It is possible for a non existent object to exist?

Question

Anyone here into meontology?

Answer 1

In an infinite universe, anything is possible:

"The study of non-Being is referred to as Meontology. The word comes from the Greek for non, "Me" and ontology. It refers not exactly to the study of what does not exist, but an attempt to cover what may remain outside of ontology. It can also be associated more recently, with the emphasis placed upon absence or deferral by both Heidegger and Derrida.
For Levinas, what was meontological was what had meaning beyond being, beyond ontology, for him this was the ethical, the primary demand of the other in the face-to-face encounter. In this sense he sought to clarify or take further some of the issues raised by Heidegger and explicitly give ontology a secondary role to ethics rather than continue to parallel them in saying that the Being means care (Sorge).
Meontology has a slim tradition in the West, see, Sophist and negative theology, but has always been central to the Eastern philosophies of Taoism and the later Buddism."

The "Face-to-Face" relation refers to a concept in the French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas' thought on human sociality.

Lévinas' phenomenological account of the "face-to-face" encounter serves as the basis for his ethics and the rest of his philosophy. For Lévinas, "Ethics is first philosophy." Lévinas argues that the encounter of the Other through the face reveals a certain poverty which forbids a reduction to Sameness and, simultaneously, installs a responsibility for the Other in the Self.

Lévinas' account of the face-to-face encounter bears many similarities to Martin Buber's "I and Thou" relation. Its influence is also particularly pronounced in Jacques Derrida's ethical writings.

The major difference Levinas added to Buber's account of the I and Thou relation is Levinas' assymetry. For Buber it meant an ethical relation as a "symmetrical co-presence", Levinas, on the other hand, considers the relation with the other as inherently asymmetrical, the other as they appear, the face, gives itself priority to the self, its first demand even before I react to it, love it or kill it, is: "thou shalt not kill me". Such a demand for Levinas is prior to any reaction or any assertion of freedom by a subject. The face of the other in this sense looms above the other person and traces "where God passes". God (the infinite Other here refers to the God of which one cannot refuse belief in Its history, that is the God who appears in traditional belief and of scripture and not some conceptual God of philosophy or ontotheology.

In the face-to-face encounter we also see how Levinas splits ethics from morality. Ethics marks the primary situation of the face-to-face whereas morality comes later, as some kind of, agreed upon or otherwise, set of rules that emerge from the social situation, wherin there are more than just the two people of the face-to-face encounter.

This ethical relation for Levinas is prior to an ontology of nature, instead he refers to it as a meontology, which affirms a meaning beyong Being, a mode of non-Being (Greek: me-on)."

It sounds fascinating, but I'm afraid I'm into the non-study of non-being right now. However, I plan to get to it just as soon as I finish my study of being.

Answer 2

It exists as a possibility. So therefore, yes, it is possible for a non-existent object to exist. Simple answer.
However, does it exist as an idea of a non existent object? Do platonic objects exist as ideas, and otherwise, how could they be thought of? Here you enter the world of platonic ideas, which begs the question: But what are thoughts? If they don't exist, how can we have them.
They are certainly distinct from matter, at least our experience of them is. On the other hand, we only experience matter through our senses, and the representation of material objects in our mind, a visual, or tactile thought, if you will. So is matter simply experienced as a more tangible thought? You have absolutely no guarantee anything outside of yourself (ego) actually exists.
Of course, most of us go through our daily lives accepting matters and the objects it forms as a matter of course, and we seldom question their existence. We are even less concerned with non-existing objects. But as this inquiry shows, the only real difference between existing, and non-existing objects (pure thoughts), may simply be the degree to which they are tangible.

Answer 3

I live in a land that was though impossible to exist a mere 500 years ago. I drove to work in a mechanism that would have astounded my great, great grandfather. I watched the news and am answering a question on some technology that would have been dismissed as a weird fairy tale if described a century ago. I flunked a couple of math tests in college because I didn't know enough about irrational numbers.

I don't know about "meontology" and while my Latin is a little rusty, I suspect that it is either a made-up term or something that might be better known under another name.

Answer 4

Yes, if you do not consider time. If a non existent object can be created and exist in the future, and there is no time, yes, since that object could then be considered to exist now.

Answer 5

The whole edifice has to be built on the axiom "existence exists" !

Answer 6

think long and hard about this 1 errrrrrrr how can it exist if its non existent

Answer 7

Also sounds like a gnostic premise. All matter is evil , and is an illusion. Forget it.

Answer 8

Obviously. Look around.

Answer 9

yes...faith is believing to something that does not exist