3

This question is tripping me up.

My working definition of exists is "affecting something/someone"

Consider the following frame of reference: My bedroom

I now have two categories.

Things that exist (in my bedroom):

  • Bed
  • Computer
  • Etc.

Things that don't exist (in my bedroom):

  • Zebras

Now my question is are there things that don't exist? My logic is such that I think there are 0 things that don't exist or in other words there are only things that exist. It seems this gives rise to a paradox.

If there are 0 things that don't exist then how can I come up with a list of things that don't exist that has a size greater than 0?

Since I have this list I must claim there are things that don't exist (specifically zebras in this case) which also seems to be a contradiction.

What error am I making? Thank you!

J D
  • 19,541
  • 3
  • 18
  • 83
WokeBloke
  • 117
  • 3
  • 1
    A huge percentage of philosophy is dedicated to answering this question or closely related questions. It's not something that can be answered in a few paragraphs. – David Gudeman May 28 '22 at 20:02
  • @DavidGudeman Can I ask your answer to the following question: how many things do not exist? – WokeBloke May 28 '22 at 20:24
  • In other words, what is the truth value of this proposition: "There exists X such that X does not exist." – user4894 May 28 '22 at 23:01
  • @WokeBloke, it depends on what you think existence is and whether you think saying "there are Xs" commits you to the existence of Xs. Here is a good survey: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/ – David Gudeman May 29 '22 at 03:21
  • Ill-formed question. The question holds a contradiction: "are there" == "[exist] things that don't exist?" We don't have even the language to refer to what doesn't exist. – RodolfoAP May 29 '22 at 06:14
  • 1
    @RodolfoAP, we do have a language to refer to things that don't exist; we do it all the time: "Bugs Bunny likes carrots", "There is a bullet in Barney Fife's shirt pocket". Some philosophers would say that Bugs Bunny and Barney Fife's bullet do exist since we can reference them. Others would say that you can reference a thing without committing to its existence. Others would say that these are only apparent references and that there is an underlying structure to the sentences that does not refer to Bugs or the Bullet. It's a very complex philosophical issue. – David Gudeman May 29 '22 at 06:48
  • @DavidGudeman Bugs Bunny exists. Not as a physical thing, but as a concept, an ideal thing, an entity and an object (counterpart to the observer, the subject). But there's no language to refer to "any-other-but-things" (only existing things can be things) that don't exist. To start, what is the structure of what don't exist? Is it divided in a set of equivalents to things? (which can't be, those would be things) Or is it a unity? (which can't be, since it would exist as a thing and an idea!) – RodolfoAP May 29 '22 at 06:56
  • 1
    @RodolfoAP, there are strong philosophical arguments against your position. The simplest can be outlined like this: the concept of Bugs Bunny exists, but the concept of Bugs Bunny is not Bugs Bunny. Bugs eats carrots. The concept of Bugs is an abstract object. Abstract objects don't eat anything. – David Gudeman May 29 '22 at 07:06
  • @DavidGudeman I assume your statement is "Bugs don't exist, but eats carrots". Brilliant. – RodolfoAP May 29 '22 at 13:51
  • You're confusing the thing and your idea about the thing. The thing (a zebra in your room) does not exist but the idea of a zebra in your room exists because you're having it right now. Once this distinction is clear we realize the problem also doesn't exist, only our idea of it. (What exactly an idea is is a whole other bag of worms) – armand May 29 '22 at 23:09
  • @armand the issue lays there precisely. Whatever perception is just an idea in your mind, it only exists there, not on the outside, not outside our minds; such realm (the noumenon) is unknowable. Existence is always a subjective issue, and non-existence is the same. Perhaps the noumenon is equivalent to non-existence, but we cannot address it, we don't have even the language for that, for what can't exist, inside and outside of our minds. – RodolfoAP May 30 '22 at 10:23
  • @RodolfoAP the fact that we can't know the *thing in itself* does not mean it does not exist. If a sniper shots me in the head from 500m away, I'll be dead before the idea of the bullet ever enters my mind. It killed me nonetheless, because it existed outside of my mind. The zebra in OP's room on the other hand, is nothing but an idea in OP's mind. Of course one does not have to be a realist, but if one believes there is a shared reality no confusion like the one raise by OP is possible. – armand May 30 '22 at 10:42

2 Answers2

2

I consider the question ill-posed, it is a trap of our language.

The error is to misunderstand the role of the expression "the thing X does not exist". The expression serves to negate a sentence, not to characterize an object. The expression means "There is no thing X" or "the word X has no referent".

The solution is due to Bertrand Russell. His example:

X = present king of France.

The expression is a shorthand for the sentence: "There is presently no person who is king of France."

Jo Wehler
  • 20,817
  • 2
  • 26
  • 77
0

There are an infinite number of things that don't exist. A square with 5 angles, an integer number that squares to 3, etc.

Oбжорoв
  • 139
  • 6
  • Yes, we want to be able to talk and reason about impossibilia. This a very common use of language. – J Kusin May 29 '22 at 13:10