Existence is better than non-existence

[McBell]

That is the best question of all.

And the one that is not provided with the answers to the OP.

I can see/understand the answers thus far given to the OP because thus far I can make assumptive answers to my question for those replies.

However, I can also see that if one where to take the answers to the OP and then compare said answers to ones own answer to my question....

 

[McBell]

Said murderers would probably disagree with me.

Seems to me that most 'murderers' do not consider themselves 'murderers'.
So I agree they woud likely not agree with you, however I strongly suspect that their reasons for disagreeing are different than the ones you imply here.

I don't care whether or not a specific pebble in my backyard exists. Neither does said pebble.

Replace pebble with cat and I bet said cat does.

Right now I enjoy existing. If I were being physically tortured, I would probably change my mind.

Excellent point.

Humans, like all organisms, are "programmed" to survive and reproduce, so of course we prefer to exist in most cases, but nonexistence is neither good nor bad. It's nothing.

What is your basis for comparison?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Seems to me that most 'murderers' do not consider themselves 'murderers'.
So I agree they woud likely not agree with you, however I strongly suspect that their reasons for disagreeing are different than the ones you imply here.

Nevertheless they would probably prefer to exist, as most humans would.

Replace pebble with cat and I bet said cat does.

Well, that's a different example.

Excellent point.

Thanks.

What is your basis for comparison?

I think Mark Twain said it best, just replace 'death' with 'nonexistence':

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

 

[Falvlun]

Maybe non-existence is "better", but existence is working just fine for me and I'd like it to stay that way.

Welcome! And nice post.

This comment attracted me because I never considered the possibility of non-existence being better than existence. I'd unconciously assumed two possibilities:
1. Existence is better than non-existence.
2. Existence and non-existence are neither good nor bad, so making the statement that "Existence is better" is rather meaningless.

If by definition a "thing" must be in existence (agreed), and if we can only approach non-existence/nothing as a "thing", then we bring non-existence/nothing into existence in order to address it --more specifically, we bring it into existence by addressing it. "Hello, thing."

Now we have a basis for comparison.

I'm not quite sure how this is any different before. We are still comparing the concept of a non-existent thing with the concept of an existing thing.

Seems to me that you have left this thread open to much unnecessary chaos because you let everyone base their answers on their own imaginative/assumed answer to that particular question without them providing their answer to said question.

It's not to late: I can always edit the OP. What do you suggest?

I just didn't want to artificially constrain the debate by forcing one definition of "better", since how one defines "better" will likely form the argument you make for or against the statement. I'm simply taking these definitions as arguments/answers of the OP.

And to be fair, no one really qualifies "better" when they make the statement "Existence is better than non-existence" in other debates. They just make it, assuming that the statement is sufficiently self-apparent.

 

[Falvlun]

This question is too broad to answer. First we need to establish:

The existence or nonexistence of what?
and
According to whom?

I don't believe this to be necessary.

The statement is, essentially, "Existence is inherently better than non-existence." What inherently makes existence better?

Humans, like all organisms, are "programmed" to survive and reproduce, so of course we prefer to exist in most cases, but nonexistence is neither good nor bad. It's nothing.

This is the answer I'm leaning towards: existence and nonexistence are neither good nor bad. Humans tend to believe existence is "good" because they exist and enjoy existing.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I don't believe this to be necessary.

The statement is, essentially, "Existence is inherently better than non-existence." What inherently makes existence better?

It is necessary. The word 'better' is meaningless in this context without those clarifications.

This is the answer I'm leaning towards: existence and nonexistence are neither good nor bad. Humans tend to believe existence is "good" because they exist and enjoy existing.

Agreed for the most part. Even when our own existence isn't very enjoyable, our genes push us to continue on with our purpose of survival+reproduction.

 

[McBell]

Nevertheless they would probably prefer to exist, as most humans would.

Perhaps.
Seems to me it would depend upon the "reason" they committed the murder(s).

Well, that's a different example.

Fair enough.
After thinking on it for a moment, I realized that my reply was based upon an assumption (on MY part) that the OP was meaning life.
However, since the OP was not very specific...

Though I do suspect maybe you are using this to drive a point home.
If so, good job!

Thanks.

Your welcome.

I think Mark Twain said it best, just replace 'death' with 'nonexistence':

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

Interesting quote, but it deserves its own thread.
**********

1. Existence is better than non-existence.
2. Existence and non-existence are neither good nor bad, so making the statement that "Existence is better" is rather meaningless.

Seems to me that they are both meaningless as presented here.
With no honest means of comparison...

It's not to late: I can always edit the OP. What do you suggest?

I dunno.
Perhaps ask for them to explain what they are comparing existence and non-existence to.
In my experience, people tend to compare existence to one thing and non-existence to something completely different.

I just didn't want to artificially constrain the debate by forcing one definition of "better", since how one defines "better" will likely form the argument you make for or against the statement. I'm simply taking these definitions as arguments/answers of the OP.

I understand that and actually agree with you.
However, as it stands people are assuming every one has the same assumption/guess/theory/etc. of what non-existence is like.
Judging from the replies thus far, it seems to me that this is far from the case.

Thus the reason each person should define what non-existence is to them.
I suspect that most have not really given much honest thought to it.

And to be fair, no one really qualifies "better" when they make the statement "Existence is better than non-existence" in other debates. They just make it, assuming that the statement is sufficiently self-apparent.

This is because the statement is meaningless in those debates.
It is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Much like the "Sanctity of Life" statement.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not quite sure how this is any different before. We are still comparing the concept of a non-existent thing with the concept of an existing thing.

Is there a distinction to be made between 'the concept of the existing thing' and 'an existing thing'?

 

[Willamena]

This is the answer I'm leaning towards: existence and nonexistence are neither good nor bad. Humans tend to believe existence is "good" because they exist and enjoy existing.

Do "good" and "bad" exist, even as concepts? If so, to examine them as properties of existence is fallacious. Existence is a property of them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Existing is both better and worse than not existing.

 

[McBell]

Existing is both better and worse than not existing.

I disagree.
Existing is neither worse or better than not existing.

 

[logician]

"Existence is better than non-existence."

It depends on what state your existence is in, there are many cases where non-existence is preferable to existence.

 

[Willamena]

Existence is better than non-existence.

It seems to be such an intuitive statement. It has recently popped up in a couple of threads as a side debate, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own.

So, what do you think? Is this statement valid? Why or why not?

However, Willamena has stated that "existence is good and non-existence is not (anything)".

Okay, this is the argument I've developed to debate my initial statement. Existence is seen either a property of things that exist (the quality of existing that the thing holds), or as a quality identified with, and indistinguishable from, the thing that exists (a thing cannot exist without existing as something). In the second case existence is undefined and undefinable as a distinct part (piece, bit, component) --existence is axiomatic.
(Existence Exists)

Everything that exists has an identity, which means that everything that exists is identifable by characteristics. Its properties, traits and qualities are such characteristics --things that characterize it as something (as opposed to nothing). "Good" cannot be a property of existence if "good" exists (which statement implies existence as a property of good). Similarly, identity cannot be all there is to a thing's existence if identity is something that exists and by which we identify the existence of the thing in question (which statement implies that a thing's identity is distinct from the thing).

On the other hand, the quality of all things that exist ("all existence") being "good" can be interpreted as that value assigned to the identity of "all things that exist". This neatly fits things together, as "good" need not be a property of existence itself, nor need existence be defined as distinct from "all things", nor need identity hang separate from the thing in existence. So to claim existence as "good" is to value things by their identity. The statement is valid (as valid as valuation).

Over-thinking much?

 

[cottage]

Let’s put this into a religious context. The argument has often been made that God created us to love us. There are two parties involved here, the loving and the loved, and leaving aside the obvious questions concerning a needy Supreme Being, which is not a part of this discussion, the implication here is that having been brought into existence we have been blessed with incredible good fortune: God loves us and we love God. But had we not been brought into being there could be no prior ‘we’, who might otherwise be so unfortunate as to miss out on this blessed gift. Thus no argument can be made for any gains, improvements or benefits to nothingness. We can only argue backwards, from experience: ‘I would rather be here, existing than not, for if I didn’t exist I couldn’t love and be loved’.

 

[JMorris]

"Existence is better than non-existence."

It depends on what state your existence is in, there are many cases where non-existence is preferable to existence.

agreed. said it before i could:yes:

 

[whereismynotecard]

Existence is better than non-existence.

It seems to be such an intuitive statement. It has recently popped up in a couple of threads as a side debate, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own.

So, what do you think? Is this statement valid? Why or why not?

Personally, I'm glad I exist as opposed to not existing. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't know it, because I wouldn't exist... But I like living and experiencing things, and if I didn't exist I couldn't do that.

 

[Willamena]

There are two parties involved here, the loving and the loved

See, that's the assumption upon which this whole image fails, for me at least.

Thus no argument can be made for any gains, improvements or benefits to nothingness. We can only argue backwards, from experience: ‘I would rather be here, existing than not, for if I didn’t exist I couldn’t love and be loved’.

I would suggest that we can only argue unilaterally from experience. Speculation about what might apply "when we didn't exist" are meaningless --but at least I see better where you were coming from with this discussion in the other thread.

 

[cottage]

[/color][/size]
See, that's the assumption upon which this whole image fails, for me at least.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean. Explain?

 

[Falvlun]

It is necessary. The word 'better' is meaningless in this context without those clarifications.

Unless, of course, the statement being made is that existence is inherently better than non-existence. This is actually the statement I see being made in various debates.

Perhaps ask for them to explain what they are comparing existence and non-existence to.
In my experience, people tend to compare existence to one thing and non-existence to something completely different.

Could you elaborate on this? What completely different things are existence and non-existence compared with?

I'm not quite following why there needs to be something with which to compare existence and non-existence. Doesn't it make sense to simply contrast them with each other?

If I were asking whether chocolate icecream was better than vanilla icecream, why would I need a third thing with which to compare the two? Wouldn't the argument be confined to just chocolate and vanilla?

However, as it stands people are assuming every one has the same assumption/guess/theory/etc. of what non-existence is like.
Judging from the replies thus far, it seems to me that this is far from the case.

Thus the reason each person should define what non-existence is to them.
I suspect that most have not really given much honest thought to it.

But non-existence is not "like" anything. It is the complete absence of anything. I'm not quite sure how it could be defined any other way.

Is there a distinction to be made between 'the concept of the existing thing' and 'an existing thing'?

Yes...

Do "good" and "bad" exist, even as concepts? If so, to examine them as properties of existence is fallacious. Existence is a property of them.

Interesting.
Yet, this doesn't negate the idea that if existence exists, it can have properties too.

Existing is both better and worse than not existing.

I think this is strangely close to the truth (if there is one ). If existence is better than non-existence because it contains the possibility (or property) of good, then the reverse is also true: Existence is worse than non-existence because it contains the possibility (or property) of bad.

It depends on what state your existence is in, there are many cases where non-existence is preferable to existence.

What about rocks? There is no differences of state for a rock. Is it ambiguous (or just meaningless), then, whether existence or non-existence is better for a rock?

Is it better that rocks exist so that we have something to stand on?

 

[Falvlun]

Everything that exists has an identity, which means that everything that exists is identifable by characteristics. Its properties, traits and qualities are such characteristics --things that characterize it as something (as opposed to nothing). "Good" cannot be a property of existence if "good" exists (which statement implies existence as a property of good). Similarly, identity cannot be all there is to a thing's existence if identity is something that exists and by which we identify the existence of the thing in question (which statement implies that a thing's identity is distinct from the thing).

As previously mentioned, if existence exists then it too should be able to have properties. Why not?

On the other hand, the quality of all things that exist ("all existence") being "good" can be interpreted as that value assigned to the identity of "all things that exist". This neatly fits things together, as "good" need not be a property of existence itself, nor need existence be defined as distinct from "all things", nor need identity hang separate from the thing in existence. So to claim existence as "good" is to value things by their identity. The statement is valid (as valid as valuation).

Over-thinking much?

Though-provoking post, Willamena. Well-thought out argument!

When you say "to claim existence as good is to value things by their identity", do you mean that this is a thing by thing assessment, or that all things that exist are assigned the quality of good?

Personally, I'm glad I exist as opposed to not existing. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't know it, because I wouldn't exist... But I like living and experiencing things, and if I didn't exist I couldn't do that.

But neither would "you" miss experiencing things if you didn't exist. A non-existent "thing" can't want or need anything, which means it can't want or need existence.