What is existence?

Question

If I wanted to define "existence" as "that which we encounter but cannot will", what philosophical tradition would that put me in? What authors took up that position or a similar one? What authors criticized that position? Or is this position nonsensical?

To give more details about what that formula could mean, what we "encounter" would be what our mind becomes aware of. For example, I am aware of this table in front of me. Of course, I could become aware of some things, e.g. an "atom", only indirectly, but that may not be an obstacle here. What we "cannot will" would be what our mind was given but is not an immediate product of our mind. That table was not just imagined by my mind. I can get confirmation that it is not just inside my head from others (sane, not blind...) who also can see and touch it. Also, I cannot just will that table into existence with an injunction such as "let there be a table!". Although, of course, I can formulate a plan, get some wood and a saw and get to work to produce a table. But my mind cannot immediately "will" that table into a concrete existence.

I am sure this position is fraught with many issues. I am looking for references that would discuss something close to it.

Answer 1

Sticking me poor neck out, here's the etymology for "exist": From ex meaning out of and sistere for stand. Existence then means independent of the mind, to stand outside (the mind). I suppose at the time the word was coined, people were already convinced that dreams aren't real and were in the know in re hallucinations. That is this position on existence, so clearly and so elegantly described as that which we encounter but cannot will, is naïve realism (contra idealism).

Answer 2

If I wanted to define "existence" as "that which we encounter but cannot will", what philosophical tradition would that put me in? ... For example, I am aware of this table in front of me. ... not just imagined by my mind.

Puts me in mind of this:

What does “matter” mean? Does it mean just “raw material”? No, Aristotle characterizes ὕλη as τὸ δυνάμει. ∆ύναμις means the capacity, or better, the appropriateness for.... The wood present in the workshop [281] is in a state of appropriateness for a “table.” But it is not just any wood that has the character of appropriateness for a table; rather, only this wood, selected and cut to order. But the selection and the cut, i.e., the very character of appropriateness, is decided in terms of the “production” of “what is to be produced.” But “to produce” means, both in Greek and in the original sense of the German Herstellen, to place something, as finished and as looking thus and so, forth, into presencing.

[285] ... The orderable wood in the workshop changes into a table. What sort of being does this change have? The thing that changes is the wood lying present here, not just any wood but this wood that is appropriate. But “appropriate for” means: tailored to the appearance of a table, hence for that wherein the generating of the table — the movement — comes to its end. The change of the appropriate wood into a table consists in the fact that the very appropriateness of what is appropriate emerges more fully into view and reaches its fulfillment in the appearance of a table and thus comes to stand in the table that has been pro-duced, placed forth, i.e., into the unhidden. In the rest that goes with this standing (of what has attained its stand), the emerging appropriateness (δύναμις) of the appropriate (δυνάμει) gathers itself up and “has” itself (ἔχει) as in its end (τέλος).

[286] ... But therefore having-itself-within-its-end (ἐντελέχεια) is the essence of movedness (that is, it is the being of a moving being), because this rest most perfectly fulfills what οὐσία is: the intrinsically stable presencing in the appearance.

Heidegger GA9 On the Essence & Concept of φύσις in Aristotle's Physics

Answer 3

I cannot help you with references, but I suspect you will have to tighten up your definition of encounter, because it can mean to meet with abstract things, like encountering a problem. I also think that you might have to stretch the meaning of encounter in other ways, too- for example, consider the Earth's core; most people would agree that it exists, but we don't really encounter it in the usual sense of the word.