When There Is No More Room In Hell, Philosophers Will Walk the Earth

I've been thinking alot lately about metaphysics. No really, this is not a set up for some sick joke. I have, really. I've been going through my old philosophy books, and reading old notes from my classes... but I have no real idea why (funny I should throw in the word "real" since I've just mentioned that I've been stuck on metaphysics). I know that some of it has to do with this PBS program about the father of the dude from that group eels. He, the father that is, worked in physics, and his big contribution to the world of physics (and to Star Trek fans everywhere) was the theory of possible worlds. Now, there's this possible worlds thought experiment that has to do with a cat in a box. You stick the cat in the box, and then you put some radioactive stuff in there with it. But you can't see the cat, and you don't know when the material is going to be released, and so we don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, so in some ( long story short ) possible world the cat is both alive and dead. And that got me thinking. What does it mean to exist? I think that most people, myself included, go around asking questons about existence in the "why" form, meaning we ask why is life, why our own particular lives, and so on. I haven't really met anyone outside of a philosophy class ever ask what does it mean when I say that something "exists"? I figure that, for most folks, that, the "what" part -- we kind of take for granted. We see things and we say that they "exist" things we don't see don't exist. (I realize the big positivist boo-boo here, but play along for the sake of example). The problem is, is that the word "exist" is both loaded and muddy. When we ask "what is existence?", our questions, and unfortunately (ultimately) arguments tend to get us bogged down in semantics rather than actually getting to the subject at hand. This is often the point when some of us throw up our hands and simply stop discussing the issue altogether. But the hassle of agreeing on definitions shouldn't stop us from finding definitions that we all can agree on. It is important that we do so. So what do we think of when we think about existence? We tend to think of "exists" in terms of life or what "is". For better or for worse, when we speak of the world around us, we tend to speak of existence in human terms, that is, things exist in contrast to us. Being the semicurious devil that I am, I looked in the dictionary to see what the experts at Random House had to say about existence. And, no surprise, the definition included the phrase, " to have life or animation". That seemed mighty odd to me. Of course to answer "what is existence?" is not something that we'd like to answer too broadly. Somehow, there is an inclination to think of the answer as more nuanced than we'd initially think that it is. Perhaps the right way of thinking of existence is in terms of us. We can say that we humans (and some higher animals) "exist" everything else just "is". The word "existence" seems to shuttle in more than just being there and accounted for. There are social, biological, scientific, psychological, philosophical, and even colloquial meanings to the word "exist". I may claim that I politely raised my hand all class, and the professor acted as if I didn't exist, or I may say that my existence would be ruined if my guy left me, or I may say that my dog exists, or trees, or planets, or minds, or thoughts... but once again, I feel that when I say "I exist", that I've somehow changed the rules. I'm speaking of more than just flowers and trees. I am more than my here-ness, I am more than my social position, or my capacity to think (wow, that sounds a little Tyler Durden. I am more than my khakis). But then, there I go again -- closing myself up in the humans only box. Worse than that, I'm getting the feeling that I'm casting my net too narrowly. I feel that what I am doing is limiting existence to all that is, meaning all that can exist here with us. No. I promised myself that I would only mention possible worlds and not possible entities. I don't want to talk of Pegasus or corpulent men in doorways. I want to speak of something more concrete. What I am after, ultimately, is to find a meaning that will help us here and now -- there are too many problems to consider in the world where we reside than to get away from the issue by talking about Zeus and his brother or round squares. I was watching Land of the Dead awhile back. While I was sitting, watching Big Daddy and his zombie gang raid Pittsburgh, digging on Asia Argento (and Simon Baker, too), I started thinking about existence. I thought about that dead/alive cat, and how these zombies were beings that were both alive and dead. So I thought, do zombies exist? Knowing that the answer wasn't exactly the kind that you'd answer with an immediate yes or no, I realized that to get an answer, I required a thought experiment. So, let's say that I'm somewhere near Monroesville, circa 1978. Hoardes of the undead have descended on the local mall. Looking up from my beer I'm chugging at the Brown Derby, I start to think: I know that the recently reanimated are not "alive" (at least not in the medical sense), but do they exist? Possible answer #1: Descartes famously said "Cogito, ergo sum" -- I think, therefore I am. If Descartes was able to think, he was assured of his own existence. He could not even doubt that he did exist, because there was, at the very least some thing that was doubting his existence. As long as he possessed the capacity for thought, our PJ lovin' Rene Descartes was assured of his own existence. Well, it's obvious with a zombie where this Descartes' proof goes awry. A zombie does not think. There is no "I" to consider or even to deny its own existence. (funny, the zombie lacks the one thing that Descartes says is necessary for proof that one exists: thought. a zombie, however, possesses all of the other qualities the Descartes says are illusory -- locomotion, sight, hearing, touch, an insatiable thirst for human flesh...). But, then, would Descartes suggest that we deny that a zombie exists? especially is that zombie is busy gnawing on your brain? (ok, I'm mixing my zombie mythos. So far, I've been following George A. Romero's rules of zombiedom. It's Dan O' Bannon's zombies who eat brains. Sorry for the mix-up). So, if I take Descartes at all seriously (which is something that I try to not do), if a zombie does not think, it does not "am". And lacking the capacity for thought, he is not a rational being. He is like a dog or any other animal that lacks the capacity for rational thought. The implication of this, and I don't think that Rene would disagree, is that zombies have no souls. This means that we are free to do with them as we wish. We are not dealing with persons, but with beings who hold no more metaphysical (or moral) significance for us than a machine. So, when in Shaun of the Dead, zombies are being used to push shopping carts or as contestants on game shows, it's perfectly alright. That's what they are there for. They're machines -- really no different from a clock or a stereo. Like soulless steroes who happen to stink and rot and turn putrid. But this didn't sound quite right to me, so for the meantime, I decided to put Descartes to the side. But, just when I was throwing out Descartes (something I've said we should do for years), I had an ah-ha (not the 80s Europop band) moment. Maybe existence, in a philosophical sense, is tied to who I am. Maybe if the rationalist cannot confirm the existence of a zombie, the existentialist can. I started to think: what if it's the zombie who is the one who truly philosophically exists? Bear with me here: Heidegger says that our own "existence" is tied to the type of life that we live. We live lives inauthentically when we live our lives according to how others want us to live. It is up to us, Heidegger states, how our lives are to be lived. We could make a good claim that someone who lives his life according to the will of others does not truly exist, existentially speaking, of course. Well, if you look at existence that way, then zombies are the ultimate rulebreakers. 1) they've totally rejected society's die and stay dead rule. 2) they eat people. 3) they have no inclination to keep up their appearances -- they wear the same bloodsoaked clothes and they don't bathe. 4) they have no regard for manners or socially acceptable behavior, etc. So, I concluded that yes, a zombie is a walking contradiction. He is a being that is alive and dead. But, more importantly zombies exist, in a sort of half-assed, crudely construed existentialist sense. So, what purpose did my thought experiment serve? What it did was bring me back to my original question: "what does it mean to exist?" Then it hit me why my first thought was to tink of zombies. A zombie is an extreme if not impossible example that forces us to think about existence. But as I said, we need not look beyond the real world to find and contemplate such extreme examples. Any of us may at any point find ourselves or someone that we care about sustained through artificial means. Sometimes, as in the case of "brain death", we are unable to determine whether a person is truly alive or dead. It seems that, in some cases, a person may be a little bit of both. Likewise, as the technology of artificial intelligence advances, we may have to ask if a being that "exists" in cyberspace is alive or not a living being. So what am I getting at here? Really to be honest, I don't know. I don't know if I even asked the right question let alone actually got anywhere near answering it. I think that what I've done is found a way to rattle on about zombies and got to say that Asia Argento is hot. Which, by the way, she is.