The fact that the structure of words cannot describe something non-tautologically does not imply that existence does not exist exactly. The existence of existence is necesarilly tautological since one instance of existence is enough to justify to whole existence of existence, even though existence might not be true in every possible state of the universe. Therefore, one not needs non-tautological (i.e. accurate) language to describe the exact existence of existence.
saying existence exists is linguistically tautological but it's also making a metaphysical claim, one that a tautology such as "A is A" does not make. you could say the idea "existence" does not really exist because it is an idea, or that it's misleading to talk about anything existing because it is not a property of the subject but rather of its environment. so not an inaccuracy as much as an example of language's simultaneous constraints and flexibility, which makes accuracy ultimately impossible.
True, but still the claim 'existence doesn't exist, exactly, because words can't describe anything accurately except as tautology' is both linguistical and metaphysical, namely, the non-exact existence of existence. I think it is fallacious to say existence is not exact if the language used to describe it is inaccurate, much like saying the color X does not exist because it is not named.
i'm not saying existence is not exact (what would that mean?), i'm saying a description of it (or of anything) isn't exact. to put it in context, i was talking about taking my first philosophy class and feeling like existence was nothing like i thought it was; existence revealed itself, or existed, differently to me. it's less like saying a color X doesn't exist because it's not named and more like saying the color red isn't red, exactly, it's an intersubjective phenomenon we call red.
Comments 6
Therefore, one not needs non-tautological (i.e. accurate) language to describe the exact existence of existence.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment