This page is unfinished. It may be a mere placeholder in the book outline. Or, the text below (if any) may be a summary, or a discussion of what the page will say, or a partial or rough draft.
The question of existence and non-existence is a colossal red herring.
Many metaphysicists have used sorites arguments to convince themselves that ordinary objects, such as pots and people, do not exist. This is a dire confusion.
Framing the problem as “whether and how objects exist” leaves the objects unchallenged and problematizes a property they may possess (viz. existence). But it is objectness that is problematic, not existence!
Part of the problem is a common pattern in metaphysics, of mistaking physical intuitions as metaphysical intuitions. Another problem is a consistent failure to ask what “exists” even means—if anything. I will give a sketch of an answer to that.
Then I’ll explain that the sorites arguments have nothing to do with existence; correctly understood, they problematize boundaries, and therefore the concept “object” instead.