Why Do I Exist?

There is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence means. The dominant (though by no means universal) view in twentieth-century and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy is that existence is what is asserted by statements of first order logic of the form “for some x Fx”. This agrees with the simple and commonsensical view that, in uttering “There is a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith”, or “A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith”, we are asserting the existence of a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith. The word “existence”, on this view, is simply a way of describing the logical form of ordinary subject-predicate sentence.

Unfortunately, this simple view is vulnerable to a number of philosophical objections, and the so-called problem of existence is one that still exercises the minds of contemporary philosophers. This article is a brief overview of those problems, of the solutions that certain philosophers have offered, and suggestions for further reading.

I exist for a reason. The reason is complex. But my existence is even more.

You are what you are to yourself.

And I am what I am to myself and mostly what I am to others. But that doesn’t matter.

Cause what is more important is what I am to others and to others I am nothing.

So that means my existence is not defined?