Empricism

[Selfish]

Well, I just got out of my philosophy class, and wow-

When I first began to read AR, I was under the common impression that most of the opposing viewpoints she put forth where extremes, not really excepted at large. I guess today was the real eye opener, as my professor and half my philosophy class proceeded to attack my stance that existence exists. We're currently in the "What Do I Know?" chapter, which involves readings from Descarte, Bertrand Russell, and Locke, among others. After reading Russell's viewpoint that 'material objects exist only in our perceptions', I assumed the class (and the professor) would all point out how fallible this is. Wrong.

The best argument I could attempt to give (in the face of a professor who simply takes the floor from you whenever you start to sound right) was:

"If I am on a desert island, and I am unconcious, do I exist?"

His answer was something along the lines of "If someone percieves you, then you do"

Can someone outline the proof of existence for me, so I can better argue this next time? I feel like I understand the concepts, but just didn't have the words to argue back. To me, it's just that self-evident that perceptions are just that- perceptions.

Also; In a discussion with a classmate, I was trying to 'prove' that we are not all in some form of a dream. The best I could do was "Just because this is the only world that you exist in, does not imply that there are others, and that you are in those dreaming of this one. It is illogical to assume this world is not 'real'.

What's a better proof from some of the more seasoned Objectivist philosophers on this board?

[Godless Capitalist]

There is no proof because "existence exists" is an axiom. The fact that you are conscious means that you are conscious of something, ie reality. If existence did not exist, you would not be conscious; in fact you would not exist at all and the whole discussion would be impossible.

As for the dream argument, unless your classmate can provide some evidence for this scenario, it is an arbitrary assertion and can be dismissed out of hand.

I recommend you read the 1st chapter of OPAR, which goes through the basic axioms systematically.

[Randrew]

In Peikoff's words, at some point you may have to "end the conversation because [they] have abdicated reason and can be dealt with no further." (From the first chapter of OPAR, like Godless Capitalist said.)

Don't give up just yet, though. I've had arguments like this myself, and I'm not entirely sure where the best "stopping point" is. It can be a good exercise in logic and creativity to try to convince others in as many ways as possible that existence exists.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

If your teacher is right and existence doesn't exist then there is nothing for you two to disagree about. Objectivism believes in the supremacy of reason and isn't going to prove to you that existence exists; you rationaly decide that for yourself.

[BurgessLau]

Can someone outline the proof of existence for me, so I can better argue this next time? ...

Also; In a discussion with a classmate, I was trying to 'prove' that we are not all in some form of a dream. ...

Consider taking a dialectical approach instead. I found that in classroom situations it is often best to ask more questions than offer statements for targets. For example, if someone tells me that there is no proof that existence exists, I would ask them what they mean by proof and what would constitutive proof in this particular case. And so on. This puts the onus on the irrationalist.

There are more moves in this classroom intellectual chess game. For example, in some situations, I would say: "So if nothing exists, that means there is no war in Iraq, right?" Or, "Oh, are you saying the Holocaust didn't happen? Are you denying the Holocaust?"

The particular technique you choose depends on your purpose. In a classroom, the student's purpose is to perform -- show the professor that you are thoughtful and studious -- not inform, that is, not preach and try to "convert" others to your philosophy.

[Dagny]

years ago i took a philosophy class at ucla and was made to read Descartes dream theory book. i dropped that class because even though i had never been exposed to a shred of Objectivism back then I knew that was just dumb and figured I should better spend my education elsewhere. looking back it would have been fun to argue with the professor but i didnt have the tools back then.

Isabel

[Godless Capitalist]

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." "

Boswell: Life

Perhaps you should take a brick to class and ask the professor to drop it on his foot. If he is reluctant, ask him why. After all, if the brick is not real it won't hurt when it hits his toes.

[Scott_Connery]

My philosophy teacher is just as bad. His theory of metaphysics is this: A=A, but A does not actually exist.

[AshRyan]

years ago i took a philosophy class at ucla and was made to read Descartes dream theory book. i dropped that class because even though i had never been exposed to a shred of Objectivism back then I knew that was just dumb and figured I should better spend my education elsewhere. looking back it would have been fun to argue with the professor but i didnt have the tools back then.

Wow. Descartes is really pretty tame, compared with most of the crap that has come since. Be glad you didn't take a course on Kant and the subsequent rot and collapse of philosophy in the nineteenth century.

[AshRyan]

My philosophy teacher is just as bad. His theory of metaphysics is this: A=A, but A does not actually exist.

He got that from Fichte and Schelling. But that's still better than Hegel and Schopenhaur, for whom A=~A, neither of which actually exist.