Definition of word existence

Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with reality. In philosophy, it refers to the ontological property^[1] of being.^[2]

Etymology[edit]

The term existence comes from Old French existence, from Medieval Latin existentia/exsistentia, from Latin existere, to come forth, be manifest, ex + sistere, to stand.^[3][4]

Context in philosophy[edit]

Materialism holds that the only things that exist are matter and energy, that all things are composed of material, that all actions require energy, and that all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of the interaction of matter. Dialectical materialism does not make a distinction between being and existence, and defines it as the objective reality of various forms of matter.^[2]

Idealism holds that the only things that exist are thoughts and ideas, while the material world is secondary.^[5][6] In idealism, existence is sometimes contrasted with transcendence, the ability to go beyond the limits of existence.^[2] As a form of epistemological idealism, rationalism interprets existence as cognizable and rational, that all things are composed of strings of reasoning, requiring an associated idea of the thing, and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of an understanding of the imprint from the noumenal world in which lies beyond the thing-in-itself.

In scholasticism, existence of a thing is not derived from its essence but is determined by the creative volition of God, the dichotomy of existence and essence demonstrates that the dualism of the created universe is only resolvable through God.^[2] Empiricism recognizes existence of singular facts, which are not derivable and which are observable through empirical experience.

The exact definition of existence is one of the most important and fundamental topics of ontology, the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what things or entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such things or entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

Historical conceptions[edit]

In the Western tradition of philosophy, the earliest known comprehensive treatments of the subject are from Plato’s Phaedo, Republic, and Statesman and Aristotle’s Metaphysics, though earlier fragmentary writing exists. Aristotle developed a comprehensive theory of being, according to which only individual things, called substances, fully have to be, but other things such as relations, quantity, time, and place (called the categories) have a derivative kind of being, dependent on individual things. In Aristotle’s Metaphysics, there are four causes of existence or change in nature: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause and the final cause.

The Neo-Platonists and some early Christian philosophers argued about whether existence had any reality except in the mind of God.^[7] Some taught that existence was a snare and a delusion, that the world, the flesh, and the devil existed only to tempt weak humankind away from God.

In Hindu philosophy, the term Advaita refers to its idea that the true self, Atman, is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman). The Upanishads describe the universe, and the human experience, as an interplay of Purusha (the eternal, unchanging principles, consciousness) and Prakṛti (the temporary, changing material world, nature).The former manifests itself as Ātman (Soul, Self), and the latter as Māyā. The Upanishads refer to the knowledge of Atman as «true knowledge» (Vidya), and the knowledge of Maya as «not true knowledge» (Avidya, Nescience, lack of awareness, lack of true knowledge).

The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas argued that God is pure being, and that in God essence and existence are the same. More specifically, what is identical in God, according to Aquinas, is God’s essence and God’s actus essendi.^[8] At about the same time, the nominalist philosopher William of Ockham argued, in Book I of his Summa Totius Logicae (Treatise on all Logic, written some time before 1327), that Categories are not a form of Being in their own right, but derivative on the existence of individuals.

Dharmic «middle way» view[edit]

The Indian philosopher Nagarjuna (c. 150–250 CE) largely advanced existence concepts and founded the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

In Eastern philosophy, Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) or «impermanence» describes existence. It refers to the fact that all conditioned things (sankhara) are in a constant state of flux. In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that goes on to form new plants. Buddhism teaches a middle way, avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.^[9] The middle way recognizes there are vast differences between the way things are perceived to exist and the way things really exist. The differences are reconciled in the concept of Shunyata by addressing the existing object’s served purpose for the subject’s identity in being. What exists is in non-existence, because the subject changes.

Trailokya elaborates on three kinds of existence, those of desire, form, and formlessness in which there are karmic rebirths. Taken further to the Trikaya doctrine, it describes how the Buddha exists. In this philosophy, it is accepted that Buddha exists in more than one absolute way.

Early modern philosophy[edit]

The early modern treatment of the subject derives from Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole’s Logic, or The Art of Thinking, better known as the Port-Royal Logic, first published in 1662. Arnauld thought that a proposition or judgment consists of taking two different ideas and either putting them together or rejecting them:

After conceiving things by our ideas, we compare these ideas and, finding that some belong together and others do not, we unite or separate them. This is called affirming or denying, and in general judging.
This judgment is also called a proposition, and it is easy to see that it must have two terms. One term, of which one affirms or denies something, is called the subject; the other term, which is affirmed or denied, is called the attribute or Praedicatum.

— Antoine Arnauld, The Art of Thinking (Port-Royal Logic), 1662, translated by J. Buroker in 1996, Logic, II.3, p. 82

The two terms are joined by the verb «is» (or «is not», if the predicate is denied of the subject). Thus every proposition has three components: the two terms, and the «copula» that connects or separates them. Even when the proposition has only two words, the three terms are still there. For example, «God loves humanity», really means «God is a lover of humanity», «God exists» means «God is a thing».

This theory of judgment dominated logic for centuries, but it has some obvious difficulties: it only considers proposition of the form «All A are B.», a form logicians call universal. It does not allow propositions of the form «Some A are B», a form logicians call existential. If neither A nor B includes the idea of existence, then «some A are B» simply adjoins A to B. Conversely, if A or B do include the idea of existence in the way that «triangle» contains the idea «three angles equal to two right angles», then «A exists» is automatically true, and we have an ontological proof of A’s existence. (Arnauld’s contemporary Descartes famously argued so, regarding the concept «God» (discourse 4, Meditation 5)). Arnauld’s theory was current until the middle of the nineteenth century.

David Hume argued that the claim that a thing exists, when added to our notion of a thing, does not add anything to the concept. For example, if we form a complete notion of Moses, and superadd to that notion the claim that Moses existed, we are not adding anything to the notion of Moses.

Kant also argued that existence is not a «real» predicate, but gave no explanation of how this is possible. His famous discussion of the subject is merely a restatement of Arnauld’s doctrine that in the proposition «God is omnipotent», the verb «is» signifies the joining or separating of two concepts such as «God» and «omnipotence».^{[original research?]} The proposition «A exists» (which is A+existence) would be necessarily false because if A exists, then it is actually (A + existence) which exists, and (A + existence) is, we assumed, different from A. According to Kant, existence can not be an essential property of anything, including God; it is an accidental property of the subject.^[10]

Schopenhauer claimed that «everything that exists for knowledge, and hence the whole of this world, only object in relation to the subject, the perception of the perceiver, in a word, representation.»^[11] According to him there can be «No object without subject» because «everything objective is already conditioned as such in manifold ways by the knowing subject with the forms of its knowing, and presupposes these forms…»^[12]

Predicative nature[edit]

John Stuart Mill (and also Kant’s pupil Herbart) argued that the predicative nature of existence was proved by sentences like «A centaur is a poetic fiction»^[13] or «A greatest number is impossible» (Herbart).^[14] Franz Brentano challenged this; so also (as is better known) did Frege. Brentano argued that we can join the concept represented by a noun phrase «an A» to the concept represented by an adjective «B» to give the concept represented by the noun phrase «a B-A». For example, we can join «a man» to «wise» to give «a wise man». But the noun phrase «a wise man» is not a sentence, whereas «some man is wise» is a sentence. Hence the copula must do more than merely join or separate concepts. Furthermore, adding «exists» to «a wise man», to give the complete sentence «a wise man exists» has the same effect as joining «some man» to «wise» using the copula. So the copula has the same effect as «exists». Brentano argued that every categorical proposition can be translated into an existential one without change in meaning and that the «exists» and «does not exist» of the existential proposition take the place of the copula. He showed this by the following examples:

The categorical proposition «Some man is sick» has the same meaning as the existential proposition «A sick man exists» or «There is a sick man.»

The categorical proposition «No stone is living» has the same meaning as the existential proposition «A living stone does not exist» or «there is no living stone».

The categorical proposition «All men are mortal» has the same meaning as the existential proposition «An immortal man does not exist» or «there is no immortal man».

The categorical proposition «Some man is not learned» has the same meaning as the existential proposition «A non-learned man exists» or «there is a non-learned man».

Frege developed a similar view (though later) in his great work The Foundations of Arithmetic, as did Charles Sanders Peirce (but Peirce held that the possible and the real are not limited to the actual, individually existent). The Frege-Brentano view is the basis of the dominant position in modern Anglo-American philosophy: that existence is asserted by the existential quantifier (as expressed by Quine’s slogan «To be is to be the value of a variable.» — On What There Is, 1948).^[15]

Semantics[edit]

In mathematical logic, there are two quantifiers, «some» and «all», though as Brentano (1838–1917) pointed out, we can make do with just one quantifier and negation. The first of these quantifiers, «some», is also expressed as «there exists». Thus, in the sentence «There exists a man», the term «man» is asserted to be part of existence. But we can also assert, «There exists a triangle.» Is a «triangle»—an abstract idea—part of existence in the same way that a «man»—a physical body—is part of existence? Do abstractions such as goodness, blindness, and virtue exist in the same sense that chairs, tables, and houses exist? What categories, or kinds of thing, can be the subject or the predicate of a proposition?

Moreover, does «existence» exist?^[16]

In some statements, existence is implied without being mentioned. The statement «A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith» cannot just be about a bridge, the Thames, and Hammersmith. It must be about «existence» as well. On the other hand, the statement «A bridge crosses the Styx at Limbo» has the same form, but while in the first case we understand a real bridge in the real world made of stone or brick, what «existence» would mean in the second case is less clear.

The nominalist approach is to argue that certain noun phrases can be «eliminated» by rewriting a sentence in a form that has the same meaning but does not contain the noun phrase. Thus Ockham argued that «Socrates has wisdom», which apparently asserts the existence of a reference for «wisdom», can be rewritten as «Socrates is wise», which contains only the referring phrase «Socrates».^[17] This method became widely accepted in the twentieth century by the analytic school of philosophy.

However, this argument may be inverted by realists in arguing that since the sentence «Socrates is wise» can be rewritten as «Socrates has wisdom», this proves the existence of a hidden referent for «wise».

A further problem is that human beings seem to process information about fictional characters in much the same way that they process information about real people. For example, in the 2008 United States presidential election, a politician and actor named Fred Thompson ran for the Republican Party nomination. In polls, potential voters identified Fred Thompson as a «law and order» candidate. Thompson plays a fictional character on the television series Law and Order. The people who make the comment are aware that Law and Order is fiction, but at some level, they may process fiction as if it were fact, a process included in what is called the Paradox of Fiction.^{[dubious – discuss][18]} Another example of this is the common experience of actresses who play the villain in a soap opera being accosted in public as if they are to blame for the actions of the characters they play.

A scientist might make a clear distinction between objects that exist, and assert that all objects that exist are made up of either matter or energy. But in the layperson’s worldview, existence includes real, fictional, and even contradictory objects. Thus if we reason from the statement «Pegasus flies» to the statement «Pegasus exists», we are not asserting that Pegasus is made up of atoms, but rather that Pegasus exists in the worldview of classical myth. When a mathematician reasons from the statement «ABC is a triangle» to the statement «triangles exist», the mathematician is not asserting that triangles are made up of atoms but rather that triangles exist within a particular mathematical model.

Modern approaches[edit]

According to Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Descriptions, the negation operator in a singular sentence can take either wide or narrow scope: we distinguish between «some S is not P» (where negation takes «narrow scope») and «it is not the case that ‘some S is P'» (where negation takes «wide scope»). The problem with this view is that there appears to be no such scope distinction in the case of proper names. The sentences «Socrates is not bald» and «it is not the case that Socrates is bald» both appear to have the same meaning, and they both appear to assert or presuppose the existence of someone (Socrates) who is not bald, so that negation takes a narrow scope. However, Russell’s theory analyses proper names into a logical structure which makes sense of this problem. According to Russell, Socrates can be analyzed into the form ‘The Philosopher of Greece.’ In the wide scope, this would then read: It is not the case that there existed a philosopher of Greece who was bald. In the narrow scope, it would read the Philosopher of Greece was not bald.

According to the direct-reference view, an early version of which was originally proposed by Bertrand Russell, and perhaps earlier by Gottlob Frege, a proper name strictly has no meaning when there is no object to which it refers. This view relies on the argument that the semantic function of a proper name is to tell us which object bears the name, and thus to identify some object. But no object can be identified if none exists. Thus, a proper name must have a bearer if it is to be meaningful.

Existence in the wide and narrow senses[edit]

According to the «two sense» view of existence, which derives from Alexius Meinong, existential statements fall into two classes:^[19]

1. Those asserting existence in a wide sense. These are typical of the form «N is P» for singular N, or «some S is P».
2. Those asserting existence in a narrow sense. These are typical of the form «N exists» or «Ss exist».

The problem is then evaded as follows. «Pegasus flies» implies existence in the wide sense, for it implies that something flies. But it does not imply existence in the narrow sense, for we deny existence in this sense by saying that Pegasus does not exist. In effect, the world of all things divides, on this view, into those (like Socrates, the planet Venus, and New York City) that have existed in the narrow sense, and those (like Sherlock Holmes, the goddess Venus, and Minas Tirith) that do not.

However, common sense suggests the non-existence of such things as fictional characters or fictional places.

European views[edit]

Influenced by the views of Brentano’s pupil Alexius Meinong, and by Edmund Husserl, Germanophone and Francophone philosophy took a different direction regarding the question of existence.^{[citation needed]}

Anti-realist arguments[edit]

Anti-realism is the view of idealists who are skeptics about the physical world, maintaining either: (1) that nothing exists outside the mind, or (2) that we would have no access to a mind-independent reality even if it may exist. Realists, in contrast, hold that perceptions or sense data are caused by mind-independent objects. An «anti-realist» who denies that other minds exist (i. e., a solipsist) is different from an «anti-realist» who claims that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not there are unobservable other minds (i. e., a logical behaviorist).^[20][21][22]

See also[edit]

• Cogito ergo sum
• Conservation law (physics)
• Existence precedes essence
• Existence theorem
• Existential quantification
• Existentialism
• Human condition
• Religious views on the self
• Solipsism
• Three marks of existence
• Universal quantification

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Aristotle, The Metaphysics, translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred, Penguin Classics, 1999, ISBN 0-14-044619-2, 978-0-14-044619-7
• Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole Logic, or the Art of Thinking, (known as the Port-Royal Logic), translated J. Buroker, Cambridge 1996
• Terry Eagleton, The Meaning of Life, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 0-19-921070-5, 978-0-19-921070-1
• Heraclitus, Fragments, James Hilton, forward, Brooks Hexton, translator, Penguin Classics, 2003, ISBN 0-14-243765-4, 978-0-14-243765-0
• Michael J. Loux, Ockham’s Theory Of Terms (translation of book I of the Summa Logicae c. 1327)
• Bryan Magee, The Story of Philosophy, Dorling Kindersley Lond. 1998, ISBN 0-7513-0590-1
• John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, 8th edition 1908* Plato, The Republic, translated by Desmond Lee, Penguin Classics, 2003, ISBN 0-14-044914-0, 978-0-14-044914-3
• Alvin Thalheimer, The Meaning of the Terms: Existence and Reality. Princeton University Press, 1920
• C.J.F. Williams, What is Existence?, Oxford University Press, 1981
• W. Kneale; G. E. Moore (July 15, 1936). Symposium: Is Existence a Predicate?. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume. Vol. 15. Oxford University Press. pp. 154–188. doi:10.1093/aristoteliansupp/15.1.154.

External links[edit]

• Existence, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Nelson, Michael (2012-10-11). «Existence». In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• The Concept of Existence: History and Definitions from Leading Philosophers

Last Updated:
10 Apr 2023
— Updated example sentences

Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

English[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Middle English existence, from Old French existence, from Late Latin existentia (“existence”).

Morphologically exist +‎ -ence.

Pronunciation[edit]

• (US) IPA^(key): /ɛɡˈzɪs.təns/, /ɪɡˈzɪs.təns/

Noun[edit]

existence (countable and uncountable, plural existences)

1. The state of being, existing, or occurring; beinghood.

   Synonym: presence

   In order to destroy evil, we must first acknowledge its existence.

   • 1834, L[etitia] E[lizabeth] L[andon], Francesca Carrara. […], volume II, London: Richard Bentley, […], (successor to Henry Colburn), →OCLC, page 71:

     Fortunate it is for the tranquillity of the new-born infant, if he have any turn for philosophy, that he understands none of the nonsense consecrated by old usage to the commencement of existence.

   • 2012 March-April, Jeremy Bernstein, “A Palette of Particles”, in American Scientist, volume 100, number 2, page 146:

     The physics of elementary particles in the 20th century was distinguished by the observation of particles whose existence had been predicted by theorists sometimes decades earlier.

   • 2020 June 29, Wendi, “The Loyal General Yue Fei”, in Minghui‎^[1]:

     The ancients said, “A ruler should exist for the existence of the people.” The famous thinker, Mencius noted, “The people are the most valuable, then the country, and the ruler comes last.”

2. Empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe. (Dictionary of Philosophy; 1968)

Synonyms[edit]

• (state of being): See also Thesaurus:existence

Antonyms[edit]

• (state of being): nonexistence, nothingness; See also Thesaurus:inexistence

Derived terms[edit]

[edit]

• exist
• aseity
• existential

Translations[edit]

Anagrams[edit]

• ectexines

Czech[edit]

Etymology[edit]

Ultimately from Latin existentia.

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): [ˈɛɡzɪstɛnt͡sɛ]
• Hyphenation: exi‧s‧ten‧ce
• Rhymes: -ɛntsɛ

Noun[edit]

existence f

1. existence

Declension[edit]

[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• existence in Příruční slovník jazyka českého, 1935–1957
• existence in Slovník spisovného jazyka českého, 1960–1971, 1989
• existence in Internetová jazyková příručka

French[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Old French existence, from Late Latin existentia (“existence”).

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /ɛɡ.zis.tɑ̃s/

• Audio (France, Paris)

  (file)

• Rhymes: -ɑ̃s
• Homophone: existences
• Hyphenation: exis‧tence

Noun[edit]

existence f (plural existences)

1. existence
2. life

   Synonym: vie

[edit]

• exister
• existentiel

Further reading[edit]

• “existence”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Digitized Treasury of the French Language], 2012.

Полезное

Bolzano took this dictum to be about existence in his own narrow sense of ˜existence™ or ❋ Gerard Varni (2009)

If, rejecting the word Thing, we endeavour to find another of a more general import, or at least more exclusively confined to that general import, a word denoting all that exists, and connoting only simple existence; no word might be presumed fitter for such a purpose than _being_: originally the present participle of a verb which in one of its meanings is exactly equivalent to the verb _exist_; and therefore suitable, even by its grammatical formation, to be the concrete of the abstract _existence_. ❋ John Stuart Mill (1839)

One of the things that make Glock pistols some of the safest in existence is their unique Safe Action System. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Any fictional character in existence is eligible for this list. ❋ Unknown (2009)

The book, one of seven in existence, is referenced in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. ❋ Unknown (2007)

A fine art facsimile edition of one of the greatest medieval illuminated manuscripts in existence is published by the British Library, in association with Faksimile Verlag Luzern, on 23 March 2007. ❋ Unknown (2007)

The science fiction now in existence is no longer «science.» ❋ Unknown (2006)

I’ll answer your first question: The finest salsa in existence is Salsa Magnifico’s Raspberry Salsa, available for a piddling price considering what you get. ❋ Unknown (2006)

She works on an antiquated computer (15 years old – the only other one of its type still in existence is in the Science Museum!). ❋ Sharon Bakar (2004)

Some have been in existence from the beginning and others come and go. ❋ Unknown (2004)

The existence—if the word existence applies to that which precedes our universe—of the eternal metaphysical is a scientific reality. ❋ GERALD L. SCHROEDER (2001)

How to eat, how to maintain existence, is the problem that has confronted woman, as well as man, since the ages dawned for her. ❋ Unknown (1909)

From Black Venus, the punishing story of hermaphrodite Sarah «Saartjie» Baartman: «Maybe her existence is a sign of some kind from God.» ❋ Michael Vazquez (2010)

[email protected]#$ [my existence] ❋ Hsvgdhjxwceg (2019)

All there is, is existence — [everywhere] ❋ Bob (2003)

[Existence is pain]! -Mr. [Meeseeks] ❋ Imanangrybird (2017)

person 1: [tell me] a word [thet] describes you [at best]
person 2: uuuuh, existence i guess i don’t why?
person 1: nothing don’t worry ❋ Osama Been Laggin (2021)

The great [quest] for ,The [existence of the existence] has kept many a [philosopher] up late at night ❋ Cadillac Crumb (2021)

[i exist] ❋ [Ribbon] (2018)

I don’t see how you don’t get the [description], [existing] is pretty [straight forward] ❋ ThatOneKidDrew (2017)

Person: “[I exist]!”
[Everybody else]: “[We know]” ❋ PersonWhoExist (2020)

Kid: Mom, what is [my existence]?
Mom: [Welcome] to the club. We all here are [suffering]. ❋ Suck My Piano (2019)

«Your definately the most excellant guitarest in existance.» [—a] [complete idiot]
Maybe if you weren’t functionally [illiterate], you’d have a more «excellant» job. ❋ Pick Up A Book, You Moron (2006)

For other uses, see Existence (disambiguation).

Philosophy
(Plato, Confucius, Avicenna)
Philosophers Aestheticians · Epistemologists Ethicists · Logicians Metaphysicians Social and political philosophers
Traditions Analytic · Continental Eastern · Islamic Platonic · Scholastic
Eras Ancient · Medieval Modern · Contemporary
Literature Aesthetics · Epistemology Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics Political philosophy
Branches Aesthetics · Epistemology Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics Social philosophy Political philosophy
Lists Index · Outline · Theories Glossary · Philosophers
Portal
v · d · e

In common usage, existence is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. In academic philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, being contrasted with essence, which specifies different forms of existence as well as different identity conditions for objects and properties. Philosophers investigate questions such as «What exists?», «How do we know?», «To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?», and «What is the meaning, if any, of assertions of the existence of categories, ideas, and abstractions?»

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. A lively debate continues about the existence of God.

Epistemology studies criteria of truth, defining «primary truths» inherently accepted in the investigation of knowledge. The first is existence. It is inherent in every analysis. Its self-evident, a priori nature cannot be consistently doubted, since a person objecting to existence according to some standard of proof must implicitly accept the standard’s existence as a premise.^[1]

Materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter, that all things are composed of material, and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes that exist from those that do not^[2][3] —either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as «inanimate».^[4]

Etymology

The word «existence» comes from the Latin word existere meaning «to appear», «to arise», «to become», or «to be», but literally, it means «to stand out» (ex- being the Latin prefix for «out» added to the Latin verb stare, meaning «to stand»).

Historical conceptions

In the Western tradition of philosophy, the first comprehensive treatments of the subject are from Plato’s Phaedo, Republic, and Statesman and Aristotle’s Metaphysics, though earlier fragmentary writing exists. Aristotle developed a complicated theory of being, according to which only individual things, called substances, fully have being, but other things such as relations, quantity, time, and place (called the categories) have a derivative kind of being, dependent on individual things. In Aristotle’s Metaphysics, there are four causes of existence or change in nature: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause.

The Neo-Platonists and some early Christian philosophers argued about whether existence had any reality except in the mind of God. Some taught that existence was a snare and a delusion, that the world, the flesh, and the devil existed only to tempt weak humankind away from God.

The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas, perhaps following the Islamic philosopher Avicenna, argued that God is pure being, and that in God essence and existence are the same. At about the same time, the nominalist philosopher William of Ockham argued, in Book I of his Summa Totius Logicae (Treatise on all Logic, written some time before 1327), that Categories are not a form of Being in their own right, but derivative on the existence of individuals.

Early modern philosophy

The early modern treatment of the subject derives from Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole’s Logic, or The Art of Thinking, better known as the Port-Royal Logic, first published in 1662. Arnauld thought that a proposition or judgment consists of taking two different ideas and either putting them together or rejecting them:

After conceiving things by our ideas, we compare these ideas and, finding that some belong together and others do not, we unite or separate them. This is called affirming or denying, and in general judging. This judgment is also called a proposition, and it is easy to see that it must have two terms. One term, of which one affirms or denies something, is called the subject; the other term, which is affirmed or denied, is called the attribute or Praedicatum.

—Antoine Arnauld, The Art of Thinking (Port-Royal Logic),(1662) (translated J. Buroker 1996), Logic, II.3, page 82

The two terms are joined by the verb «is» (or «is not», if the predicate is denied of the subject). Thus every proposition has three components: the two terms, and the «copula» that connects or separates them. Even when the proposition has only two words, the three terms are still there. For example «God loves humanity», really means «God is a lover of humanity», «God exists» means «God is a thing».

This theory of judgment dominated logic for centuries, but it has some obvious difficulties: it only considers proposition of the form «All A are B.», a form logicians call universal. It does not allow propositions of the form «Some A are B», a form logicians call existential. If neither A nor B includes the idea of existence, then «some A are B» simply adjoins A to B. Conversely, if A or B do include the idea of existence in the way that «triangle» contains the idea «three angles equal to two right angles», then «A exists» is automatically true, and we have an ontological proof of A’s existence. (Indeed Arnauld’s contemporary Descartes famously argued so, regarding the concept «God» (discourse 4, Meditation 5)). Arnauld’s theory was current until the middle of the nineteenth century.

David Hume argued that the claim that a thing exists, when added to our notion of a thing, does not add anything to the concept. For example, if we form a complete notion of Moses, and superadd to that notion the claim that Moses existed, we are not adding anything to the notion of Moses.

Kant also argued that existence is not a «real» predicate, but gave no explanation of how this is possible. Indeed, his famous discussion of the subject is merely a restatement of Arnauld’s doctrine that in the proposition «God is omnipotent», the verb «is» signifies the joining or separating of two concepts such as «God» and «omnipotence».^{[original research?]}

Schopenhauer claimed that “everything that exists for knowledge, and hence the whole of this world, is only object in relation to the subject, perception of the perceiver, in a word, representation.”^[5] According to him there can be «No object without subject» because «everything objective is already conditioned as such in manifold ways by the knowing subject with the forms of its knowing, and presupposes these forms…»^[6]

Predicative nature

John Stuart Mill (and also Kant’s pupil Herbart) argued that the predicative nature of existence was proved by sentences like «A centaur is a poetic fiction»^[7] or «A greatest number is impossible» (Herbart).^[8] Franz Brentano challenged this; so also (as is better known) did Frege. Brentano argued that we can join the concept represented by a noun phrase «an A» to the concept represented by an adjective «B» to give the concept represented by the noun phrase «a B-A». For example, we can join «a man» to «wise» to give «a wise man». But the noun phrase «a wise man» is not a sentence, whereas «some man is wise» is a sentence. Hence the copula must do more than merely join or separate concepts. Furthermore, adding «exists» to «a wise man», to give the complete sentence «a wise man exists» has the same effect as joining «some man» to «wise» using the copula. So the copula has the same effect as «exists». Brentano argued that every categorical proposition can be translated into an existential one without change in meaning and that the «exists» and «does not exist» of the existential proposition take the place of the copula. He showed this by the following examples:

The categorical proposition «Some man is sick» has the same meaning as the existential proposition «A sick man exists» or «There is a sick man».

The categorical proposition «No stone is living» has the same meaning as the existential proposition «A living stone does not exist» or «there is no living stone».

The categorical proposition «All men are mortal» has the same meaning as the existential proposition «An immortal man does not exist» or «there is no immortal man».

The categorical proposition «Some man is not learned» has the same meaning as the existential proposition «A non-learned man exists» or «there is a non-learned man».

Frege developed a similar view (though later) in his great work The Foundations of Arithmetic, as did Charles Sanders Peirce (but Peirce held that the possible and the real are not limited to the actually, individually existent). The Frege-Brentano view is the basis of the dominant position in modern Anglo-American philosophy: that existence is asserted by the existential quantifier (as expressed by Quine’s slogan «To be is to be the value of a variable.» — On What There Is, 1948).^[9]

Semantics

In mathematical logic, there are two quantifiers, «some» and «all», though as Brentano (1838–1917) pointed out, we can make do with just one quantifier and negation. The first of these quantifiers, «some». is also expressed as «there exists». Thus, in the sentence «There exists a man», the term «man» is asserted to be part of existence. But we can also assert, «There exists a triangle.» Is a «triangle» — an abstract idea — part of existence in the same way that a «man» — a physical body — is part of existence? Do abstractions such as goodness, blindness, and virtue exist in the same sense that chairs, tables, and houses exist? What categories, or kinds of thing, can be the subject or the predicate of a proposition?

Worse, does «existence» exist?^[10]

In some statements, existence is implied without being mentioned. The statement «A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith» cannot just be about a bridge, the Thames, and Hammersmith. It must be about «existence» as well. On the other hand, the statement «A bridge crosses the Styx at Limbo» has the same form, but while in the first case we understand a real bridge in the real world made of stone or brick, what «existence» would mean in the second case is less clear.

The nominalist approach is to argue that certain noun phrases can be «eliminated» by rewriting a sentence in a form that has the same meaning, but does not contain the noun phrase. Thus Ockham argued that «Socrates has wisdom», which apparently asserts the existence of a reference for «wisdom», can be rewritten as «Socrates is wise», which contains only the referring phrase «Socrates». This method became widely accepted in the twentieth century by the analytic school of philosophy.

However, this argument may be inverted by realists in arguing that since the sentence «Socrates is wise» can be rewritten as «Socrates has wisdom», this proves the existence of a hidden referent for «wise».

A further problem is that human beings seem to process information about fictional characters in much the same way that they process information about real people. For example, in the 2008 United States presidential election, a politician and actor named Fred Thompson ran for the Republican Party nomination. In polls, potential voters identified Fred Thompson as a «law and order» candidate. Thompson plays a fictional character on the television series Law and Order. Doubtless the people who make the comment are aware that Law and Order is fiction, but at some level, they process fiction as if it were fact.^{[dubious – discuss][citation needed]} Another example of this is the common experience of actresses who play the villain in a soap opera being accosted in public as if they are to blame for the actions of the characters they play.

A scientist might make a clear distinction about objects that exist, and assert that all objects that exist are made up of either matter or energy. But in the layperson’s worldview, existence includes real, fictional, and even contradictory objects. Thus if we reason from the statement «Pegasus flies» to the statement «Pegasus exists», we are not asserting that Pegasus is made up of atoms, but rather that Pegasus exists in a particular worldview, the worldview of classical myth. When a mathematicians reasons from the statement «ABC is a triangle» to the statement «triangles exist», she is not asserting that triangles are made up of atoms but rather that triangles exist within a particular mathematical model.

Modern approaches

According to Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Descriptions, the negation operator in a singular sentence can take either wide or narrow scope: we distinguish between «some S is not P» (where negation takes «narrow scope») and «it is not the case that ‘some S is P'» (where negation takes «wide scope»). The problem with this view is that there appears to be no such scope distinction in the case of proper names. The sentences «Socrates is not bald» and «it is not the case that Socrates is bald» both appear to have the same meaning, and they both appear to assert or presuppose the existence of someone (Socrates) who is not bald, so that negation takes narrow scope.

The theory of descriptions has generally fallen into disrepute, though there have been recent attempts to revive it by Stephen Neale and Frank Jackson. According to the direct-reference view, an early version of which was originally proposed by Bertrand Russell, and perhaps earlier by Gottlob Frege, a proper name strictly has no meaning when there is no object to which it refers. This view relies on the argument that the semantic function of a proper name is to tell us which object bears the name, and thus to identify some object. But no object can be identified if none exists. Thus, a proper name must have a bearer if it is to be meaningful.

Existence in the wide and narrow senses

According to the «two sense» view of existence, which derives from Alexius Meinong, existential statements fall into two classes.

1. Those asserting existence in a wide sense. These are typically of the form «N is P» for singular N, or «some S is P».
2. Those asserting existence in a narrow sense. These are typically of the form «N exists» or «Ss exist».

The problem is then evaded as follows. «Pegasus flies» implies existence in the wide sense, for it implies that something flies. But it does not imply existence in the narrow sense, for we deny existence in this sense by saying that Pegasus does not exist. In effect, the world of all things divides, on this view, into those (like Socrates, the planet Venus, and New York City) that have existence in the narrow sense, and those (like Sherlock Holmes, the goddess Venus, and Minas Tirith) that do not.

However, common sense suggests the non-existence of such things as fictional characters or places.

European views

Influenced by the views of Brentano’s pupil Alexius Meinong, and by Edmund Husserl, Germanophone and Francophone philosophy took a different direction regarding the question of existence.

Anti-realist arguments

Anti-realism is the view of idealists who are skeptics about the physical world, maintaining either: 1) that nothing exists outside the mind, or 2) that we would have no access to a mind-independent reality even if it may exist. Realists, in contrast, hold that perceptions or sense data are caused by mind-independent objects. An «anti-realist» who denies that other minds exist (i. e., a solipsist) is different from an «anti-realist» who claims that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not there are unobservable other minds (i. e., a logical behaviorist).

Dharmic «middle way» view

The Indian philosopher Nagarjuna (c. 150 — 250 CE) largely advanced existence concepts and founded the Madhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

In eastern philosophy, Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) or «impermanence» describes existence. It refers to the fact that all conditioned things (sankhara) are in a constant state of flux. In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that goes on to form new plants. Buddhism teaches a middle way, avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.^[11] The middle way recognizes there are vast differences between the way things are perceived to exist and the way things really exist. The differences are reconciled in the concept of Shunyata by addressing the existing object’s served purpose for the subject’s identity in being. What exists is in non-existence, because the subject changes.

Trailokya elaborates on three kinds of existence, those of desire, form, and formlessness in which there are karmic rebirths. Taken further to the Trikaya doctrine, it describes how the Buddha exists. In this philosophy, it is accepted that the Buddha exists in more than one absolute way.

See also

• Being
• Cogito ergo sum
• Conservation law
• Cosmogony
• Cosmological argument
• Existence precedes essence
• Existence theorem
• Existentialism
• Existential operator
• Gödel’s ontological proof
• Gaunilo of Marmoutiers
• Identity and change
• Meaning of life
• Performative contradiction
• Right to exist
• Solipsism
• Three marks of existence

Notes

1. ^ Dolhenty, Jonathan. «Part Thirteen:The Criterion of Truth». The Problem of Knowledge: A brief introduction to epistemology. http://www.radicalacademy.com/epistom.htm. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
2. ^ Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). «The Seven Pillars of Life». Science 295. (5563): 2215–2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5563/2215. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
3. ^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, via Answers.com:
   • «The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.»
   • «The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.»
4. ^ Definition of inanimate. WordNet Search by Princeton University.
5. ^ The World as Will and Representation, vol. I, § 1
6. ^ The World as Will and Representation, vol. I, § 7
7. ^ John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, 1843 I. iv. 1.page 124
8. ^ Uberweg (System of Logic) §68
9. ^ On What There Is — in Review of Metaphysics (1948). Reprinted in W.V.O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View (Harvard University Press, 1953)
10. ^ To exist is to have a specific relation to existence — a relation, by the way, which existence itself does not have. Bertrand Russell — The Principles of Mathematics — New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 1903, second edition 1937 pages 449-450.
11. ^ The Buddhist Publication Society. «The Three Basic Facts of Existence». http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html. Retrieved 2009-07-14. «(ref.1) Change or impermanence is the essential characteristic of all phenomenal existence. We cannot say of anything, animate or inanimate, organic or inorganic, «this is lasting»; for even while we are saying this, it would be undergoing change. All is fleeting; the beauty of flowers, the bird’s melody, the bee’s hum, and a sunset’s glory.»

References

• Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole ‘Logic’, or The Art of Thinking, (known as the Port-Royal Logic), translated J. Buroker, Cambridge 1996
• Mill, J.S., A System of Logic, 8th edition 1908
• Loux, M., Ockham’s Theory Of Terms (translation of book I of the Summa Logicae c-1327).
• Plato, The Republic, translated by Desmond Lee, Penguin Classics, 2003, ISBN 0-14-044914-0, ISBN 978-0-14-044914-3
• Aristotle, The Metaphysics, translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred, Penguin Classics, 1999, ISBN 0-14-044619-2, ISBN 978-0-14-044619-7
• Heraclitus, Fragments, James Hilton, forward, Brooks Hexton, translator, Penguin Classics, 2003, ISBN 0-14-243765-4, ISBN 978-0-14-243765-0.
• The Meaning of Life, Terry Eagleton, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 0-19-921070-5 ISBN 978-0-19-921070-1
• The Story of Philosophy, Bryan Magee, Dorling Kindersley Lond. 1998, ISBN 0-7513-0590-1
• What is Existence?, C.J.F. Williams, Oxford University Press, 1981

External links

• Existence entry by Barry Miller in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002-05-24
• The Concept of Existence. History and Definitions from Leading Philosophers

Sometimes a person’s spoken, and written words reveal something about their character. That person writes and says it as they understand it, which could confuse the spelling of a word. Is it «existance» or «existence»?

«Existence» means «the state of having or being, independently of human consciousness.» It is the knowledge of all forms of reality. Additionally, it is the ability to be aware of the exact presence and occurrence of something. «Existance» is a misspelling of the word existence.

The definition of a word like existence includes a lot of baggage. The description of the word will bring us answers to questions about the meaning of life and help us understand our existence. Existence is not only being real but also believing that something or someone is real. The word could also be defined as «the state of being alive or real.»

For example, a person that believes that BigFoot is real believes in the existence of BigFoot. As such, there could be a difference in the interpretation of existence. A person may believe in BigFoot while others don’t. The same thing applies to gods and religion. A group of people may believe in it, and others don’t. These are examples of a disagreement about the word existence.

The Dictionary of Philosophy defined the word existence as «empirical reality, the substance of the physical universe.» This means that existence is something that is proved through observation and evidence. It is something that is opposed to the imagination. To put it in simpler terms, a reality.

What About The Word «Existance»?

The word «existance» probably owes its origins to how existence sounds when spoken. Take, for example, the word «substance.» The second part of the word «substance» sounds very similar to «existence.» Confusion might have risen from a similar situation. Additionally, historically the word «existance» has been used by many authors in their books. American authors like Herman Melville and Henry David Thoreau have both used the word «existance» in their works.

British authors like Arthur Conan Doyle and C.S. Lewis also employed it. As a result, for a long time, it was meant to believe that maybe the difference in spelling was due to the differences between North American and British English. To better explain this, let’s suppose the authors of the adventures of «Sherlock Holmes’ ‘ and «Chronicles of Narnia’ ‘ wrote «existance» in their writings. This would lead us to believe that it is a real word. Right? Well, not exactly. It is still a common misspelling of «existence.»

C.S Lewis confirms the misspelling in a vivid letter to the Times Educational Supplement, a British publication about education first published in 1910. Lewis defended using the word «existance,» considering there is a distinctive use of words depending on the person. Part of the letter reads: «But for the rest, who would be a penny the worse if though and tho, existence and existance, sieze, seize and seeze were all equally tolerated?»

C.S. Lewis questioned the apparent necessity for everyone to spell the same way. He even said that sometimes logic is more important when analyzing a common person’s writing. Conan Doyle, Thoreau, Melville, and C.S Lewis were all known to have common writing for their times. It is one of the reasons why their books reach a broad audience.

Origin Of The Word «Existence»

The origin of the word is from the 14th century. «Existence» comes from the Old French word «existence.» Additionally, from the Medieval Latin Existentia, Exsistentia; from Latin existere, meaning to stand forth, emerge, appear, and be visible.

How To Use «Existence» In Sentences

The most common use of the word existence is to refer to something or someone real, a person that exists or has existed. Examples:

• People need to acknowledge the existence of a pandemic so they can take proper precautions.
• A lot of people believed in the existence of many gods. I only believed in one.
• Maria is obsessed with proving the existence of ghosts. She has slept in that abandoned house for the past week.
• The meaning of our existence is still beyond our understanding.
• Being loved is one of the greatest feelings of our existence.

Synonyms for existence

We can use several terms to describe something similar to the word existence, such as actuality, reality, and subsistence.

Actuality: the quality of being actual. A fact. For example, the damaging effects of the new virus are an actuality. 

Reality: the state of being real. For example, going out late at night is still dangerous, that’s the reality of our town.

Subsistence: the condition of remaining in existence. For example, a healthy planet is vital for our subsistence. 

Antonyms For «Existence»

People may be confused and think that the opposite of «existence» is death. However, dying implies you already existed. Therefore, here are a few terms that can indicate the opposite of existence: inexistent, nonbeing, and nonexistent.

Inexistent: not having existence. For example, the evidence of people getting chips into their bodies for being controlled is inexistent.

Nonbeing: absence or lack of being. For example, many people believe in nonbeings because it makes their lives easier.

Nonexistent: the absence of existence or Negation of being. For example, Your feelings towards me have always been nonexistent.

Is There A Meaning To Existence?

When people talk about existence, they tend to become philosophers and try to explain the meaning of life. We are not going to do this here, but there is always room for light conversation about existence.

Experts in psychology say that people understand the meaning of existence as being happy. Hence, people search for happiness wherever they can find it. But finding happiness for the sake of it leads to a fleeting moment and plenty of disappointment.

Antti Kauppinen, a philosophy professor from Finland, states that: «while purpose and happiness are distinctly different concepts, feeling a sense of meaning in your life can be a key factor in experiencing happiness.»

This quote refers to the need to look for a purpose to understand one’s existence and achieve a deeper happiness level—that meaning changes with age. When we are young, happiness is excitement; when we get older, happiness is peace. Experts say there are four simple factors to follow to be able to achieve meaning in existence. These are:

• Mental and physical well-being: this means taking care of your state of mind, emotional education, and your body.
• Belonging and recognition: referring to being valued and validated. Feeling like your peers understand you.
• Personally treasured activities: hobbies, spending time with family, learning to spend time with yourself.
• Spiritual closeness and connectedness: feeling related to all the living things in the world or finding mental peace thanks to religion.

The meaning of existence for a person changes constantly. It could change after a significant or minor event in a person’s life. Self-reflection is often recommended in these cases. It is the best way to find what matters in a person’s life.

Conclusion

Even by definition, the word «existence» brings a thorough and sometimes difficult conversation. Existence is the state of being alive and being real. «Existance» is a misspelling of the word «existence,» a prevalent one. As a general rule, we just need to remember that sometimes words are not necessarily written in the same way that they sound.