jupstin

I'm having some trouble understanding what is meant by the statement, "Existence isn't a predicate." Does this mean that it is meaningless to speak of something as existing? Does it render statements like "The universe exists" nonsensical? I've also heard "existence" referred to as a "second level predicate." Are there other "second level predicates?" I know that I'm misunderstanding something pretty fundamental here, so I hope you all can help me out.

Bill Snedden

This entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would probably be a good place to start...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Frotiw

I believe the link provided will explain but just too narrow down you reading material I like so say a few words.

Check Frege's introduction of existential quanitifiers vs. the aristotelian syllogisms. One of the problems is that the subject of a "subject-predicate" logical judgement seems to presuppose that the subject exist. You cannot apply a predicate to something that does not exist. I admit being a little rusty in modern logic and fregian(attack on syllogistic logic) but I remember there are several problems with existance as a predicate only. Monadic Predicate logic is a much more rewarding method. I think the main problem(in Aritstotelian logic) is that existance is presupposed before the predicate is applied. Frege counter this. Hmm perhaps I ought to grab "Über Sinn und Bedeutung" once again, it seems somewhat distant.

Btw. I think you should be aware(if not already) that besides straightout philosophy this question is deeply related to mathematical/philosophical logic.

Cheers Frotiw

Prophecy

The statement "Existence isn't a predicate",goes back to Kant . In his criticism of the ontological proff of God he claims that existence isn't a predicate.

The ontological proff of God:

1: God is, by definition, the greatest possible being.
2: Suppose God does not exist.
3: If 2, then a being greater than God is possible, because this being could possess omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and existence.
4:If 3, then it is possible for there to be a being greater than the greatest being possible.
5:But 4 is not logically possible.
6:Hence, the assumption 1 must be false.
7:Therefore, the supposition that God does not exist is false.

Kant`s criticism of the ontological proff of God:

Premise 3 is not Vaild, because existence isn't a predicate.

“Now, if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say, God is, or There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates - I posit the object in relation to my conception. The content o f both is the same; and there is no addition made to the conception, which expresses merely the possibility of the object, by me cogitating the object - in the expression, it is - as absolutely given or existing. Thus the real contains no more than the possible.”

John Page

I'm having trouble understanding this too. For what its worth:

1. All predicates suffer from the same underlying problem, they are assumed to exist.
2. Predicates are described using language, words in the language refering to things that exist (separately from the words themselves).
3. It is our minds that (seem to) infer the existence of things. See Bill's link that starts with the formal expression of "There exists an x such that Socrates is x". As we can see, the use of language unavoidably introduces equivocation as to what we are really refering to, what is the thing that the words "x" and "Socrates" are really pointing to.
4. Clearly, for us to communicate about something we must have knowledge of that something, and for us to have knowledge of it, it must exist. But what is the form of what the word "it" is refering to?

Thus it is possible to conclude "What is known, exists". Trouble is, we don't all know things in the same way and we are hampered by using language (which can only indirectly refer to anything except itself, e.g. "This word exists").

Try logic on the sentence "Existence does not exist" and you'll get the same result as "Socrates is not Socrates". Hope this helps

Cheers, John

BTW, most of the analyses provided in Bill's links, Aquinas through Zalta, make the mistake of assuming that any object is a fundamental thing-unto-itself and categorize existance of a category (of like-things-unto-themselves) as different. Categories, exist in of themselves in our mind - it is our mind that uses that category to represent/refer to a pattern of sense data.