Few questions sound more basic than this one. We say things exist. We distinguish between what exists and what does not. From this arises a familiar question: is existence something that things possess?
“Is existence something that things possess?” appears to ask whether existence is a kind of property added to objects, like colour or shape, such that some things have it and others lack it.
But this framing depends on a prior move: treating the grammatical role of “exists” as if it named a transferable feature that can be attached to entities.
Once that move is examined, the question no longer concerns what it means for something to be. It reveals a familiar distortion: the reification of ontological verbing into possession of a property.
1. The surface form of the question
“Is existence something that things possess?”
In its everyday philosophical form, this asks:
- whether existence is a property like other properties
- whether it can be attributed or withheld
- whether “being” is an additional feature of objects
- whether some entities have more or less existence
It presupposes:
- that existence is a thing-like attribute
- that objects stand apart from their existence
- that “to be” is to have something called existence
- that predication applies uniformly to being itself
2. Hidden ontological commitments
For the question to stabilise, several assumptions must already be in place:
- that existence functions like a predicate among others
- that being is separable from what is
- that entities could be specified independently of existence
- that properties are the general form of ontological description
- that “having” is a universal relation applicable even to being
These assumptions convert the condition of description into a describable object.
3. Stratal misalignment
Within relational ontology, the distortion involves predicate reification, ontological flattening, and possession overreach.
(a) Reification of existence
Existence is treated as a property.
- “to exist” becomes “to have existence”
- rather than the condition under which anything is specifiable at all
(b) Flattening of ontological structure
Being is treated as one attribute among others.
- existence becomes comparable to colour, size, or shape
- rather than the enabling condition for predication itself
(c) Overextension of possession
The grammar of “having” is applied to being.
- as if existence were something that could be held
- rather than the relational actuality of a configuration
4. Relational re-description
If we remain within relational ontology, existence is not something that things possess. It is the actualisation of relational configurations under constraint such that they are available as determinate instances within a system of construal.
More precisely:
- systems instantiate structured relations under constraint
- what is called “a thing” is a stabilised configuration within such a system
- existence is not an added property but the state of being actualised within relational structure such that it can be differentiated and referred to
From this perspective:
- there is no distinction between a thing and its existence
- existence is not separable from configuration
- nothing “has” existence
- rather, configurations are actualised within relational systems and thereby are
Thus:
- existence is not a property
- it is the condition of relational actualisation itself
5. Dissolution of the problem-space
Once possession is no longer projected onto being, the question “Is existence something that things possess?” loses its structure.
It depends on:
- treating existence as a predicate
- assuming being is separable from entities
- applying the logic of properties to ontology itself
- confusing grammatical structure with metaphysical structure
If these assumptions are withdrawn, there is no property of existence to assign.
What disappears is not being, but the idea that it can be owned.
6. Residual attraction
The persistence of the question is entirely understandable.
It is sustained by:
- the grammatical treatment of “exist” as a verb applied to subjects
- the symmetry of predication in language (“X has Y”)
- philosophical traditions treating existence as a predicate
- the intuition that things could be “more or less real”
Most importantly, existence feels like something added:
- we can describe an object without asserting its reality
- then “add” existence to make it real in discourse
This linguistic sequencing encourages reification.
Closing remark
“Is existence something that things possess?” appears to ask whether being is a property of objects.
Once these moves are undone, possession dissolves.
No comments:
Post a Comment