Can “existence” be thought without relations?

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

I’ve been thinking about the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, but I find myself getting stuck at a more fundamental level.

In approaching this question, I’ve been influenced by Nāgārjuna and Carlo Rovelli.

What I don’t quite understand is how we can even talk about “existence” as something independent. It seems to be treated as if it could stand on its own, without any relations—but I’m not sure that makes sense.

When I try to think about existence, it already feels like I’m within some form of relation. So I begin to wonder whether relations are not something that come after existence, but something more fundamental than existence itself.

I’m not trying to assert a position or reach a conclusion. I’m simply interested in how others approach this question.

Is it possible to think of “existence” without relations?

1 Like
2

:100:

Most of Western thinking has been cast in terms of an ‘ultimate existent’ - whether that is God, the self-existent causa sui, or the atom, the purported ‘indivisible particle’. These are posited as the terminus of explanation, the Ultimate Being or Thing, from which all else is derived.

In Buddhist philosophy, everything that exists does so as a result of causes and conditions. That is the ‘chain of dependent origination’ (Pratītyasamutpāda). No particular being has svabhāva, ‘own-being’ or self-existent nature. All exist in relationship.

So your question is quite in line with what Rovelli and Nāgārjuna say, no question. :folded_hands:

3

Thank you, this helps a lot.

This leads me to a slightly different question.

As I think it through, it begins to seem to me that what we call “existence” might not be fundamental, and that perhaps only relations are.

This makes me wonder why Western philosophy has tended to remain committed to the idea of “existence” as something primary.

4

These are very large questions that can’t be answered in a forum reply. It is true as I said above that the ‘relational’ view is found in both Carlos Rovelli and Buddhist sage Nāgārjuna - but both of those subjects demand considerable study to understand in depth.

That said - I think it’s possible to identify some sources of the quest for certainty. There is the fear that we are deluded or mistaken about the real nature of existence, or that our beliefs may lack a sure foundation. They are perfectly reasonable fears, especially considering the state of today’s world. I think that kind of anxiety is highly characteristic of modern life, for many people.

In earlier ages, religious belief provided that kind of sense of certainty. God was believed to underwrite or guarantee a sense of certainty. The Bible starts with ‘in the beginning, God created the earth.’

In the modern period, beginning around the early 18th century, it was more of a quest for scientifically-grounded knowledge. That lead to the discoveries of Newton’s laws and the dawning of modern physics and the other sciences. Certainty was then sought in terms of understanding the laws of nature, which seemed to offer mastery over them.

Since then, the apparent conflict between the two has been a further source of anxiety. Traditional religion has been thrown into question, and science is a two-edged sword, on the one hand delivering enormous benefits, but on the other, enormous threats.

I suppose that is all a bit vague, but then, as noted, it’s a very large question. Perhaps home in on more specific idea for further discussion.

1 Like
5

Who is treating it that way?

6

You should read Joseph Kaipayil’s work: like ‘An Essay on Ontology’ or ‘Relationalism: a theory of being’

1000006045
10000060451080×1590 282 KB

7

I believe The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion is where I reread that Brahman is “The irreducible ground of existence. The essence of every thing.” and “The eternal, imperishable Absolute. The supreme nondual reality of Vedanta.”. I guess that means some believe relationships are not necessary for existence. And the goal is to achieve union with Brahman, existing in that nondual state.

8

The something that we know there is, instead of ‘Nothing’, has no opposite and therefore no alternative, meaning that it has to be, since ‘Nothing’ cannot be.

In his new book, Helgoland…’, about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only features in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by emptiness’ in his Buddhism.

Further note that the universe and all that comes and goes in it is temporary, yet I, PoeticUniverse, have to note that the Permanent ever remains.

Relationism and Buddhism

(Outline from reading Rovelli)

Quantum fields form and exhaust reality,

As partless, continuous—there’s no Space!

Reality maintains itself in place

As the net of objects interacting.

Copernicus’ revolution’s complete;

External entities aren’t required

To hold the universe; God’s not needed,

Nor any background; there is no Outside.

Nor is there the ‘now’ all over the place.

GR’s relational nature extends

To Time as well—the flow’ of time is not

An ultimate aspect of reality.

All is Relational: no entity

Exists independently of anything;

There are no intrinsic properties,

Just features in relation to what’s else.

Interactions and events (not things) are

Quantum entangled with such others else;

Impermanence pertains all the way through—

What Nagarjuna means by Emptiness.

There are no fundamental substances,

No permanences, no bird’s-eye view

Of All, no Foundation to Everything,

Plus no infinite regress ne’er completed.

The fields are not from anything—causeless!

Or ‘not from anything’ is of lawless

’Nothing’, which can’t ever form to remain.

There is no reason, then, to existence.

Hope’s Necessary ‘God’ vanishes!

This realization of Impermanence,

No Absolutes, and Emptiness,

As all temporary, is Nirvana.

Nirvana is the realization of impermanence, no absolutes, and emptiness through and through.

9

When you are thinking about something X, it is your mental event in your mind with intentionality about the object X. However, it is purely happening in your mind. Nothing is affecting the object X. Hence it is not clear that event should be called some relations.

Relations are only meaningful when it is mutual way between the objects or beings such as in Cause and Effect relations.

10

I think it is possible – that is, it’s a thought we can form and understand – but incorrect.

11

Yes, I agree — it’s a difficult topic.

As a Japanese person, I think I’m influenced by a Buddhist background, which makes this shift in perspective easier to accept.

The idea that “our beliefs may lack a sure foundation” doesn’t feel so unsettling to me, because concepts like emptiness (śūnyatā) and non-self (anātman) already point in that direction.

Rather than seeing humans as something special, it feels more natural to see us as part of nature, flowing within it.

I find it interesting — and in a way encouraging — that science, which developed within Western philosophy, now seems to be connecting with these kinds of perspectives.

12

That’s a fair question.

I may be overstating it, but I have the impression that much of Western thought tends to look for something that can stand on its own as a final ground — whether that is God, substance, or fundamental particles.

I’m questioning whether that kind of independence is actually thinkable at all.

13

Thank you, that looks really interesting. I’ll give it a read.

14

This is a very tough question. An immediate intuition might be to say that a thing absent anything else can’t exist, for a thing to have existence requires something else to distinguish that thing from something else.

A bit like saying there is something relative to nothing.

But the factual question remains, can a thing exist by itself? I see no a-priori reason to say that this is not possible. But I can form no idea of how this thing could exist.

Of course, we should not confuse our lack of insight into nature based on the limits of our imaginations.

Excellent question.

15

Thank you for sharing this — I find the relational aspect really interesting.

I especially resonate with the idea that nothing exists independently, and that what we call “things” may really just be networks of relations or interactions.

I’m still unsure, though, about whether anything like a “permanent” can be maintained within that view.

16

That’s an interesting point.

I’m not entirely sure that thinking can be separated from relation in that way. Even if the mental event happens “in the mind,” it still seems to be structured as a relation — for example, between the thinker and what is thought, or between different elements within the experience itself.

So I’m wondering whether what we call “thinking” is already relational, rather than something that occurs independently and only later connects to objects.

In that sense, I’m not sure we can clearly draw a line between “purely internal” and “relational.”

17

That’s a very sharp point.

I agree that we shouldn’t rule out the possibility a priori, simply because we cannot imagine how such a thing could exist.

At the same time, I wonder whether the issue is not just about our imagination, but about the conditions under which something can even be thought or identified as “a thing.”

If a thing were truly without any relation, it seems unclear how it could be distinguished, referred to, or even counted as “something” at all.

So my hesitation is not so much that such a thing is impossible in reality, but that the very notion of a completely relationless “thing” may be difficult to make sense of, even conceptually.

18

That’s interesting — I see what you mean.

But I’m not sure I fully agree that it is something we can genuinely think or understand.

It seems to me that even to form the idea of “something,” we already rely on some form of distinction or relation.

So I wonder whether what appears to be a thinkable “independent existence” is actually already structured by relations, even if we don’t notice it.

19

That’s very interesting — thank you for bringing that in.

I wonder, though, whether a completely non-dual “ground” like Brahman can really be thought or spoken of without already introducing some kind of distinction.

It seems that even to refer to it as a “ground” or “essence” might already imply a relation or contrast.

So I’m not sure whether this truly avoids relation, or whether relation reappears at the level of thought.

20

For there to be relations there must be “things” that are related. These things need not be physical things. There are relations, for example, between ideas or concepts.

“Things” exist. Existence does not exist.