Meaning is the order of things. You gave an order of existence when you said existence precedes human cognition.
There are two basic orders to existence. One, the relation or meaning of the parts to the whole. The other, the relation of a thing to its end.
Certainly what is known must exist before it can be known. This is hardly an earthshaking metaphysical or epistemological observation. It certainly is not a statement about the "meaning" of existence.
There are two basic orders to existence. One, the relation or meaning of the parts to the whole. The other, the relation of a thing to its end.
The relation of parts to whole is a question one might deal with in ontology, a branch of metaphysics, hardly one of "two basic orders of existense." Metaphysically, "ends," do not exist. Ends only exist as concepts, and only have meaning to beings capable of having ends, that is, rational/volitional beings. The notion that the "relation of a thing to its end" mixes teleological and metaphysical concepts. With the exception of organisms, which are an end in themselves, no "thing" has an end or purpose except that which a rational being assigns to it.
Where does this confused notion of "two basic orders of existence," come from.
Hank