theoria

A dependent existence?

February 16th, 2025

Of late, I have had to question the definition of ontology given to me.

The standard defines usually the study of what exists? Admittedly, this definition does not claim of what exists. It is an open statement. But giving such a definition there must be said something that does not exist as well.

These days abstract entities are said to exist dependently, while physical objects exist independently. But if that is the case, there is nothing that can be said to not exist. For physical objects and abstract entities make up the complete set of all there is.

The independent/dependent division of existing things is a broadening of the term “existence”, something I suspect that realists about universals had done to make room for the universals. If the ing independent thing exists did not exist the dependent thing would not (by definition) exist either.

Can it be said to exist dependently then.

The better division of exist/not exist is cleaner, and more useful then.

Why should one be afraid to say “x does not exist”?
A critique of dualism

February 11th, 2025

Dualism is the position that both mind and body exist. They are separate kinds of substance. In Descartes view they interact. The mind moves the body. If they are separate substances then they ought to exist independently. we should be able to observe a mind and a body separately. Secondly, if they are separate the mind should be able to occupy another body.

What we observe though is not two entities. A concrete entity is a one that has spatial temporal location, brings about effects, perceptible by the senses. If the mind was a concrete entity it should have these characteristics. It does not. One thing about objects is that they are impenetrable. So another question is how is mind and body able to occupy the same space?

So not only are we not observing two entities, we are not seeing exception to rules about impenetrability.

Perhaps mind is about a thing. Perhaps mind is like walking, a property of a thing.

We may say this mind or that mind. We may even talk about mind in plural form – minds. But is this not reification? Should we not be talking about this thinking person or that thinking person?

It is far easier to reify something, to turn actions, qualities, relations into objects. Language and minds allow this. Reality and the way we think about reality does not match. And the way think about the mind is one area this is most evident.
Symbol and referent

February 11th, 2025

What are the implications of accepting a material reality? For one, we have to account for how we are able to talk about non-existent things. The previous sentence has already demonstrated this challenge. To say “non-existent thing” seems to be a contradiction. To say “non-existent” then it is not a thing. To attach the adjective to “thing” means we are talking about a thing. The term is oxymoronic.

The trick is to see that “talking about X” is not the same as “X”. the former is a thought or a verbal expression. The latter is existence.

Harry Potter is not a boy. Harry Potter is a character who is said to be a boy. Yet we can talk about Harry Potter.

Names and terms have this power. They replace the referent as the thing itself.

But this is where we go wrong. Names, terms, concepts do not exist. The name exists and everybody talks about the name, share the name. So the name is seemingly everywhere.

The reality is, the name is not everywhere. People who say the name is everywhere. There is a difference here. And this difference goes mostly unnoticed.
Evidence

February 10th, 2025

Evidence is always material evidence.
Reality

February 10th, 2025

Reality is matter and only matter. Reality exists independently of our thoughts, perceptions and beliefs. Reality can be observed and measured. Reality can be rationalised about. We have perceptions and experiences of reality. Perception and experience are done by a material thing. Reality is and has no inherent meaning. Reality is marked by change and difference.
Matter is primary

February 10th, 2025
There are various way to answer the question of “what exists”. There is:
1. materialism (that reality is fundamentally matter);
2. idealism (that reality is fundamentally mind or immaterial);
3. dualism (that reality is both mind and matter);
4. monism (only one kind of thing exists);
5. pluralism (multiple kinds of substance exist);
6. empiricism (only things that can be observed exist or measured exist);
7. rationalism (reason determines what exists);
8. phenomenalism (only perceptions and experience exist);
9. existentialism (existence precedes essence);
10. nihilism (nothing has inherent existence).
All of these ultimately have to explain how it relates to the physical reality in which all actions (including philosophising) occur.

Since the physical world is common to all answers about what exists, we should answer all questions in ration to the physical world.
Content of experience

February 9th, 2025

The content of initial experience is sense experience.

To put it another way, initial experience is not any kind of awareness or understanding of oneself’s being, but rather we have this content that is sensory data. At some point we become aware of what the external world and its independent objects are. And only later do we fully realise that we ourselves are an object in something we have called an external world when in fact there is no such thing as an internal world for which to contrast to the external world.

The internal and external worlds are not two separate worlds but one single reality. So the terms are redundant.
Familiarity Bias

February 8th, 2025
Prompt:
The ontological narrative of independent and dependant things is the realists’ trojan horse, to bring into existence non-existent things. To move back to the discourse of the study of what exists (and what does not exist) is necessary.

ChatGPT:
Yes, despite having established that only particular things exist, we still observe that many discourses focus on what does not exist. This happens because language and repetition create an illusion of existence, reinforcing ideas that have no basis in reality. The more something is talked about, the more cognitively familiar it becomes, leading to a false sense of its reality.

The Illusion of Existence Through Discourse
1. Cognitive Ease and Familiarity Bias – The brain tends to accept what is familiar as true. The more a concept is repeated, the more natural and real it feels, even if it has no actual existence. This is how non-existent things (like universals, spirits, or metaphysical essences) become entrenched in human thinking.
2. Reification: Turning Concepts into “Things” – When people talk about “love,” “justice,” or “the nation” as if they were real entities, they commit reification—treating abstract concepts as if they have independent existence. These words describe patterns of interaction between real things, but they do not exist as things themselves.
3. Social Reinforcement of Non-Existents – Philosophical, religious, and ideological discourses institutionalize non-existent entities. Laws, traditions, and belief systems build around abstract ideas, treating them as if they were real. This makes it difficult to separate what is useful as a conceptual tool from what is falsely assumed to exist.
How to Counteract This Cognitive Trap
- Return to the Study of Existence – Constantly question whether a thing actually exists or is merely a linguistic or conceptual construction. The test is always: Can this thing be observed, interacted with, and verified as a particular? If not, it does not exist.
- Distinguish Between Useful Fictions and Ontological Truths – Some non-existent things, like mathematical abstractions or legal systems, are useful for practical purposes but must not be confused with real things. Recognizing this prevents linguistic traps from becoming ontological claims.
- Be Aware of the Power of Repetition – Simply because something is widely discussed does not mean it is real. Training oneself to critically analyze language and recognize cognitive ease as a bias is essential to maintaining ontological clarity.
Conclusion: Awareness Without Reinforcement

Since discourse can create cognitive ease and entrench non-existent ideas, the challenge is to engage critically without reinforcing the illusion. Talking about what does not exist should always be framed as an analysis of how and why such non-existent things influence thought and behavior, rather than granting them an implicit reality.

By staying grounded in what actually exists and maintaining vigilance against linguistic distortions, one can avoid falling into the very trap that discourse itself creates.
Facts and reality

February 7th, 2025

Sexual predators think that if people do not think them a predator then they are not one. Similarly, exceptionalists think that if they are exceptional then they are. The problem is, the facts do not match the reality.

What is primary is the independent reality, not the thoughts. This, I believe, is the problem of most people, including philosophers who do not ask the hard questions about whether the facts – particularly their facts – match reality.

Reality is not theirs. Reality is independent, shared, and common to all.
Where the body is, the mind is

December 23rd, 2024

Where the body is, the mind is. The mind is not an independent entity or a separate realm but an emergent process of the body’s material existence. Thoughts, emotions, and awareness are grounded in the physical processes of the brain and nervous system, which are inseparable from the body. To speak of the mind apart from the body is to misunderstand its nature. The mind is always embodied, and its experiences are situated where the body is, in space and time. Recognizing this eliminates the disorientation caused by dualistic separations and firmly roots the mind in material reality.

The Illusion of Existence Through Discourse

How to Counteract This Cognitive Trap

Conclusion: Awareness Without Reinforcement