乱伦秀

"A chair is still a chair, even when there's no one sittin' there" - Dionne Warwick

I鈥檒l start by saying something about what existence isn鈥檛: Existence isn鈥檛 a property for categorizing objects.

This is an idea I get from three philosophers: Gaunilo, Kant, and Quine. But it needs some explanation!听
Some things are horses; most things aren鈥檛. We can sort the horses from the non-horses.听
Some things are dogs; most things aren鈥檛. We can sort the dogs from the non-dogs.
Some things鈥� well, I could go on, but you get the point.

Now, though, imagine trying to sort what exists from what doesn鈥檛 exist. That would be a daft task. There鈥檚 no task to perform, because everything exists!
That鈥檚 what I mean by saying that existence isn鈥檛 a property for categorizing objects.

Here鈥檚 another way to make this point
By definition, a unicorn is: a horse with a horn. So, if you want to know whether there are any unicorns, you need to try to find things which (1) are horses, and which (2) have horns. You don鈥檛 also need to double-check that (3) they exist!

And here鈥檚 that point about definitions, put in reverse. Let鈥檚 define a dracopug as: a fire-breathing pug which exists. Clearly, there are no fire-breathing bulldogs. So there are no dracopugs. It doesn鈥檛 matter that we tried to build existence into the definition of 鈥渄racopug鈥�; our attempt adds nothing to the definition!

So, to repeat, existence isn鈥檛 a property that we can use to categorize objects.听
But the question I was meant to answer is: What is existence?
My suggestion鈥攊nspired by Frege鈥攊s that existence is a property of properties. But again, this needs explaining.听

Here are three ways to say the same thing:听

• dogs exist
• there are some dogs
• some things have the property being a dog

And here are three ways to say the same (different) thing:

• unicorns do not exist
• there are no unicorns
• nothing has the property being a unicorn

Now compare the third sentence on each of my two lists. Some properties (e.g. being a dog) have instances; some things (e.g. being a unicorn) don鈥檛. And existence is the tool we use for categorizing properties along these lines.

With this in mind, I can answer your question! Existence is: the (higher-level) property which a (lower-level) property has, just in case there are things with that (lower-level) property.

Now, I鈥檇 be surprised if you found this answer completely satisfying. After all, I used the phrase 鈥�...there are things...鈥� in my answer. I might equally well have said 鈥�...there exist things...鈥�. So I鈥檓 using the notion of existence to explain existence!

I don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 any way to avoid going in a circle like this. Some concepts are just too basic鈥攖oo fundamental鈥攖o be defined in other terms. Existence is one of those concepts.

My answer, then, wasn鈥檛 an attempt to define existence in a non-circular way. I really don鈥檛 think that can be done; so if you have no idea what existence is, I can鈥檛 help much! My answer is just trying to draw attention to the fact that existence isn鈥檛 a (lower-level) property of objects; it鈥檚 a (higher-level) property of properties.听

听

听

听

听

听