Existence is better than non-existence

[Falvlun]

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?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What constitutes better?

 

[Willamena]

While many values may be assessed to realize "better", that there are values to be assessed in order that better might exist is yet another evidence that "existence is better".

 

[Magic Man]

What constitutes better?

To me it would mean "more desirable" in this context. So, I would say that existence is better than non-existence.

 

[Falvlun]

What constitutes better?

Good question. I don't want to artificially limit the debate before it even gets started; how one defines "better" is likely to color one's response.

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

Another popular way of defining "better" is arguing that since good (and bad) things can happen during existence, and nothing can happen during non-existence, the net total of good is necessarily greater during existence than non-existence. Thus, existence is better.

Those can be starting points, but I'm sure there are others out there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... since good (and bad) things can happen during existence, and nothing can happen during non-existence, the net total of good is necessarily greater during existence than non-existence. Thus, existence is better.

What constitutes better?

 

[Falvlun]

What constitutes better?

The letters b, e, t, and r.

 

[Willamena]

More good, or more specifically, greater emphasis on the idea of good.

"It's good for me" is a good example of something that is better.

 

[Falvlun]

To me it would mean "more desirable" in this context. So, I would say that existence is better than non-existence.

Of course existence is more desirable for you, as a being in existence. Existence is a characteristic of who and what you are.

But consider non-existence. Is it actually more desirable for a "thing" in non-existence to become existent? "Better" and "desire" have no meaning within non-existence.

While many values may be assessed to realize "better", that there are values to be assessed in order that better might exist is yet another evidence that "existence is better".

Interesting argument.

But we wonders... Are things better because "better" is in existence?

 

[Willamena]

Of course existence is more desirable for you, as a being in existence. Existence is a characteristic of who and what you are.

But consider non-existence. Is it actually more desirable for a "thing" in non-existence to become existent? "Better" and "desire" have no meaning within non-existence.


Interesting argument.

But we wonders... Are things better because "better" is in existence?

Well, a good example was brought up earlier, in the case of the person seeking suicide. In that instance, to them non-existence can be "more desireable".

What is "a 'thing' in non-existence"? Where is "within non-existence"?

 

[McBell]

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?

what exactly is the basis for comparison?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The letters b, e, t, and r.

You'd rather spell than think. Got it ...

 

[Falvlun]

Well, a good example was brought up earlier, in the case of the person seeking suicide. In that instance, to them non-existence can be "more desireable".

Ok. So, from this and my own objections, it seems like desirable is probably not the best way to define "better" in this debate.

What is "a 'thing' in non-existence"? Where is "within non-existence"?

I knew you would pick up on that because of our discussion on what constitutes a "thing". By definition a "thing" must be in existence. It's hard to discuss non-existence using our existence-driven phraseology, so I was trying to curtail that by the quotation marks.

Since non-existence is not a space or a container, you are correct in pointing out that it is strange to consider "within non-existence". How about within the concept itself?

But this only goes to show how it is kind of strange to consider existence better than non-existence since there is no qualities about non-existence that can be "bettered" since no qualities exist.

what exactly is the basis for comparison?

Exactly.

This is certainly more armchair philosophy than empirical science.

 

[Falvlun]

You'd rather spell than think. Got it ...

Nah. I'd already given you a couple of ways to describe "better"; mball also gave one. You go think of more if you don't like the possibilities provided. Note also that I'm not claiming those definitions; I'm just giving the definitions that seem to be most often provided.

The way a person describes "better" often morphs into their argument for or against the statement. Note mball's and Willamena's response.

How do you describe "better"?

 

[TheKnight]

I like the philosophical value of this thread....

In any case, seeing as how we have no conscious experience of non-existence, the only speculation we could make about it's "better"ness (or any of it's qualities) would be to use our imaginations...

Non-existence, as I see it, wouldn't have any qualities. Being an existence myself, I'd say existence is more preferable. Maybe non-existence is "better", but existence is working just fine for me and I'd like it to stay that way.

Of course, the question could be asked, do we exist now? If we didn't exist, would we still be conscious? If we were conscious, would we know that we didn't exist? Or would we keep on thinking that we do?

 

[Willamena]

what exactly is the basis for comparison?

That is the best question of all.

 

[Willamena]

But this only goes to show how it is kind of strange to consider existence better than non-existence since there is no qualities about non-existence that can be "bettered" since no qualities exist.

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.

 

[McBell]

Exactly.

This is certainly more armchair philosophy than empirical science.

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.

 

[Willamena]

seeing as how we have no conscious experience of non-existence, the only speculation we could make about it's "better"ness (or any of it's qualities) would be to use our imaginations...

Non-existence, as I see it, wouldn't have any qualities.

There is still a basis for comparison. This non-existence you describe has a quality --one that you've given it by addressing it -- of "no qualities". Is it better to have qualities than to have no qualities?

 

[CarlinKnew]

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?

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

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

I would prefer if no murderers existed. Said murderers would probably disagree with me.

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

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

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.