I would not footnote this.

  That's a good point since readers may not be familiar with this terminology. I added a short definition. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• The "Ronald McDonald does not exist" paragraph: this is quite hard work. It might help to say what the exac problem is. I think you mean to say that for philosophers this sentence appears to mean "The existing entity Ronald McDonald does not exist".

  Agreed, this part is challenging. I reformulated it in the hope of making it at least a little easier. The key point is about how the meaning of the expression Ronald McDonald is interpreted. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Overall these paragraph highlight that language can obscure deeper problems, which philosophy has to unpack. Something which states this simply may also help the reader. eg "some of the problems relating to existence reflect asumptions about existence made in our everyday language, which do not bear closer scrutiny".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In the next section, I think I need some of the changes above to make further useful comment, to make sure I am still following this correctly. The language is generally very clear, but it is easy to trip over the less defined or unfamiliar concepts (ontology, predicate, etc).

A different approach is to claim that negative singular existentials lack a truth value since their singular terms do not refer to anything. The term "truth value" needs an explanation, or an alternative phrasing "ie, a lack a thing that is true" or whatever. Jim Killock (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The explanation was given in the following sentence but I found a way to avoid it by merging the two sentences. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Theories of the nature of existence

I believe that "The central dispute about the nature of existence is whether it should be understood as a property of individuals", citing the SEL, must require context. The idea that establishing the nature of existence belongs solely to professional western philosophers is a fallacy. (20040302 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC))

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried to reformulate this sentence to weaken the claim and mention the context of the dispute. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Phlsph7, Thank-you for your effort and vigilance.

On another note, the depiction of anattā (buddhism) is woefully limited, and doesn't appear to represent any of the many schools of Buddhist thought. Probably the most academic approach (in Buddhism) to anattā can be found in the Madhyamaka tradition(s) where we see 'self' (that which is being denied in the phrase 'anattā') as "an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is anattā" (Buddhapalita). The point being that 'self' is a technical term in that it applies to all phenomena. The Madhyamaka, however, are not deeply concerned with existence (seeing it as a concept that depends upon context, rather than as a metaphysical state) - however, many Abhidharma schools use existence / non-existence as a major dichotomy for all phenomena (normally subsequent to empty and prior to momentariness: A classic non-momentary existent is an absence, such as the absence of a parrot in my nose). I will endeavour to put something better here at some point. 20040302 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it would be more interesting for our article if this concept was not restricted to people but applied to all phenomena. However, our source, Smith & Worden 2003, p. 18, explicitly restricts it to people: Anatta (people change). Anatta means 'no separate self' or 'no permanent identity or soul'. If we want to use a wider formulation, we should make sure that the sources are not limited to one particular school of Buddhism, such as Madhyamaka. The passage from Smith & Worden 2003 present it as Buddha's own position. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, in this instance such an assertion would be unreliable. While Smith & Worden may be reliable in their own field, their understanding of Buddhism would be flawed. Not at all unusual - at times it seems that every academic likes to correlate their convictions with a view they perceive as being "Buddhist" - not recognising their own self-imposed interpretation or gloss. What can one say?

The thing is - once we recognise anicca - continual change (everything is as Heraclitus' river), we may collapse into a view that 'anicca: nothing persists (not even for a moment) therefore, nothing exists, therefore nothing is meaningful'. Anatta is a consequence of anicca - and (therefore) is not confined to living beings, otherwise we would be able to point out objects that cannot change (no heat, speed, motion, reflection, charge, direction - nothing) but we cannot. Buddhism overturns the extreme view of 'nothing matters' through accepting karma (consequence): while nothing persists, this moment determines the universe of the next moment, and therefore everything matters.

20040302 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"Nonexistence" redirect leads to a deleted section

While I was browsing, I typed in "nonexistence" into the search bar, and got lead to (the top of) this page. I clicked the link for nonbeing, and at the bottom of that page, in "See Also", there was a link for "nonexistence". I clicked it and got lead back here. But I noticed that in both cases, the URL indicated that it was trying to send me to a section titled "Context_in_philosophy". I tried searching through the page's history to see if I could find that section (because it seems like it was renamed into a different section), but this page has a lot of traffic, because even after expanding the revisions per page to 500, I can't even go back a whole year. I tried combing through more pages but I don't really have the energy now to comb through revisions, especially given the binary search method I usually use to narrow down in which revision an edit happened isn't working here due to the sheer volume of edits and the many forms this page's table of contents have taken over the years. Just thought I'd point this problem out so if someone perhaps is willing to figure out if the section needs to be added in or if its contents were really moved to another section, they could fix the redirect.

Also, I just realized this, but the section (or more likely the redirect) being gone is kind of ironic in a similar way that the infamous repeated vandalism of the page "Nothing" is, although whatever broke this redirect is (probably) not vandalism. 74.98.241.87 (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

While we're speaking about it, @Phlsph7, do we prefer nonexistence or non-existence? I presume the former, but there are numerous instances of the latter throughout. Remsense ‥ 论 03:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@IP, I've simply changed the redirect to point to the page without further specification, as the term is treated in bold in the lead, and as the two concepts are tightly interwoven, there's no clear place in the article to specifically point to. Remsense ‥ 论 03:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the redirect, it seems to be working now. Looking at a few reliable philosophy sources, the spellings nonexistence and non-existence are both used. I guess either option would be fine as long as there is consistency within the article. I defaulted to nonexistence for this purpose, I hope I got all now. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)