Existence / Rule for Existence

¶ … Existence / Rule for Existence

Existence is a philosophical question that has eluded thinkers for centuries. From as early as ancient Greek, philosophers have sought to define existence as a concept to encompass not only the physical world, but those objects that exist in different non-physical plains. It is these issues that present the challenge in determining the true meaning of existence and non-existence.

An object exists when it has a form that is not in violation of any universal rules or truths. A form is any physical, metaphysical, or cognitive presentation. Universal rules are those derived in science and mathematics such as gravity, mass, geometry, and algebra. Truths are those statements that are absolute and cannot be refuted. When held against this definition of existence, a horse, the number four, and a unicorn exist whereas the square circle does not exist.

A horse is the most obvious of the items that exists. The reason is the horse fulfills the definition perfectly. First, the horse exists in a form, two forms actually. The first form is its archetypical form. This is the form in the mind that creates the definition of a horse. A object exists in an archetypical form when the mentioning of the object brings a specific image or definition to the mind. In this case, when the word "horse" is mentioned, a person immediately conjures up the image of a four-legged mammal with hooves, main and tail. Horses also exist in a physical for as well. Their physical form exists in the third dimension along-side humans. This means that horses can be touched, smelled, heard, watched and interacted with. It is these features that even greater solidify the horse's existence within the mind. Now to address the second and third parts of the definition. A horse is not in violation of any universal rules or truths. Its very definition, in fact, is solely derived from its physical form and the observations thereof. So, a horse meets the full criteria of an existing object and therefor does exist.

The number 4 also exists, except it does not exist in the same way that a horse exists. Unlike a horse, the number four is not a living thing, in the sense that it breaths, eats, or grows. It does still, nonetheless exist. The number 4, like the horse, has two forms. The first form is the archetypical form. When the number 4 is mentioned, those trained in mathematical law immediately conjure up the image. While this time the image is not as physical as it was with the horse, the concept can still be conjured within the mind and is solidified when tied to another object such as the horses. When 4 horses is mentioned, it becomes even easier to envision the number 4 in use. The second form that the number four can take is physical. Once again, unlike the horse, the physical form is not alive, but it still exists. This form, commonly referred to as a numeral or an integer, can exist within the same dimension as humans as either a figure drawn on paper or a foam number four used for educating children about numbers. Number also solidly confirms the second part of the definition. It is not in violation of any universal rules, in fact, the number 4 is necessary when proving many mathematical universal rules. Finally, the number 4 does not violate any truth. Its definition as an integer confirms the very existence.

Regardless of what one may believe, a unicorn does exist based on the above definition. The reason for its existence can be affiliated with the world of art and legend. Unicorns also have the same two forms as the horse and the number four. When the word "unicorn" is mentioned, no doubt the image of a single horned horse comes to mind. This confirms that the unicorn has an archetypical form. A form within the mind and imagination that can consistently exist within the minds of people. To argue that a unicorn does not exist would be to disprove the very definition. While it is true that there is currently not a living form of unicorn, the fact that the image can be conjured means that it must exist. Should an image be non-configurable, then one could argue that the unicorn does not exist in any form. The second from that the unicorn takes, and the one that most people image is that from art. The creative manifestation of the archetypical form projected into a physical form. While the physical form may not breath, eat or move it is still existing just as the very computer that I am typing this paper on exists regardless of being alive. Secondly, the unicorn is not in violation of any universal rules. In both archetypical and physical from the creature would seem to have the same capabilities of the horse only with a horn atop its head. While some would argue that the unicorn does violate certain universal rules in that unicorns are said to be magical, this is not the case. There are legends formed about unicorns. These legends lend to the archetypical and physical definitions and once again are consistent with the actual form. There is no inconsistency. An inconsistency would be for example, if the unicorn's archetypical form was the traditional image, but the physical form looked like an umbrella.