Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Existence/archive1

Existence

Featured article candidates/Existence/archive1

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is the state of having reality. Often contrasted with essence, it is a wide and fundamental concept associated with various tricky problems, such as the status of imaginary entities like Santa Claus. Thanks to Of the universe for their GA review, to Jenhawk777, Bilorv, and Patrick Welsh for their peer reviews, and to Baffle gab1978 for their GOCE copy-edit of this level 4 vital article.

750h

I have read through this article twice and have not seen any obvious problems. Expressing my support of this nomination. I love the examples used, such as "kangaroos live in Australia", which facilitate the reader’s experience. I’m happy to have been the GA reviewer of the Ethics article and hope to see it here sometime soon :-). 750h+ | Talk 04:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: Thanks a lot for the support! I'm working to get Ethics ready for a nomination and I'll let you know, hopefully after this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

Another great summary article on a massive topic like existence :) These are the only comments I have after reading through, I expect to support when they are cleared up but I might also make some more comments if I look through the source list. Shapeyness (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I'm happy to see that you haven't become tired of reviewing those wide-scope articles :) and your background on Quine should prove quite useful for this topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Van Orman Quine (1908–2000) defends a different position by giving primacy to singular existence maybe it would be useful to say why, e.g. "arguing that general existence can also be expressed in terms of individual existence"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this view, a universal that has no instances in the spacio-temporal world does not exist optionally, this could be simplified by removing reference to the "spacio-temporal world" (if you decide to keep, should it be spatio-temporal?)
I fixed the spelling but I left the term. I'm not sure how relevant the concern is but one universal could instantiate another universial without either of them existing in space and time. I don't think Aristotelians would be happy about that kind of existence so this way, we have our bases covered. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract objects ... exist outside space and time the use of a spatial concept ("outside") here is unfortunate, although it gets the idea across pretty well. Maybe "do not exist with a location in space and time"/"do not have a location in space and time" would also work?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the relationship between abstract and fictional objects - in the source this seems more of a passing comment or something to keep in mind rather than an important point in its own right, do you think it is due weight to include? Maybe it would be better to discuss fictional objects more holistically in their own subsection or in "Modes and degrees of existence" given fictional objects are generally thought to exist or to have being in a different way
Physical entities include objects of regular perception given the later reference to perceptions being mental objects, I see it being quite easy for a reader to get confused here by not realising the subtlety of the word choice (objects of perception, not perception itself). Also, idealists and indirect realists would argue the objects of perception are mental, so maybe best to reword.
Good catch. The reference to perception was not essential here so I rephrased it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, according to Gibson, a thing either exists or does not exist; this means there is no in-between alternative and that there are no degrees of existence This was very famously argued by Quine in "On What There Is". It is probably better to remove this sentence or put Quine here instead, or at the very least add a supporting secondary source here to demonstrate the importance of Gibson's argument
Agreed, Quine would have been the better person to ascribe this view to. The main point of this phrase was not so much to talk about Gibson's or Quine's philosophy but to give the reader an idea about what this position means. I found a way to phrase the sentence differently that does not require attribution. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes the most sense I think, Quine is already well covered elsewhere. Shapeyness (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the previous point, when Gibson is first mentioned he is cited there too, do the secondary sources mention him in regards to existence being an elementary concept?
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) explored how being and nothing pass into one another in the process of becoming This is slightly confusing, although maybe it's because I don't know much about Hegel
Eastern philosophy is given slightly less space than western philosophy in the history section, that may be justified but just checking
There is some sandwiching of text in the history section on my screen - choosing shorter images or using |upright for narrow images might help
- FYI I reduced the sandwiching in the Eastern philosophy section, but there is still some between Aristotle and Anselm of Canterbury which I'm not sure how to deal with. Shapeyness (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]