Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Regina wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
The time for humanity's education about life and existence is soon at hand.

Care to elaborate?

Yes. When the time comes.

Which translates into a massive business opportunity for all kinds of foils, I tellz ya!

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Take it up with the characters who cook up such concepts, not with me. Did you read the page at the link I posted?



You did not ask me my definition of "existence", you only stated, in gross and glaring contradiction to fact, that there is only one definition of existence.

My definition of existence is "a jive-ass word signifying a pseudo-concept the primary purpose of which is to smuggle gods and/or mentally ill solipsist/idealist drek into every damn discussion".

Please oh please demonstrate that I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'd be tickled pink.

Show me one definition of existence that does not include "that which exists".

Now you've gone from "is" to "includes". At any rate, no definition of "existence" includes "that which exists" as definitive or presumed other than those definitions (usually about #3 or 4 in a dictionary) in which "existence" is more or less equated with "universe", "reality", etc.

The reason that I used the word includes was simply to allow you some slack. I still insist that the only definition of existence that is worth its salt is "that which exists". You say that there are other definitions. Please present them!!

Er, do you have difficulty clicking on links? There are five definitions of "existence" at the second link I gave, and gods know how many at the first (Stanford online philosophy encyclopedia). Plus I gave you my definition. So you've been presented with what, at least a dozen definitions.

It does not matter one bit if you think that none of these definitions is worth its salt, for your statement was that there is only definition of existence, and this is simply not true. Your definition of "existence" seems to be synonymous with "the universe", more of a poetic usage of the word, and an eccentric way to use the word in a philosophical discussion: "Existence". It's like "Creation".

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Show me one definition of existence that does not include "that which exists".

Now you've gone from "is" to "includes". At any rate, no definition of "existence" includes "that which exists" as definitive or presumed other than those definitions (usually about #3 or 4 in a dictionary) in which "existence" is more or less equated with "universe", "reality", etc.

The reason that I used the word includes was simply to allow you some slack. I still insist that the only definition of existence that is worth its salt is "that which exists". You say that there are other definitions. Please present them!!

Er, do you have difficulty clicking on links? There are five definitions of "existence" at the second link I gave, and gods know how many at the first (Stanford online philosophy encyclopedia). Plus I gave you my definition. So you've been presented with what, at least a dozen definitions.

It does not matter one bit if you think that none of these definitions is worth its salt, for your statement was that there is only definition of existence, and this is simply not true. Your definition of "existence" seems to be synonymous with "the universe", more of a poetic usage of the word, and an eccentric way to use the word in a philosophical discussion: "Existence". It's like "Creation".

All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Now you've gone from "is" to "includes". At any rate, no definition of "existence" includes "that which exists" as definitive or presumed other than those definitions (usually about #3 or 4 in a dictionary) in which "existence" is more or less equated with "universe", "reality", etc.

The reason that I used the word includes was simply to allow you some slack. I still insist that the only definition of existence that is worth its salt is "that which exists". You say that there are other definitions. Please present them!!

Er, do you have difficulty clicking on links? There are five definitions of "existence" at the second link I gave, and gods know how many at the first (Stanford online philosophy encyclopedia). Plus I gave you my definition. So you've been presented with what, at least a dozen definitions.

It does not matter one bit if you think that none of these definitions is worth its salt, for your statement was that there is only definition of existence, and this is simply not true. Your definition of "existence" seems to be synonymous with "the universe", more of a poetic usage of the word, and an eccentric way to use the word in a philosophical discussion: "Existence". It's like "Creation".

All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".

"continuance in being or life; life"

ex·ist·ence   [ig-zis-tuhns]
noun
1.
the state or fact of existing; being.

mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.

to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
The reason that I used the word includes was simply to allow you some slack. I still insist that the only definition of existence that is worth its salt is "that which exists". You say that there are other definitions. Please present them!!

Er, do you have difficulty clicking on links? There are five definitions of "existence" at the second link I gave, and gods know how many at the first (Stanford online philosophy encyclopedia). Plus I gave you my definition. So you've been presented with what, at least a dozen definitions.

It does not matter one bit if you think that none of these definitions is worth its salt, for your statement was that there is only definition of existence, and this is simply not true. Your definition of "existence" seems to be synonymous with "the universe", more of a poetic usage of the word, and an eccentric way to use the word in a philosophical discussion: "Existence". It's like "Creation".

All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".

"continuance in being or life; life"

How does that exclude "that which exists"?

We can all use words in various ways. But if the meaning is synonymous then it makes not the slightest difference.

Destroyer wrote:
All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".

Anecdotes, anecdotes. I don't want to hear anecdotes about whatever it is you think you have yet to see.

Destroyer wrote:
How does that exclude "that which exists"?

The problem with this has to do with the word 'exist'. I think you will define it as 'to have existence'. You do know what 25 cents and a circular trip around the dictionary will get you: A brightly coloured gumball. Don't dislocate your jaw whilst chewing it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".

Anecdotes, anecdotes. I don't want to hear anecdotes about whatever it is you think you have yet to see.

Maybe you can help out lobawad with your wisdom. Help him to provide a definition of existence that is not synonymous with "that which exists".

Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".

Anecdotes, anecdotes. I don't want to hear anecdotes about whatever it is you think you have yet to see.

Maybe you can help out lobawad with your wisdom. Help him to provide a definition of existence that is not synonymous with "that which exists".

See above, and my problem with the word 'exist'.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
All this talk; and I have yet to see ONE definition of existence that varies from "that which exists".

Anecdotes, anecdotes. I don't want to hear anecdotes about whatever it is you think you have yet to see.

Maybe you can help out lobawad with your wisdom. Help him to provide a definition of existence that is not synonymous with "that which exists".

See above, and my problem with the word 'exist'.

If we choose, we can all have problems with any word.

"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

Destroyer wrote:
If we choose, we can all have problems with any word.

Well, can we choose to have problems with any word or not? Your problem solving ability in this department has not shown up. All we know is that the end is nigh. It always is, my man, so you don't get lots of points for saying the end is nigh. You've defined the word 'existence' in terms of the root word in 'existence', namely 'exist'. Let's get those gumballs a-rolling.

lobawad wrote:"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

To exist is simply to "BE". There is no other definition under the sun!!!

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
If we choose, we can all have problems with any word.

Well, can we choose to have problems with any word or not? Your problem solving ability in this department has not shown up. All we know is that the end is nigh. It always is, my man, so you don't get lots of points for saying the end is nigh.

That's true.

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

To exist is simply to "BE". There is no other definition under the sun!!!

Yeah, well: To be is to exist, so there. This copulative verb is also used for predication, e.g., "That man is an idiot." And it is also used to specify equality, as in, "2 plus 2 is 4". Above, you are using the word is to say "2 is 2" or "2 is 1 plus 1" or "2 is 4 minus 2". Get my drift?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

To exist is simply to "BE". There is no other definition under the sun!!!

Yeah, well: To be is to exist, so there. This copulative verb is also used for predication, e.g., "That man is an idiot."

Is that not what I have been saying all along?. "That man is an idiot" could very well be reversed for "that man is a unique genius".

Destroyer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:"That which exists" is circular and meaningless without defining "exists", and defining "exists" is a huge philosophical broo-ha-ha.
Sorry Destroyer, I am not buying your profound ignorance and lack of understanding as some kind of... revelation.

And yes, we can indeed have problems with any word. We do have problems with words. "Accept my naive and unread definition" doesn't fly.

To exist is simply to "BE". There is no other definition under the sun!!!

Yeah, well: To be is to exist, so there. This copulative verb is also used for predication, e.g., "That man is an idiot."

Is that not what I have been saying all along?

No, it is manifestly not what you have been saying all along. All along, you have been saying "a rose is a rose". Or, more floridly (no pun intended) "to be a rose is to exist as a rose".