What is the essential property to which we refer when we say, "it exists"? That seems to have been a difficult question for thousands of years. If you look up the word "exist" in a dictionary, you can get a number of substitute words, but with each the question remains.
All of those words correctly imply "to exist". Each can be used as substitute for "to exist". Yet none of them tell you of what it is. The "definitions" given carry no additional meaning. They aren't actual definitions or explanations, merely substitutes hinting at at a meaning. If one asks for the definition of "color", one gets an explanation involving light, not merely other words for "color".ex·ist (ĭg-zĭst′)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).
And I found that if one proposes what it means to exist, one gets little more than argumentation; "How do you know?", "Maybe it means different things to different people", "It just is what it is", "It's just all in our minds". "It is just whatever is real".
Any word might mean different things to different people, but then without reasonably uniform definition, there is no language. And it seems to me that everyone throughout history, gauging from what they say concerning that which exists, has had one particular concern in mind, although never spoken. They argue that this exists or that exists. They argue about whether various kinds of things do or don't exist. But precisely how does one discern existence from non-existence? That has apparently been an illusive question that I propose to answer here and now.
There could possibly be many things meant by that fundamental word, but there is one thing I have found in common with all of the implications and inferences. In every case, when the word is used, the speaker seems to be saying that which exists has potential affect upon something and that which doesn't exist has no affect.
The concept "to affect" gives meaning to an otherwise elusive definition for "to exist". Affecting something directly implies changing it in some way, thus to exist implies the potential to change something, perhaps; block the light, weigh down the paper, inspire activity,.... And by consequence to affect something must include the potential to prevent a change that would have otherwise taken effect.
In addition there are practical issues involved. If something is said to exist yet is known to have absolutely no affect upon anything, why bother to say that it exists? Why even bother to be thinking about it? Billions of things could be mentioned which have absolutely no affect upon anything (eg. three headed elephants, whatever). The word and implication of "to exist" would lose all relevance if such things were to be included as being existent.
Thus to be rational, and since a common dictionary fails to sufficiently provide, one must declare his intent for the word, and preferably without deviating far from what others have actually always meant even though never really explaining.
So merely by declared definition with the following supportive rationale,
Existence is that which has affect or potential to affect.
- a) Detectable Empiricism - We decide that something exists only when we detect that something is having affect. All of our senses function based on the affect that something else has upon them. We use equipment to increase our sensory ability, but still if nothing affects the equipment in any way, we declare that nothing was there.
b) Common Usage - In reality, people are already using the word "exist" to mean this definition. They often never think about it, but in every case, the person really means that something having existence means that it has the potential to affect something; be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected.
c) Support from Science - Science concluded long ago that in reality all existing things have at least some minuscule affect on all other things through chains of events.
d) Rational Relevance - If something has truly no affect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it exists in any other sense. We can propose trillions of things that might exist but don't have affect. What would be the point? It would be a waste of mind time.
To exist means to affect, which means to cause change, but what is being changed? What is being affected?
The answer is simply "other existence" (eg. You). That is easy enough. But look more carefully at what that means.
It is saying that existence, the compendium of affects, is merely the affecting other affects, affect upon affect. And that is the fundamental essence of all existence. It can be no other.
The very foundation of Metaphysics:
Existence ≡ Affects upon affects, Affectance, whatever complexity arises from that fundamental essence, and nothing else.
The rest of the story involves:
1) How does one measure this Affectance? - "Science".
2) How long has this Affectance been around" - "Cosmology"
3) How can this Affectance lend to our knowledge? - "Epistemology"
4) How can this Affectance be organized and understood? - "Ontology".
5) How can an understanding of Affectance relate to our lives? - "Psychology", "Sociology", "Economics",...