Is existence a predicate?

We should not mistake the predicate of existence with the human proclamation of being here and now. “To be here” is a positive action of the subject, a hard one in fact, a kind of fight with the universal law narratives which deny anything human from the all too human perspective of a narrative of domination. But when we say that something exists, we are simply reifying a transcendental property which conditions us within an ideological frame.

A predicate is a determination of an object, its inscription within a particular (finite) frame of properties, physical (space-time, weight, etc.) or social (legal, aesthetical, etc.).

( (1)  Suppose that “exists” is a predicate, then to say that “a” exists is to say that “a belongs to a particular frame of properties”, say F₁.

( (2)   F₁ is a frame of properties, but not a frame which includes all properties, for there is not a single object “a” which can have all properties, so it could not belong to such frame. Thus, there are F₁, F₂,…F_n.

( (3)   Therefore, to say that “a exists” is to say that “a belongs to a frame which in turn belongs to a set of frames of properties”. From this, we can infer “F₁ exists” (by (1)). Thus we can say that “a exits when it belongs to an existing frame”. This is an impredicative definition.

Thus, “exists” cannot be a predicate.

Formally:

‘a exists’ =_.def a ∈ F₁ , ∀ F₁ ∈ (F₁, F₂,…F_n)

F₁ ∈ (F₁, F₂,…F_n) ⟶ ‘F₁ exists’

‘a exists’ =_.def a ∈ ‘F₁ exists’, impredicative definition

∴ ‘a exists’ cannot be a predicate

In fact, “exists” is what we are already saying in mathematics with the symbol εστί, ∈.