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
I notice that people say each object exists physically or mentally, but not both physically and mentally. Can an object exist both physically and mentally?
“he suggests that if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality, because if it existed only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one who exists both in mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.”
I got a doubt from Anselm’s ontological argument.
If an object exists (= exists physically) then one may create a name which refers to the object. The name exists mentally, it is a mental construction.
If a name exists mentally, then it does not necessarily refer to an existing object. E.g. consider the name "Emma, the unicorn".
Hence it is recommended to distinguish between objects and names. In many cases, but not always, a name refers to an object.
In my opinion Anselm's error is to mix up names and objects.
Any monist* would preemptively reject the phrase that indicates the distinction in "exists both in mind and in reality" because it indicates a mind-body dualism.
So, is a thought an object itself? A thought exists; it is experienced and formed by the mind. Whatever the distinction between physical and non-physical, it simply might be that we currently call non-physical all the things that we don't understand.
Lastly, the very distinction between what is and isn't physical is murky in post-Newtonian physics (See: Noam Chomsky - Physical vs. Non-physical ). Things are not solid objects on a certain abstract level of physics (i.e. point particles lack spatiality).
*- an idealist, or a reductive materialist.
We have sets of interactions. Unifying them into persistent units we call objects, is a process of mental shorthand to make predictions more tractable.
There can be stable co-occurrences of the outcome of repeated interactions, that is all. Like 'chair', our definitions of objects are about use, modes of life, and about how something relates to us, rather than recognising essences.
Edited to add: Money is a good example of something that exists both physically and mentally. See discussion here What determines the value of money?
