Don’t get me wrong. I’m not at this point questioning the truth of this theory. I’m merely pointing out that it is a theory, and cannot be contained just in the act of thinking about the phrase Existence Exists, unless one brings in a whole lot of other philosophical assumptions.

In Objectivist terms, Existence Exists just tells us that existence is it doesn’t tell us what existence is. As Laj say: “… there is an independent, objective reality which exists (in some logical sense) apart from our apprehension of that reality…is a fairly sophisticated claim requiring a consideration of certain lines of evidence.”

That’s also where I’m coming from. We’re happy to accept the fact of existence, but not the package deal that is Existence Exists.

Brendan

Brendan,

The concept Existence doesn’t distinguish between thoughts and things. It just says existence is, which can mean anything – existence could be a doughnut, and still be consistent with the thought “Existence Exists”.

I agree.

But it isn't, and especially the way Rand uses it. It subsumes everything, not anything in particular; it doesn’t identify particular existents, it doesn’t distinguish one existent from another, it cannot be formed by integrating particulars.

Yes, the concept existence subsumes all that which exists. But you should not interpret the sentence, "the apple exists," as "the apple subsumes all that which exists." Rather it's just one instance of something subsumed under the concept existence. What the concept existence distinguishes is existing stuff from non-existing stuff. Fundamentally, X either is or it isn't. To reject this is to reject basic Aristotelian logic, no?

The most glaring difference is that the concept Red is formed by the observation of actual red objects, while Existence is formed by just thinking, as Ed helpfully points out, when he says: “The act of grasping that statement implies consciousness.”

I would argue that every concept is formed fundamentally from observation, but from those observations, further concepts can be formed just by analyzing (i.e., thinking about) those observations. Incidentally, do you think forming the concept "red" is not theory laden? 

If accepting the concept Existence means agreeing that some things exist, count me in.

...

In Objectivist terms, Existence Exists just tells us that existence is it doesn’t tell us what existence is.

Sounds good to me. That's where I'm at. Hey, would you mind restating your argument? I've lost sight of it.

Gotta run.

Jordan

Edited for clarity, grammar, and punctuation.

(Edited by Jordan on 8/30, 8:35am)

You can rest easy, Michael. I also believe that consciousness requires an organic brain. More to the point, since Existence Exists doesn’t say anything about what sort of things exist, it doesn’t tell us whether existence includes brains or consciousnesses, nor how many of these there may be. So it seems that this concept serves very little purpose. 

“An axiom provides the foundation on which to build a conceptual scientific system.”

Are you sure that Existence Exists is a foundation? Rand’s theory of concepts proposes that there is a conceptual hierarchy -- beginning with perceptual, first-level concepts integrating a limited set of particulars – that proceeds “upwards” towards wider and wider integrations.

For example, take the concept Table. This is formed by observing two actual tables, say a dining table and a coffee table, ignoring the differences – or as Rand would say, “omitting the measurements” – and then abstracting or “integrating” the similarities to form a concept.

One can also perform a similar procedure to form Chair. One can then integrate the concepts Table and Chair to form the wider abstraction Furniture. Thus, the beginnings of a hierarchy of concepts. The process can then be repeated up the hierarchical chain until we reach the “highest” and widest abstraction, which is Existence, which subsumes all the lower level concepts.

So staying with architectural metaphor, Existence seems to be as much a “roof” as a foundation. The foundations should surely be made up of the perceptual, first-level concepts. What do you think?

“You claim that the "existence exists" axiom does not. So let's do it. What would you replace it with?”

If you feel a really burning need for a fundamental idea, how about “some things exist”. It says pretty much what Existence Exists does. But why replace it with anything? You can quite easily discard Existence Exists with no loss of rationality. You should try it some time, just for a few minutes. Nothing will happen. Honest.

Brendan

... the logical sense in which I claim that reality exists independently of our apprehension of it.

Hi Brendan,

Below you argue that “every concept is formed fundamentally from observation”. So how do you go about observing this non-existing stuff?

Do chairs exist in my bathtub? I observe, and nope. Chairs in my bathtub don't exist. I observe what is in my bathtub; I note that nothing comes up chair; and I conclude about chairs that don't exist in my bathtub.  

Sure, but we’ve agreed that Existence tells us nothing about existing things. Therefore, X could be anything, even “non-existing stuff”. Non-existing stuff is non-existing stuff, yes?

We did agree, but X cannot be both existing and non-existing. "A non-existing chair that exists in my bathtub," if it is to be sensical at all, is just a confused way of saying "chairs don't exist in my bathtub," and should not be taken to mean that "non-existing chairs exist" because that entails a basic logical contradiction: a non-existing chair cannot be an existing chair, unless we mince context.

Anyway, I think post 37 is MSK's, and I figured there were enough related responses to your post 57 to save me the trouble. But perhaps not. Your nutshell is handy, but it's not so much an argument. Still, I'll respond to it.

Rand has a thought, and then declares that something exists. But what is the “something”?

Rehashing, what does "having a thought" compel us to accept? It compels us to accept (1) that thoughts exist, which means existence exists (existence axiom), (2) that thoughts exists, which means something exists (identity axiom), and (3) that having the thought exists, which means consciousness exists (the consciousness axiom). Do you accept this?

Now Rand continues that "to be conscious is to be conscious of something," by which I think she means something that's not the consciousness. This view of consciousness is theory laiden, the theory being that consciousness is basically reflexive rather than basically or solely self-substantive. This theory also entails an existence external to consciousness, something I don't think we can deduce from the axioms. If this is what you're getting at, then okay. But I doubt it's what you're getting at.

Jordan

Rand and Aristotle both tied existence to identity and causality.

In the transcript of the discussion session on the topic of axiomatic concepts (p. 241 in the 1990 Meridian paperback edition of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology), in answer to "Prof. B" during discussion of axiomatic concepts, Ayn Rand says that an existent is "anything which you can isolate, whether it is an entity, a relationship, an action, or an attribute." 

And, you see, even though it is the same concept, the whole disaster of philosophy is that philosophers try to separate the two.

The universe is not logical. The concept of existence is (that is, if you accept it as an axiom). There is a difference between fact and concept.
You seem somehow to be postulating that "logical order" or whatever exists independently of perception, thus it can fall under rational awareness. That is not the case.
Dude, reality exists. Period. End of story. Not logically. We can perceive and conceive of it logically. But it does not exist logically.
I repeat, there is no logic without a consciousnesses, not even your own.