It concerns a general statement we make about something, but we mistakenly assume that this thing also exists in reality.
Definition:
The existential fallacy occurs when we conclude from one or more universal statements that something exists in reality, even though those statements are only definitions and do not prove real existence. For example:
All unicorns are mythical creatures.
Therefore there must be a unicorn whose myth has been created!
Here, it should be noted that a universal statement is only a definition, not proof of existence.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
1. All M are P. [Major premise]
2. All S are M. [Minor premise]
3. Therefore, some S are P. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this syllogism is formally valid in structure, but it rests on a hidden and false assumption that S actually exists.
If the existence of S has not been established, the conclusion about “some S” will be false. Simply stating universal propositions does not in itself prove their external existence.
Examples from real life:
1. In politics and human rights:
a) All ideal governments are honest with their people. [Major premise]
All regimes that proclaim justice are ideal governments. [Minor premise]
Therefore, some regimes that proclaim justice are honest with their people. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this argument, using two universal definitions – one about ideal governments and the other about regimes that proclaim justice – draws an existential conclusion without demonstrating the genuine honesty of any regime.
In addition to this logical criticism, it can also be seen that within the framework of Realpolitik no government is entirely honest, since the structure of power is built upon the management of information and the preservation of the ruling class’s interests.
Therefore, this fallacy can be deceptive both logically and politically, misleading public opinion.
b) All recognised victims of war are supported by international institutions. [Major premise]
All refugees in this region are victims of war. [Minor premise]
Therefore, some of these refugees are supported by international institutions. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this argument, relying only on two universal statements, assumes that international institutions support the refugees, without offering any evidence of their actual presence or involvement.
The main problem lies in the assumption that simply defining someone as a “victim of war” or a “refugee” automatically guarantees external support, while no such guarantee exists.
The reality is that millions of refugees around the world live without adequate legal, nutritional, medical, or psychological support.
The existential fallacy here creates a baseless hope that hides the harsh realities of the humanitarian crisis behind humanitarian wording, and it can lead to public inaction, media indifference, and even the justification of the inefficiency of international structures.
2. In education:
a) All outstanding pupils are hardworking. [Major premise]
All pupils in this class are outstanding. [Minor premise]
Therefore, some pupils in this class are hardworking. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this argument relies only on two universal definitions and gives no proof of the actual existence of outstanding pupils.
It is possible that there are no outstanding pupils in this class at all, and the conclusion rests merely on an abstract description.
The existential fallacy here deceives us into judging concrete reality from abstract concepts, whereas for a valid conclusion the existence of an example must first be established.
b) All inspiring teachers motivate their pupils. [Major premise]
All teachers in this school are inspiring. [Minor premise]
Therefore, some teachers in this school motivate their pupils. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this argument relies only on universal definitions and gives no evidence of the teachers’ actual performance.
It is possible that there are no inspiring teachers in this school at all, and the claim is merely a value label or a promotional statement.
The existential fallacy here leads us to accept a desirable quality solely on the basis of a verbal definition, without any proof of its realisation in the world.
3. In consumer advertising:
a) All genuine slimming creams cause weight loss. [Major premise]
All products presented on this website are genuine slimming creams. [Minor premise]
Therefore, some of these products cause weight loss. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that this argument relies only on a universal definition and the claim that slimming creams exist, but offers no scientific or empirical evidence of their effectiveness.
This type of existential fallacy is a common tactic in advertising: suggesting the existence of an effective product merely by describing desirable features, rather than by proving actual performance.
As a result, the consumer may make a decision based on a false belief, putting both health and money at risk.
b) All genuine organic products are free from chemical preservatives. [Major premise]
All food items sold in this shop as organic are organic. [Minor premise]
Therefore, some of these food items are free from chemical preservatives. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that the fallacy lies in the minor premise. The speaker, without evidence, claims that all the food items in this shop are truly organic, and then, on this unproven assumption, concludes that some are free from chemical preservatives.
The mistake is in equating the “universal definition of an organic product” with the “actual existence of organic products in the shop”. This existential leap, the acceptance of an external existence solely on the basis of definition or assertion, is precisely what constitutes the existential fallacy.
4. In everyday life:
a) All true friends stand by a person in times of hardship. [Major premise]
All your friends are true friends. [Minor premise]
Therefore, some of them are now standing by you. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that the fallacy lies in the minor premise. The speaker, without providing any evidence, claims that all of a person’s friends are “true friends” and then from this universal definition concludes that some of them must actually be present in times of hardship. The error is in equating the “label of a true friend” with “real presence at the moment of need”. This existential leap deceives the mind into taking the mere application of a label as proof of external existence and active action. Such a belief can lead to false expectations, disappointment, or emotional misunderstanding.
b) All organised people have a daily schedule. [Major premise]
All my housemates are organised. [Minor premise]
Therefore, some of my housemates have a daily schedule. [Particular conclusion = fallacy]
Here, it should be noted that the fallacy is hidden in the minor premise. The speaker, merely by attaching the label “organised” to their housemates, takes the existence of actual scheduling for granted without offering any evidence. The error lies in treating a general description (being organised) as automatically equivalent to the concrete existence of a specific feature (a daily schedule). This existential leap leads one to judge on the basis of a mental label rather than real evidence. Such reasoning can create false expectations, hasty judgements, and even tensions in shared living.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
● It leads us to believe that something exists in reality merely because we have spoken about it or described it.
● By creating concepts that have no external existence but exert real influence on the mind, it provides grounds for political, advertising, or psychological exploitation.
● It separates the mind from concrete experience and accustoms it to accepting imaginary propositions.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
If the conclusion of an argument is about the existence of something that in the premises has only been described, with no reason given for its real existence, ask:
– Does an actual external instance of this description exist, or is it merely a play with words?
A suitable response might be: “Merely talking about something or describing a feature does not mean that it exists in the real world.”
Conclusion:
The existential fallacy arises when we believe in the real existence of a phenomenon merely on the basis of a description or definition, without any evidence confirming it in the external world.
This error blurs the boundary between rhetoric about things and their actual existence, and paves the way for the acceptance of imaginary concepts, baseless expectations, or deceptive promises.
Recognising this fallacy teaches us to look at concrete instances instead of relying on hollow words and unreal descriptions, and to refrain from believing in what is merely “said” or “claimed” until it is confirmed by experience or reliable evidence.
In a world where foolish politicians, advertising mouthpieces, and irresponsible media play with words, drawing a clear line between truth and rhetoric is more necessary than ever.
Seeing reality as it is, and turning it into truth, is one of the foundations of critical thinking and a condition for our psychological and social well-being.