Is Everything Real Something that Exists?

Metaphysics & Epistemology
, ,
1

Is everything real something that exists? We are reflexively inclined to answer “of course!” Reality and existence, we will say, are synonyms. What is real, we are used to thinking, must be out there somewhere.

But when we speak of real dangers, real possibilities, or real obligations—what then? None of those are physically existent, in the sense that a table or an apple are. And yet we have no difficulty accepting their reality.

Herewith an essay, published on Philosophy Today (Medium) exploring the metaphysical distinction between reality (what is true, stable, and intelligible, from the Latin res) and existence (what stands out in space and time, from ex-sistere). Drawing on arithmetic, Augustine’s res intelligibiles, universals, and unactualised possibilities, the essay argues that collapsing reality into physical existence results in a ‘flat ontology’.

The essay can be accessed via Medium Friend Link or download the formatted PDF Version.

I’m interested in insights into the distinction between ontology and epistemology in this context. If ideal objects (like numbers or logical principles) are real without existing in space-time, does this distinction hold up under a non-reductive physicalist framework, or does it necessitate a form of Platonism?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

5 Likes
Does pain exist?
2

Something that exists would be like a chair, a hat, a stick/scarf, a kilt, etc.

The real would include all of the above.

Since human consciousness seems to be the matter at hand, I’d say that it’s experientially endowed but is it something that exists?

2 Likes
3

Strictly speaking, the mind is not something that exists, but that for which things exist. See for example Husserl’s critique of naturalism (from his Philosophy as a Rigorous Science):

In contrast to the outlook of naturalism, Husserl believed all knowledge, all science, all rationality depended on conscious acts, acts which cannot be properly understood from within the natural outlook at all. Consciousness should not be viewed naturalistically as part of the world, since consciousness is precisely the reason why there was a world there for us in the first place. For Husserl it is not that consciousness creates the world in any ontological sense…but rather that the world is opened up, made meaningful, or disclosed through consciousness. The world is inconceivable apart from consciousness. Treating consciousness as part of the world, reifying consciousness, is precisely to ignore consciousness’s foundational, disclosive role ~ Routledge Introduction to Phenomenology, p144.

But grasping it requires something of a perspective shift, effected by the phenomenological epochē. We’re deeply enculturated to a subject-object ontology mediated by science alone, which is what makes it a difficult thing to see.

1 Like
4

Some of us can’t see it you know. We’re not built for the kill so to speak. I’m a materialist by inclination but I have nothing against those who hold a different view. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Naturalism on mind is like prayer on disaster. We’re going to get nowhere. However neuroscience is making rapid strides. It’s the naturalist’s way of doing things, like how a dog wags its tail. Have you heard of psychonauts and oneironauts? Interesting, worth the while for someone who has experience in meditation.

1 Like
5

I’ve heard the term ‘psychonauts’ but not in relation to computer games. (I’m the wrong generation for computer games, they didn’t exist until I was well into adulthood, although I do play chess on my iPhone, badly.) I hadn’t heard the term ‘oneironaut’.

I had a thread earlier this year on the difference between ‘consciousness studies’ and ‘philosophy of mind’. The latter tends to be found mainly in philosophy departments but the former is a mult-disciplinary research field drawing on neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy, particularly phenomenology and enactive cognition. And that is feeding back into neuroscientific perspectives. Science itself is changing and is no longer materialist by default, in my opinion, even if that remains a majority view.

1 Like
6

I’m not abreast with science. Lagged behind and never caught up. I wonder if Chlamers and Negal practice meditation and whether they know anything about psychonautics and oneironautics. It would be a killer combo if they did and if there was something substantive in those domains. I’m not recommending anything though. Just speculating. Fits right in with multi-disciplinary methods.

Read the essay linked in the OP. Reminds me of a philosopher who claimed there’s a new fad in religion that one can be Christian without faith. One doesn’t believe so no faith required; however, one is a Christian. I have no clue how this breaks down, real-but-nonexistent seems to be cut from the same cloth. Now, having given it a closer look, it’s quite a revolutionary eidos. Congratulations.

8

Chalmers is a much more hip cat than stodgy old Nagel. His mother ran a New Age bookstore in Kings Cross (Sydney’s “entertainment” quarter). As a young fellow he won a bronze medal at the Maths Olympiad — so, bright guy! — before turning his attention to philosophy. But he’s still very much at pains to remain within the mainstream, indeed he’s a tenured professor. (You can read his bio here. Also an interesting NY Times article featuring Chalmers among others, on how AI companies are hiring philosophers. Be nice if they hired me ::sob: )

It wasn’t intended as any kind of apologetic for Christianity. But then, it’s an historical fact that the Greek–speaking Christian world assimilated a great deal of Greek philosophy in its formative years, which provided it’s philosophical super-structure (indeed, Plato and some other Greek philosophers were posthumously dubbed “Christians before Christ” by some.) And it’s also true that the distinctions we now recognise under the headings of philosophy, theology and science were in the ancient world all grouped under “philosophy”. Platonist philosophy does require a certain kind of ‘openness to the transcendent’, let’s say, but fideism— the belief in ‘salvation by faith alone’ — it ain’t.

And, thanks!

1 Like
9

The past and the future might be ‘things’ to mull over on this topic.

Similarities (and many other abstractions)

10

The Greeks inaugurated philosophy for the world. Greece was the fountainhead, whose waters we drink of. I recall the Greek connection in Christianity: The gospels were written in Greek and many Greek ideas were transplanted onto Christian doctrine. This may explain why Christianity has a rich history with philosophy, albeit largely focused on placating Plato-Aristotle while anathematizing skepticism?

Your distinction real vs. existence justifiably legitimizes the science of mind. I haven’t kept up with the Joneses so to speak and last I checked the science of mind was considered pseudoscience, a poor cousin scientists were loathe to openly engage with. It now becomes harder to be dismissive of this domain of research.

11

I’ve explored these methods as well as meditation. They can form a useful part of a spiritual, or mystical journey. But without that angle, or a religious grounding they are dead ends.

Or in other words, it doesn’t provide any intellectual, or conceptual, understanding, or learning. But what it does do is help in the effort to free the self from conditioning, or develop insight into the nature of the self.

1 Like
12

Philosophy proper is a distinctively Greek phenomenon, coming from ‘philos’ love ‘sophia’ wisdom. So ‘love-wisdom’. The Gospels were indeed written down in Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time, although the language of Jesus and the disciples was Aramaic (a Semitic dialect). In the early Common Era, there was a massive ferment of religious and philosophical ideas and belief systems, from which orthodox Christianity emerged. Platonism was definitely a part of that, although there was also a tension between Greek philosophy and the Hebrew prophetic tradition ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’ said Tertullian, one of the fiercest early defenders of Christian orthodoxy. But other church fathers, such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria, incorporated many platonic ideas and ‘Christian Platonism’ is definitely a major school of thought in Western culture.

My belief is there is a core of insight in Platonism which has gradually become lost to Western culture because of its association with religion to our detriment. Here I’m trying to re-explore it.

1 Like
13

There is grist for the mill in Christianity. I daresay Jesus would find himself quite lost in the many debates between theists and theists sponsored by mostly Christian organizations. Philosophized Christianity is what we encounter on stages and podiums. They’re quite interesting to listen to.

For the record I haven’t done any psychonautics, nor any oneironautics. As I said I’m a materialist/physicalist. First and foremost among my difficulties is the terminology. Second, the topic itself is abstruse and esoteric.

14

well, it is a philosophy forum :wink:

2 Likes
15

Yes it is. A place where we can discuss important issues and the mind is one of them. Over the years I’ve dived in and out of philosophical fora, there’s one takeaway that jumps out at me. Progress! Neuroscience is plodding along but I don’t see how it can crack the puzzle of electrophysiological processes giving rise to (allegedly) consciousness.

1 Like
16

The connection between reality and existence

It would be true to say: the danger of nuclear war is real and exists
It would not be true to say: the danger of nuclear war is real yet does not exist
It would not be true to say: the danger of nuclear war is not real yet exists
It would be true to say: the danger of nuclear war is not real and does not exist

In other words, there is a logical biconditional between “to be real” and “to exist”. To be real implies to exist and to exist implies to be real. “To be real” IFF “to exist”.

There may be a logical connection between “to be real” and “to exist”, but it does not follow that they mean the same thing. Two different things may be logically connected. For example, a rock is heavy IFF the rock is in a gravitational field.

Reality and existence are logically connected but are not synonyms.

One question is, is reality the consequent or antecedent of existence.

2 Likes
17

That nuclear warheads physically exist is indisputable—they are physical items in an armory. But the danger itself isn’t a physical object alongside the hardware; it depends on political conditions, human intent, and future possibilities. The danger is a real state of affairs, but it doesn’t exist in the same sense that a missile does.

Indeed, the whole point of the essay is that they’re not synonymous.

I’m inclined to say that existence is a subset of reality.

18

I suggest small alterations in the relevant definitions. We can stick to the conventional/lexical definition for “existence”. However “real” needs a bit of work. Off the top of my head I’d add, it matters/is important/cannot be ignored, but this is axiological, removed from metaphysics. We have to admit, “real” and “existence” are synonymous in most domains of discourse. That said, the brief etymological analysis in the OP suggests an ancient distinction, lost to us.

1 Like
19

I think ‘what’s real’ is an abstraction of the life supporting aspect of the universe, that we have to temper.

It contains our nervous system, we expect this future.

What is to be.

It is a hard problem. I’m struggling to define it.

20

Yes, the danger of nuclear weapons does not exist in the same sense as nuclear weapons exist.

However, as regards something concrete, such as a nuclear weapon, if it is real then it exists. As regards something abstract, such as the danger of nuclear weapons, if it is real, then it must also exist.

If existence was a subset of reality, then reality would include some things that exist and some things that don’t exist. This would mean that there are some things that are real but don’t exist.

However, if a concrete thing is real, such as a nuclear weapon, then it must exist, and if an abstract thing, such as danger, is real, then it must also exist.

Whether something is concrete or abstract, there remains a logical biconditional between “to be real” and “to exist”, To be real implies to exist and to exist implies to be real.

We would probably agree that danger exists in the mind as a concept and is not physically present in the world. However, an Indirect Realist would argue that even “concrete” objects, whether a chair, table or nuclear weapon, only exist in the mind as abstract concepts.

For the Indirect Realist, both “concrete” objects such as a nuclear weapon and “abstract” concepts such as the danger of nuclear weapons are real because they exist in the mind.

In this sense, reality is the consequence of its antecedent, existence.

21

What’s missing from your explanation is that there is more than one meaning of world for husserl. He brackets the natural world and puts it out of play, arguing that it could be ‘annihilated’, that is, that one could fail to constitute any harmoniously correlated objects out of phenomena. When Husserl says that the world could be “annihilated” , he is not saying that consciousness could remain without any content whatsoever.

He is saying that the posited objective world might fail to exhibit the harmonious regularities required for the constitution of stable objects. He asks us to imagine experience becoming increasingly chaotic , where perceptions cease to cohere, memories cease to confirm perceptions, expectations are continually frustrated, and no enduring objects can be constituted. The world as nature would collapse.

But the absence of a natural world still leaves a world of phenomena. There would still be something appearing, even if no stable objective world could be constituted from it. There would still be sensations, temporal flow, intentional acts and noemata. There must always be noematic content, even though this content will be relative and subjective.

There is no ‘mind’ or consciousness for Husserl separate from acts of consciousness. Consciousness has two inseparable poles, the noetic or subjective pole, and the noematic or objective pole. The noetic pole is that for which or in which the objective pole is given. Mind or consciousness is both of these. Consciousness is its acts. For Husserl, there is no empty consciousness standing behind appearances. Consciousness is intentional through and through. There is no consciousness without something appearing, and no appearing without consciousness.

1 Like