The Nature of Existence

by Oliver Butterick

In 2000, I began the M.A. program in Philosophy at CSU Long Beach.  That year, I lived with my brother, and he stumbled across the following short essay, which was part of a take-home exam for my Existentialism class.  He found it quite confusing, but at the same time humorous.  I’ve declined to include the essay prompt, since it’s just as cryptic as the essay.  Without further ado…

(Editor's Note:  I apologize in advance.  For reasons that will soon become obvious, this was not the sort of article that I could "edit for clarity.")

Being is defined as one, necessary, and absolute (among other characteristics).  I will examine Being as such, and inquire into the possibility of Being being any other way.  By showing that it is impossible for Being to be many, non-necessary (contingent), and non-absolute (finite), I will conclude that Being is in fact one, necessary, and absolute.

If it is impossible to deny something, then it is correct to say that it necessarily exists.  This is the case for Being.  To state that Be is not, or Be does not be would be a contradiction.  It is impossible that Be not-be, for then Be would not be exercising ‘be,’ that which defines Be.  Saying that Ising is-not would likewise be a contradiction.  It is impossible for Being to not-be, for Existence to not-exist.  That of which the negation is impossible is necessary and such is the case with the Be-process.

Being is absolute.  That is to say, it does not lack anything, which is also to say that Being lacks Nothing.  Nothing is-not.  Nothing does not-exist.  Non-Being is-not.  Since Non-Being, or Nothingness, does not-exist, it is not something that is anything that can be lacked.  Since Being lacks only Nothing (which is not something to be lacked), it can be said that Being does not lack, which is to say that Being is absolute.

(Editor's Note:  I think right about here my head exploded.)

There is only one Be-process.  In order for two things to be non-identical, they must differ in some respect:  size, shape, location in space and time.  This is to say that one object must lack some property which is contained in the other (non-identical) object.  In order for there to be multiple Be-processes, one must possess some property lacked by one of the others.  Being lacks only Nothing, which is not something that can be lacked.  Since Being does not lack, there cannot exist another Be-process which has some quality that the genuine Be-process lacks because Being does not lack.  Therefore, Being is one.

Contained within Being are beings, or things.  These beings are simply manifestations of the Be-process.  However, any given being is not necessary, nor is the total sum of beings.  Being exists; beings may or may not exist.  The beings are none other than Being, yet Being is more than they.  The beings manifest when Being is, but incompletely so.  The presencing and absencing of Being constitutes beings.  All beings are and at once are-not.  In and of beings, Being is present, but incompletely so.  Whereas Being is necessary, beings are contingent.  Individual beings come into and go out of existence, and none are necessary.  Whereas Being is absolute, beings are finite.  They are finite in time, as well as in space.  Being is infinite and absolute in all respects; simply put, Being is.  Whereas Being is one, beings are many.  There could be only one being, or no beings at all.  In fact there are many, but this is irrelevant metaphysically.

Oliver can be reached at oliver@babblog.com.

Copyright 2004, Babblog.  All Rights Reserved.