Is it greater to exist in reality than in the mind? Meaning of greater?

[metropolis_part_one]

This came up in the Ontological thread. The point was made that, for example, it would not have been 'greater' for Hitler to have existed in reality than in the mind. Similarly, surely it is 'greater' for plagues to exist only in the mind rather than in reality also. But is this the case? Greater for whom? Loki said that for Hitler himself, it was greater to exist in reality, but not for the human race. Can we agree on the meaning of 'greater'? Can we ever say that it is 'greater' for something to exist in reality, or to not, or is this simply a subjective opinion?

[Yahweh]

Just semantics. I think the ultimate question boils down to what Dawkin's would consider a "Fallacy of Personal Incredulity".

[evildave]

For a hitler or a disease or a flower or whatever to exist in any sense to you, it would exist have to exist in your mind.

If it existed outside your mind, but not in your mind, you would not be aware of it, so it would be nothing to you.

You would simply be ignorant of the hitler, disease, flower, whatever.

[Loki]

metropolis_part_one,

Seems to me that for any thinking entity that exists, that entity will (in some sense) clearly believe it is "greater" to exist than not exist. The first person perspective sort of demands this. When there is no "first person perspective" involved (say, fictional characters like Hannibal Lector) then this obviously can't be used as a criteria for evaluating the "greater" situation.

Seems like a bit of a catch-22 - if the entity exists, then existence *is* important/relevant. If the entity doesn't exist, then the concept of "greater" doesn't apply. Rather than being able to use the concept of "greater" to establish "existence", it sort of seems like "greater" only applies once "existence" is established.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by metropolis_part_one
This came up in the Ontological thread. The point was made that, for example, it would not have been 'greater' for Hitler to have existed in reality than in the mind. Similarly, surely it is 'greater' for plagues to exist only in the mind rather than in reality also. But is this the case? Greater for whom? Loki said that for Hitler himself, it was greater to exist in reality, but not for the human race. Can we agree on the meaning of 'greater'? Can we ever say that it is 'greater' for something to exist in reality, or to not, or is this simply a subjective opinion?

Perhaps the question can be phrase as "greater toward what end?" -- I think the term is teleological, or "greater with respect to what criteria?", rather than "greater for whom?".

[c4ts]

The limitations of the mind itself are at least equal to the limitations of the "real" (i.e. the mind cannot override physics or change the laws of biology). Things that exist in the mind have their limits, like imagination and capacity for reason, so also the mind is subject to these limitations.