Surely it’s because you already know what chairs are, by previous observation of actual chairs. In that case, in order to observe the absence of non-existing stuff, you need a concept of non-existing stuff. So remind me what you observe to form that concept?
Yes, I have to know what a chair is in order to know a chair is missing from the bathtub. I also need a concept for missing, or absence, or zero, or nothing. Rand discusses such a concept. Save me the trouble, and check it out.
You're not implying that existence is a thinker, are you?
I've already said that I don't think we can deduce from the axioms that existence is or isn’t a thinker.
So there’s the same problem: one set of premises, two conclusions.
There's nothing wrong with drawing multiple conclusions from one premise. Take the premise, "The ball is red." This implies that there's a ball that can have a property, that red is a property, and that a property the ball does have is that of being red.
You’re not finding this sort of stuff too taxing are you? I’ll understand if you want to have a lie down.
Don’t be rude to me. I've been patient and cordial with you. But we’re not getting anywhere. If I don’t soon see what your problem is, I’ll leave you be, as continuing discussion will just be a waste of our time.
(Edited by Jordan on 9/01, 8:44am)