Would anyone share my opinion that the question "what exists" is essentially meaningless and amounts to little more than an attempt to define what the word "exists" mean? There is a subtle aspect that can be missed in this type of discussion. People think of existence as something beyond words, yet those discussions attempt to reduce existence to a series of statements... with words.
How can someone communicate that which is beyond words using... words???
To answer your last question, see here how to 'communicate that which is beyond words using words':http://www.deltanetw.../skills/nct.htm
To your first question, no, I do not agree with your opinion that the philosophic question "what exists" is essentially meaningless, and the reason is because the only way to answer the question is via use of rational definition of the concept "exist", and placing definition on concept is never meaningless. And yes, as shown in the above link, existence can TAKE THE FORM of a THOUGHT of something beyond words, but this not mean that existence also cannot take another form as WORDS that can then be communicated outside the mind having the THOUGHT.
Consider what Aristotle had to say on the topic (On Interpretation, Chap 2:16).
"Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words."
Notice that Aristotle does not say written words are the symbols of what 'exists', neither are spoken words. Both are symbols of 'mental experience'. Thus logically it would be 'mental experience' that is the symbol of 'what exists'.
Why then would it be meaningless to ask a question: How can what exists be a symbol of mental experience ?
How we answer this question does not seem like something meaningless to me.
Edited by Rade, 10 April 2013 - 12:27 PM.