a STATEMENT
of the NATURE
of EXISTENECE
Note: This thread is based upon a critique letter about the Objectivist axioms of existence and identity. If you wonder according to which context do I rarely change my argument or what argument against which I claim, you should simply know the fact that it had all performed there. For the sake of the clarity, to be more organized; arguments included:
Do you guy think that existence exists is an infinite loop?
(1) Existence is not an attribute.
(2) A self-evident proposition is a proposition and not a wrong beginning for a closed system (both beginning and closed assume there is such, any other premise leads to a self-contradiction).
(3) Existence exist => there is something with a different context. Assuming this item Im holding in my hand exists, something exists, and assuming something exists, this status of exists` exists.
(4) In its syntax, this proposition does not refer to exists and say it contains of existence, but rather to `existence and say that it exists. Existence is the subject and exists is the object.
Or anyhow any corollary of identity?
(1) Every denial of any axiom involves a self contradiction, but it does not mean that the standard to an axiom is not that which is assumed ahead and certainly not that which is the standard to each other axiom (which is an actual infinite loop, attempted to be described at the above), but rather that which you cannot prove or deny. In fact, the process of validating axioms is somewhat circular: I am aware of the fact that a is a or assuming that a is a the proposition I think but I am not is contradictionary. It does not say anything about the nature of their being primacies, since each of these statements are necessary to each other, and certainly does not mean that identity (or its corollary of non-contradiction) is the axiom of all the other axioms.
(2) The axiom of existence does not equal the axiom of identity. The axiom of identity is in another phrase existence is identity, which assumes ahead existence.
(3) And if what you are gonna respond to this argument is that Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse as well, the identity is of the idea or of the fact that Mickey Mouse is presented as if he did not contradict reality.
Or, do you claim that the non-existence does exist?
(1) The assumption according to which a statement of the non-existence compared to existence is false is not based on the assumption that the non-existence does not exist, but in fact on the negation of it. It assumes that the money one doesn’t have actually exists.
(2) If you get into another infinite loop by that, please notice: as noted above, this statement is not about the description of which does not exist, but rather about its behavior (or non-behavior) in reality: the nothing does not exist.
And eventually, above all, to prove that existence exists is axiom is the simplest thing is the world, beyond these rationalistic arguments, and any denial of the need to a primacy, to a first cause, to a beginning, shall be pointless, and will necessarily bring to a real infinite loop. Every man with a proper mental status could implicitly recognize the nature of existence. So do the linguistic analytics and the post modernists. I am about to post this thread in order to those who actually get confuse from their rationalism.
(1) One can argue nothing assuming he and his arguments do not exist
(2) ==> Inferred from premise (1) there are two directions:
(2)a Any proof, the seek for something previous to or more primitive than existence, is false.
(2)b Any denial of existence, the seek for something that exists apart of existence, is false.
q.e.d
I am about to post this thread in order to disproving this torrent of nihilism which maintains that the most basic concept on which each of its claims and acts are based; is sort of an “infinite loop”, a logical gibberish statement, which is so self-evident that it shouldn’t be called a axiom but rather an unremarkable tautological trivia and thus a pure corollary of the axiom of identity. This argument is considered to be the “new wave equivalent and wise attack against O`ism from its very basis” among post-modern and analytic philosophers. To be noted, this consideration is not about whether “existence exists” (if one [a consideration] turned to be as such, I would stop participating in it): but, in essence, on its being an axiomatic concept. It’s been pretty tough to selectively get all the whims out of my own head, though, assuming that the axiomatic concept of existence, does not actually exist.
Via abstraction (or classification) and equalization: Existence is an axiomatic concept. A concept equals a mental integration of two or more units with common characteristic(s) and with their particular measurements omitted. A unit equals a well-clarified identity. An identity is an entity. An entity equals an existence. The first idea a recently-born child observes is existence: There is something–––pointing of a bed, a tree on the street or his mother. Any of his latter claims, achieved by a process of introspection or extrospection, shall assume ahead the following: It exists. This is the full grasped meaning of the well called existence axiom.
The assumption_: "The proposition ‘existence exists’ starts by existence and determines that, it exists. This statement is syntactically equivalent to the parallel X is Y; α belongs to p:pX, e.g., Henry is cute, the apple is red, women are unforeseeable etc. It considers a specific attribute of something which is, existence. As such, let us exam it as an axiom, according to its standard: Does existence exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask: Does the attribute of existence (from the above exists) exist?_–––etc."
(a) Consider the following: Does this assumption exist? If youd say it does, I shall ask, does the concept existence (from the above ``exists``) exist? Thats all.
There the linguistic analysis claims at that point that existence is an “attribute” (= a fact that differentiates a concept from another–––which leads to a contradiction of the above: There is no set called 'existence since there is nothing outside existence: From Russell’s paradox, if a set is merely a great intersection it must not be called a set) since the following proposition is the simple “X is Y;” “α belongs to p:pX,” in which statement they assume ahead their main future fallacy to find existence a ‘meaningless’ concept: that every proposition must never be any implicit self-evident. They assume that the claim ‘existence exists’ is supposed to consist of an axiomatic concept rather than ‘existence’. They shall charter that “If something, anything [e.g., existence] exists, therefore certainly . . .” Yes, existence exists IS an axiom! There is no fundamental [or any] distinction between ‘there is something’ and ‘there is existence’. Nevertheless, when saying ‘there is’ you assume ahead that ‘there is’ exists, so that the only reason for the rephrase is its context (the word “context” is used metaphorically over here).
The law of identity, therefore, may not replace it: and in its syntax, indeed, the subject is existence; the object: exists. The sentence does not refer to in given ‘exists’ (or i.e., something that exists), but simply to the fact of being existent as an existent. Every denial of any axiom leads to a self contradiction (existence exists is form as opposed to negative one: ‘existence does not exist,’ which is a deep and bad self contradiction but certainly not an ‘infinite loop’): every axiom is a self evident that could be denied at any step of its evidence–––e.g., identity is not identity, we are not conscious of the fact we are conscious, I do not will to say I have a free will and as well, existence exists but not the ‘exists’. Nevertheless, the axiom of identity which is contradicted in each of them cannot be the explanation of both of the couple of other axioms: Since the standard of axiom is not being an ‘evidentless’ but being in the basis of any human knowledge. Without existence, as well, no identity can exist. The standard of axiom, as noted above, is being in the basis of any human knowledge: the standard to a primacy axiom is not ‘being not assumed ahead in others’–––if it were the primacy could be ‘my whim is my whim’. It does nor, however, mean the Mickey Mouse has no identity: All it means is that nothing can exist without one. The facts of existence and identity, therefore, are not equivalent: they are fundamentally different axioms. Assuming that existence is a primacy over identity, the law of identity cannot be the proof to it.
Now read the fifth paragraph again.
