Essay 11-Definition of Existence

Introduction

In essay 4 and essay 6 we have discussed the concepts of existence, particularly existence as a property of reality which is true and a property of objects which are also true, or in other words the absolute existence of reality and the existence of objects. I have also mentioned the concept of existence in essay 9 and essay 10 as the observations of particular existences. However, we have not discussed the essence of existence or its definition, and as such this essay has the purpose of exploring the meaning or definition of existence.

Definition

Both the absolute existence of reality and the existence of objects, through intuitive proof and later on an established proof show that there is such a thing as existence, that existence exists. It also informs us that existence is to an extent related to conscious experience or phenomena as we can only know the existence of objects by phenomenon. Then in essay 8 we discover that existence is not completely united with phenomena, as objects can exist outside of conscious experience.

Regardless those facts give us a starting point to define existence, that is the phenomena. We cannot define existence as the state of being in conscious experience, but we can define existence as being in the potentiality of phenomena. In other words, it is the state of being able to enter conscious experience, not necessarily the state of being inside of it. As such formally existence is defined as, “Existence is the state or property of objects capable of entering conscious experience.”

At a glance this definition seems sufficient, but a closer examination reveals that this definition is still too dependent on conscious experience. As if consciousness were to be destroyed, then all existence would vanish as well, as if there is no consciousness then there is no consciousness the objects can enter. These objects would then lose that predicate of existence. However, there is not much problem with ending consciousness as by that time we would not be there to know it.

The real problem is when consciousness begins or before the beginning of consciousness. Though we do not exactly know if there is such a thing as a beginning to consciousness or not, but we may speculate. In such scenario, there must be a cause to consciousness which exists before it can fulfil the definition of existence at all. Now it is true that we can simply say that the object is present without existing, but we must match the definition with the intuition.

The intuition is that existence is a presence, the capacity to operate and affect other things in the field of actuality. If a cause can cause consciousness, then it is present prior to consciousness and therefore the true definition of existence or its essence can not possibly be based on consciousness. As even in speculation, existence is the one which affects consciousness and is at best equal to it if not superior or more fundamental.

Now it would be another case if consciousness is eternal and has no beginning or end, it would mean that as consciousness is always present that means existence can be defined in terms of conscious experience without any possibility of the definition being broken. However, I still have the intuition and feeling that existence is still much more fundamental than consciousness. Furthermore, it is a truth that this definition can break in the speculation, while we seek a definition that is consistent in any scenario.

As such, we continue to another approach of the definition of existence, that is looking at the commonality of all existences. To simplify this, it means we are seeking what is common for all members of the set of existence. The set of existence is also known as reality as defined by essay 4, and its members are called objects as defined by essay 7. Therefore, in simple terms, we seek what is the similarity of all objects.

It is true that the essence of an object is to be part of reality, but that is equal to membership in the set of existence. We cannot say that existence means the state of being a member of the set of existence, as then to ask what being a member of reality means we would answer that it is to exist. It would then be a rather circular definition, instead of a based definition. We can then look towards another similarity, that is the concept of property as promulgated in essay 9.

All objects have property, at least one property, if not multiple properties. We can then define existence as the state of having properties or formally, “Existence is the state or property of objects possessing at least one property.” We can not say “multiple properties”, as an object which has multiple properties is composed reducibly to irreducibly simple objects which must exist prior to the complex object. Therefore, we say “at least one property.”

Unfortunately, further analysis reveals a similar circular problem with this definition. As how would we answer the question of, “What does it mean for an object to possess property?” We cannot simply say that it means “to be composed of other objects” as unitary objects with only one property are composed of only one object. It would be akin to saying, “to be composed of itself,” or, “to be itself.”

Then existence would be reducibly defined as, “The state of an object being what it is.” A definition which is to be perfectly honest, has almost no meaning or information. It is at this point that the realization should come through that it is impossible to clearly define existence in simpler terms than itself, as frankly, existence is in reality the most fundamental property and the most fundamental object. It is already the simplest, you can not go simpler than existence.

On the other side we know that in the subjective realm, or the realm of consciousness which is the only thing we can access, it is experience which is the most fundamental. After all, regardless of how fundamental existence is in reality, that knowledge is obtained only through conscious experience. As such in the subjective realm existence is subordinate to conscious experience. Yet in the objective realm it is the other way around.

The problem of defining existence is indeed similar to defining experience. We cannot exactly define experience other than pointing to examples and hoping people would catch the commonality. Though defining existence is worse as there are no examples other than referring to conscious experience. Defining existence is then based on the soft intuitions and feelings we have. Through elaboration of what existence is, without properly defining it, hopefully people would understand it immediately what it is through their own intuition.

Then existence is by definition, existence. It can be proven conclusively through conscious experience, but the lack of experience of it is not sign of the non-existence of anything. An object which can interact with others certainly exists, but an object which doesn’t might exist as well. An object which exists simply exists, it simply is. An object might have many properties, but none of those properties may be considered to be the actual essence of existence. An object’s existence does not depend on whether it’s physical or not, whether it’s phenomenal or not, nor on any other of its properties. If it exists, then it exists.

Here we return to the first two definitions, the phenomenal and the objective definition. In a way, the primary consequence of an object’s existence is that it can enter the conscious experience even if just partially. This is why we may define existence based on the conscious experience. Meanwhile, the second definition is useful due to its consistency, despite its circularity. It is fundamentally true for all existent objects that they have a property. But it does not mean that it is the essence of existence. Regardless of the flaws of both definitions, they will remain useful to our philosophical system.

Linguistic Implication

The linguistic implication is that we can no longer talk about “objects which do not exist,” as an object by definition, exists. If a “thing” does not exist, then it’s not even an object, it’s just another “thing”. Yet at the same time, all “things” are covered by the all-encompassing set of reality. Reality extends to all things which “are”. There is no thing, or nothing outside of reality, if a thing is “present”, then it must be part of reality.

Outside of reality is not even emptiness, as emptiness has properties as to be discussed in a future essay and is thus an object which has a place in reality. In fact, it is probably better to say that there is no such thing as an outside. As reality is the totality of everything, then there cannot be an outside of reality, only an inside of reality. We can speak of insides and outsides in terms of smaller objects, but not in terms of reality.

As such we have to relearn our linguistic habits and our semantics, from a dualistic language of existence and reality to a monistic language of existence and reality. Yes, grammatically it would make sense to say “outside of reality”, but semantically it just does not make sense. In this sense, we are simply reattributing the words to its proper meanings. The differences and dualisms we actually refer to still exist, but we just cannot refer to them using the same language as before anymore.

Conclusion

From this essay we may obtain 2 philosophical statements, that is, “Existence is the state or property of objects capable of entering conscious experience,” and, “Existence is the state or property of objects possessing at least 1 property.” While the third definition of existence cannot be defined coherently. In the next essay we shall be discussing the eternity of existence. And now this essay is declared to be done.

This essay corresponds to the Indonesian version.