8g9

I accept that my question implicitly contain the axiom of existence but what I am looking for is the meaningfulness of existence. Existence is. I know but what does that actually mean. I’m not asking for a definition but for a validation in sense perception. Existence must be implicitly accepted for any knowledge. As an explicit axiomatic concept it is indeed high level. But as a axiomatic implicit understanding it is accepted from the beginning of knowledge. I know we cannot see existence like Hume falsely said we must. I am saying what in sense perception validates existence. I see things but how can we have this concept of existence part of all particulars individually and the whole sum of them. And that before we even talk about the law of identity and consciousness and “non-existence” and true vs false and (outside) reality as contrasted to mental conceptions. People always implicitly accept existence. They can have mental confusions which I admit I am suffering from at this moment but because of a genuine desire for grasping existence and truth. So while explicitly people don’t understand existence in many ways (although every sane adult does have an explicit concept of existence) they do implicitly accept it at any stage. Thank you however for the answer.

I guess such a strange title does catch the attention.

Thank you for the response and tips. I would agree that I ought to look more into what effects metaphysical ideas have on my views. What I however want to comment on is that you seem to portray existence like it is (outside) reality. The absurd exists. Not in reality but it exists qua mental conception. So this is one of the things that can’t be taken as an axiom as both reality and the mental are in existence. Every conceivable thing exists either qua reality or qua mental concept. Does that mean then that for example god exists because he is conceivable. No not qua an existent god but it is existent qua mental delusion. So we know every conceivable thing exists but we cant say it exists in the way it claims it exists or it exists in a way that contradicts its claims. Non-existence exists qua mental delusion as another example but does not exist qua non-existence. So I guess with that addendum you have given me a good tip as the key is to look maybe not at the effects of the negative of the axiom but actually the positive of the axiom. I must seek how the positive claim of the axiom justifies and acts in my knowledge.

Thank you for your intellectually diligent response. I do have to chew a little bit on it probably. If I understand you mean that existence is the widest, most comprehensive and only thing. I would say that I agree that existence is that but existence is also every particular. When I look out I see things but I don’t seem to understand at this point how the things that I see lead to be existence. If I say it is everything that I see then that would in a way be correct but that would if accepted on its face lead to the idea that existence is intrinsically tied to perception which leads to Berkeley’s view. Besides that consciousness is also an existent so it would be preposterous. So I am in the position of: I know existence exist in some but I can’t understand it really. If I differentiate it to everything then I am making a mistake. If I seek it as a primary in sense perception I fail to find it in a meaningful way. Your text is however very clarifying in many aspects but despite it probably seeming idiotic I think I need to ponder about existence some more to grasp it fully.

Hello everyone. I know it sounds ridiculous but hear me me out if you will. How does Objectivism counter the proposition that existence is meaningless as an axiom. We know that it must be implicit in sense perception. We know existence cannot be derived from being the opposite of non-existence. Non-existence does not exist metaphysically, only epistemologically. We know existence can't be derived from being the opposite of mental delusion. Even the mind and everything in it exists. That is the question of reality in contrast to mind. We know existence can't be defined as it is a metaphysical primary. So where is it in sense perception? What makes it meaningful? I want to understand but I can't seem to answer it. If you do know then my followup questions are: How is existence applied to things outside what you see? How is identity implicit in sense perception? Why can't an existence exist without identity? To be clear I am convinced of the axioms but haven't really grasped them fully and explicitly in my head.

How is existence meaningful as an axiom. (I messed up the topic accidentally. My apologies)