Can we talk meaningfully about non-existence?

_db August 20, 2017 at 18:01 1975 views 4 comments

We can talk about things before and after they "exist". For example, a pencil did not always exist, but was previously a tree, and after it is used it is a pile of wood scraps. Probably most of us would say the pencil "exists" when we are able to use it as a pencil - it has a graphite point, you can hold and write with it, etc.

But is it correct to say that the pencil did not previously "exist" before we see it as this tangible, material object? In my opinion it seems as though this pencil actually did exist before it "exists" - in the mode of being a possibility, or a concept, or an idea (before), or as a memory, footprint, etc (after).

We have a habit of identifying things that exist when they are present-at-hand - they seem to exist in a finite spatial-temporal location. But if this is truly what "existence" means, then it seems hard to explain how we can talk meaningfully about things that do not exist.

But I think we actually can talk about things that don't exist - but only because they actually do exist, just not in a material, tangible, extended way. A pencil does not simply exist when it is actually extended in space-time, for that is only a "mode" or "way" of existing. It can also exist as a possibility, a guarantee, a contradiction, a memory. To say "the pencil does not exist" cannot mean that the pencil literally does not exist, for obviously we are talking about the pencil and therefore the pencil exists in some other way, as an idea or a concept or what have you.

The rub is that it is impossible to talk about something that does not "exist" without therefore bringing it into existence, or at least recognizing that this thing exists in some form. Therefore when we say things like "the dinosaurs no longer exist", what we really mean is that "the dinosaurs no longer exist in any material, tangible, extended way." - but they do still exist as a memory. When the dinosaurs existed in this material way, they were not a memory. The coming-in-and-out of existence is really simply a change of mode of existence, to and from one that is more or less causally relevant.

Comments (4)

prothero August 20, 2017 at 18:39 #98844 0 likes

I guess you would have to explain was this is not just a discussion about the definition or use of the word "exist". Just a language problem?

Rich August 20, 2017 at 19:32 #98857 0 likes

Reply to darthbarracuda The issue is that existence is in constant flux. We attempt to freeze it in order to make practical use of it, for example it is a pencil until it is gone. So b the floor from a tree to a pencil casing is continuous but our minds freeze it for practical purposes.

As for non-existence, we cannot describe it since words are designed to freeze. But we can experience it during sleep or some unconscious state.

BC August 20, 2017 at 19:38 #98859 0 likes

Reply to darthbarracuda You can experience your existence because you exist. If you cease to exist you will no longer be a subject, and will experience nothing. Nothings experience nothings.

schopenhauer1 August 20, 2017 at 19:52 #98863 0 likes

Reply to darthbarracuda You can also make the distinction between that which has the potential to exist outside an imaginary concept (given the right circumstances), and that which does not have even the possibility of existing outside an imaginary concept, under any circumstance. So for example, a pencil has the possibility of existing, while a mouse that can discuss the finer points of Shakespeare does not have the possibility of existing. Thus a pencil's potential to exist- its idea is an idea about a possible thing that exists outside the imagination, while mouse that is an expert in Shakespeare is only conceptual and can never be brought about outside the imagination. Those beings which have the possibility or existing outside the imaginary concept, thus have the extra distinction of being affected by someone or something. Thus, putting a potential human in the world, will be affected if it is born. Also, future tenses like "will" and "can" are used in ways that mean that something can actually be affected. This thing (that can exist outside the imagination under the right circumstances) "will" be affected by such and such event. The same can be said of past tense. That thing which did exist was affected by such and such event. Thus, being affected is also part of the difference between purely imaginative concepts and concepts which can be outside the imagination given the right circumstances.