Rust, dagnabbit, and esteemed philosophers have built their belief systems on the idea that existence is an absolute that can't be questioned or denied. I think it can be questioned, but I think first it has to be defined by those who believe in it. Can they come up with a definition they will defend? There's no use in discussing this stuff without a definition.

So I would be interested if a definition of existence can be arrived at. I think the definition will depend on other words that will also be questionable, and we will not arrive at the ultimate answer to anything.

Existence = The product of all thought in its entirety.

Seems vague. How would this definition be applied?

Existence; a visage of misconception fortified by perception?

Since there is me, and I am typing on Totse, im pretty sure something exists. Where else would girbils live?

Existence-

Being part, physically, spiritually and/or conciously of what we call Universe or Life.

The thing is no matter how well you define 'existence', you would still be able to question it just like every other 'man-made' word or concept. That's how meta-physics and philosophy work. But that does not mean it is wrong.

Try and refute existence, and you will find out that it is impossible. As you need to exist to even doubt existence.

Well...existence...its everything.

Oxygen,air,light,people,flesh,thoughts,ideas,inter net,electricity....

Well you know what i mean...

thats a good point. existance is not a proven fact...theres no way we can ever prove we're real.

I THINK THEREFORE......'I AM'

.....LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS .....THE LORD SAID .....I AM THAT ...'I AM'

JESUS SAYS BEFORE (*******) CAME ....... I AM.

MAYBE WE ARE ALL THAT SAME.....'I AM'

AND THAT IS EXISTANCE.

the rest is just a projection ....projected out from 'I AM'

THAT IS ALL THAT REALLY EXISTS ......'I AM'

[This message has been edited by eBlip (edited 08-10-2003).]

There are many definitions of existence:

"reality as opposed to appearance."

"reality as presented in experience."

"The totality of existent things."

"The state or fact of having being."

It goes on...

However does existence exist? Now that is truly mental masturbation at it's finest. Congradulations bkc, you've reached a new hieght of pretentiousness.

I digress.

Einstein did a lot of philosophizing on the subject of existence and by his definitions (which I agree with) is that all things are made up of energy vibrating at different frequencies. Thoughts, lamp shades, boogers, clouds, fire, etc... are all composed of energy vibrating at different frequencies.

All these frequencies, too, are existing within large energy waves which are "dimensions" or different states of existence, which can account for the concepts of Heaven, Hell, limbo, etc... in human society. A person may have an out of body experience where his existence lapses and he enters a different state of existence, a different energy wave, and whether their experience is good or bad or whatever they may describe it as Heaven or Hell or something entirely different.

Anyways, by that definition existence is whatever is being. Which could be anything, in any way.

It's a difficult concept to grasp, but I don't think it's beyond average thinking.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:existance is not a proven fact...theres no way we can ever prove we're real.

You can prove it to yourself, just not to others. Just as they could prove it to themselves...

I like Beany's definition of existence. It fits in well with Cogito Ergo Sum.

It's stupid shit like this that shows the degeneration of meaning in 'philosophical thought' these days.

quote:Originally posted by Dualtenz:

It's stupid shit like this that shows the degeneration of meaning in 'philosophical thought' these days.

This would be a good topic if the slightly stupid replies were eliminated. And if this is so degenerated, maybe you can define existence for us.

Yes existance does exist. If we did not exist, I would not be here.

quote:Originally posted by DarkFire47:

Yes existance does exist. If we did not exist, I would not be here.

quote:Originally posted by Dualtenz:

It's stupid shit like this that shows the degeneration of meaning in 'philosophical thought' these days.

Now I see what he meant.

An amusing dialogue demonstrating the pointlessness of this argument and how it will never go anywhere:



A: I know I exist, therefore I exist. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't be able to know I existed.

K: Ah, but if you don't exist, then you can't know you exist, so you don't exist.

A: But I DO exist.

K: Why?

A: Because I know I exist.

K: Only if you exist. If you don't, then you can't possibly.

A: But seeing as I DO know, then I must exist.

K: Says who?

A: Says me.

K: You don't even exist.

A: Yes I do.

K: Says who?

A: Says me.

K: You don't even exist.

A: Yes I do.

K: Why?

A: Because if I didn't exist, there would be no reason for me to think I existed. Therefore, I exist.

K: That's partly true. If you didn't exist, there would be no reason for you to think you existed. However, you don't think you exist, because you don't exist, and being non-existant you are incapable of speech or thought.

A: So how are you capable of talking to a non-existant person?

K: I'm not. I don't exist either.

A: Then I'm not arguing with you. I make a point not to argue with non existant people.

K: You can't make points. You don't exist.

You have to exist to debate existence. Thus the end of the fucking argument.

Now what existence is, exactly, is subject to a million matrix/plato's cave/solipstic theories to hack at.

I am Weasil,

Any credible source on Descartes' Cogito (Cogito Ergo Sum, or "I think, therefore I am") notes that this argument has been refuted readily for over three hundred years. Rationalism is dead.

Anyway, maybe I can shed more light on this discussion, since Dark Magneto is correct. After all, if we are doubting something, we are exhibiting thought that does exist. He's right, you can't question existence unless you initially exist.

Maybe what the key question here is 'what exactly is the nature of our existence?' Is everything around us real or are we part of an illusion? After all, illusions can exist, even though they are not real.

The question we should be asking is whether or not we are real or under illusion. This is a fascinating discussion, but unfortunately it is one that will never find a logical, proven answer.