In many cases, we ask questions if something already exists! Many times, I ask myself, What does the term even mean?
What does it mean to exist?
What are common answers to this question and where may I read more about it?
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
To ask if something "already" exists, is expressing an anticipation. One imagines something: an object, an invention (that is, the realisation of an idea) or an idea itself (that is: a careful exposition or exploration of a concept). In each case the question is whether there is a feature of the world — the objects in it or the behaviour of people, up to and including ideas which are discussed by them — which corresponds to something one has thought of.
To ask if something "already exists" is to ask something not about the world per se, but about the relationship between one's own ideas and the world. You have thought about X, and you want to know if X corresponds to something in the world beyond yourself. "Existence" is nothing more than what the world consists of, but in this case the emphasis is on the separation between the rest of the world and the processes going on in your head. "Existence" is therefore a deceptive property, because what it pertains to is not a relationship between an object and the world, but between yourself and the world.
I reflect on a modern definition in “David Deutsch: The fabric of reality”. His definition
“if something ‘kicks back’, it exists.” (p.97)
Deutsch explains: “It is enough that when we ‘kick’ something, the object affects us in ways that require independent explanation.” (p. 87)
The definition takes up the old definition of Dr. Johnson in his argument against the solipsism of bishop Berkeley. But being an expert in computer science Deutsch includes also virtual reality into his definition of existing things.
As the name of the subject you used ("object") implies, for an object to exist means it has to be acknowledeged by you as objective to your senses. BUT, if you see it or even feel its texture on a screen or photo/painting, then its only the graphic interpretation of the artist, of that object (see for example: Magritte; ce ne pas une pipe). In order for you to determine whether an object exists, you must categorize it. Only then its so called existence has meaning. So, if you go to lake "Ness" to see the Loch-Ness-Monster, you might see a stain in the water and call it a monster, not just any monster but The-Loch-Ness-Monster which is a pre-categorized representation of an object in your head. So you can say that for you, The-Loch-Ness-Monster object existed for a few seconds before disappearing forever. So, the object also needs time to exist. There could be an object which exists for 1-millionth of a second. You will never see it, but scientists will tell you it once existed (they saw a picture :-)> ). So, you can believe them. This is also a way to ensure (in a way) the existence of an object: To Agree with other minds or believe them.
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?