Can some real thing, that exist, be an association to another thing?

What does of the image or real thing causes an associative effect?

Exist ergo real?

i also see the problem with "there is" construction, because there is existing, is not same that one exists. To be is the construction(?) of associating something with another thing by the signs - already is an associative thinking.

There(this) is existing - then that exists/that has existed and this was endowed existing sign of that by means of the association. But that wasn't associated of means.

The distinct between exist and to be:

There are unicorns - true. Unicorns exist - false.

in this cause that the one is is not a sufficient condition that one exist.

  • 2
    The substantival reality of relations is a fairly open question, see "Relations" in the SEP. If association is taken as intentional, see "Are there intentional objects?" (also in the SEP). Jun 11 at 21:27
  • @KristianBerry thank you, but i asked not about relations, but about reality, something that existing in real, not intentional object. Or they are same things? Jun 11 at 21:41
  • Hmm, what are you using the word "real" to describe? I interpreted "association to" as a relation between some X and what X is associated with, which is association-as-a-relation. Now some people deny that relations are real, though, or they say that relations have a lesser reality than monadic properties, etc. Jun 11 at 21:54
  • @KristianBerry "X" that you tap ? real, or what exist? i think that real - something that exist, real because exist. That have not exist - not real. Unicorns have not exist - thay not real, but unicorns looking toys are exist, toys things are looks real, but toys meaning, game meaning of toys are not looks real, but belonging to relation, probably Jun 11 at 22:04
  • 1
    Something real is not necessarily a thing. Entities can exist in ways different than things exist, the word "exist" is polysemic. Redness is an "association to a thing", it exists in reality. Distance is an "association" of one thing to another, it also exists in reality. The distinction between existence and subsistence that you make at the end has been introduced by Meinong, see SEP.
    – Conifold
    Jun 12 at 7:57

2 Answers 2


The real problem here, I think, is that posing such a problem really ends up being sufficiently resolved with recourse to "the conditions of possibility in general". Ie, there has to be situation of sufficient cause for some existent framework that determines the possibility of you posing the question to us and such a question being intelligible at all.


Every cause itself becomes an effect and an effect is the cause in a changed form.

Cause and effect

Since there is the other things are unreal, (which means there is no such thing) the answer to your main question is, ‘No’. If you find there is, the other things are nothing but the real thing; as in the case of golden ornaments and gold. Golden ornaments (the effect) are nothing but gold.

  • But if without "there is"? If no any need, no cause to find/or to search what is of existence? Jun 11 at 22:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .