From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.173934.25750@ariel.ec.usf.edu>, mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:

>Hmmm.  I hold in my "hand" a lump of organized subatomic 
>particles and electric charges that I perceive to be a 
>red roundish object and I say that this apple exists.  
>Am I saying that the quarks, leptons, and what-not that 
>make it up exist?  After all, these particles are products 
>of the fevered imaginations of physicists.  Am I saying 
>that the apparent organization of the object (seeds in 
>core, white interior, red skin) exists?  After all, this 
>organization may be partly imposed by my mental processes.
>Am I merely saying that I am not dreaming?  How would I 
>know?
>
>Is "exist" really a definable verb?  Does the number 2 
>exist?  How about transfinite numbers?  This issue does 
>not seem to be as easily resolved as some Objectivists 
>seem to think ...

    Those who refuse to explicitly recognize existence seem to spend their days looking in vain
in a vain search for nonexistence, apparently in the hope that it will stop
existence from existing. Unfortunately for these seekers after foolishness, 
existence exists. 
    While the above search for non-existence can be understood within conventi-
onal metaphysics (e.g., Objectivism or classical realism) or epistemology, the
following comments will be limited to existence.
    The following existents exist: hands, lumps of organized particles and 
electrical charges, the perception of a red roundish object, apples, quarks, 
leptons, etc., products of the fevered imaginations of physicists, the apparent
organization of objects, mental processes, dreaming, knowledge, existence, defin-
able verbs, the number 2, tranfinite numbers, and resolutions and their lack.
    It may or may not be of interest to some but not only do all the above 
existents exist, but many other things also exist. E.g., universities, compu-
ters, factories, self-esteem, cars, theories and, my oh my, a hundred and one
other existents. It is not recommended that an attempt be made to count them. 
This warning is especially, but not exclusively, directed to empiricists.
    All these existents exist, within some limit. Philosophers encounter the
unresolvable when they unknowingly transcend the limit of their concern. It is
unclear whether McColm is using nihilism or relativism as his limit, although
those existents also exist. Whatever his limit, however, it should be 
recognized that there is more, there is always more. 
    The "easily resolved" exists. The "resolved with difficulty" exists. McColm's
understanding of this issue exists but there is more, there is always more. 
His understanding is not some allegedly inferior existent, with "less being,"
but his understanding exists just as much as mine or that of any character in
_Alice In Wonderland_. That rabbit hole exists and if some value chasing some
epistemological rabbit down the hole into wonderland, why then, a rope ladder
which exists as much as its component sub-atomic particles is highly recommend-
ed. Should this advice be strictly followed by refusing to split existence into
the metaphysically privileged and the meta. underprivileged (e.g., particles
and apples), the sad end of Humpty Dumpty can be easily avoided.