In a message dated May 30, 1998 HOWARD8984 writes:

This is really nothing more than an evasion and a straw man on Howard’s part, but it involves at its root the fallacy of the stolen concept. Observe: Howard argues that the fact of existence does not apply to his ‘god’ because it belongs to a separate category (what he calls ‘immaterial’). However, the concept ‘category’ presupposes existence. The axiom existence exists applies to any ‘thing’ one posits as existing, no matter what nature, mode, form or category that ‘thing’ allegedly belongs to. Any act of ‘categorization’ will necessarily have to take place after the entity in question is established as existing. In other words, existence first, then categorization (although any effort to categorize must be established in turn on the axiom of identity - i.e., the fact that whatever exists possesses a nature). The concept existence is not precluded by categories, existence precedes categorization, for the same reason that existence precedes consciousness and identity. The confusion is all Howard’s.

Let’s look at this a little more closely: According to Objectivism, the problem that Howard is experiencing is a natural consequence of his attempt (via religion) to negate the Primacy of Existence. As Ayn Rand has written in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It, "The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

This is essentially the problem any time one wants to posit ‘god’ - a ‘form of consciousness’ as the ‘initiator’ or ‘creator’ of existence. This is known as the fallacy of the stolen concept: it is an attempt to apply a concept (in this case ‘consciousness’) while denying the validity of its conceptual roots (in this case ‘existence’).

(This is not the first time I have mentioned this - in fact, it’s been the theme of many of my posts [EXISTENCE EXISTS ABSOLUTELY from May 5, and EXISTENCE STILL EXISTS from May 8 to name only two]. However, the religionist still wants to wrestle with the concept existence. However, I’m perfectly happy to repeat myself one more time.)

The religionist declares that a ‘god’ exist, which presupposes the fact of existence (as opposed to non-existence), and in the case of Howard’s objection above, he attempts to ‘steal’ the concept ‘consciousness’ [his ‘god’] from its root [the fact of existence] by bringing into the mix yet another dependent concept, ‘category’. Just as the concept ‘consciousness’ is not independent of ‘existence,’ neither is the concept ‘category.’ Existence is the only rational place to begin, but the religionist insists on starting with a form of consciousness. This is known in rational philosophy as subjectivism.

"In metaphysics, ‘subjectivism’ is the view that reality (the ‘object’) is dependent on human consciousness (the ‘subject’). In epistemology, as a result, subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need merely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates. According to the most widespread form of subjectivism, the elements which possess this power are feelings. [The religionist often identifies these feelings as ‘revelations’.]

(I know Howard had a problem at one time with this definition of ‘subjectivism’. Perhaps it is the first time he has seen the term reduced to its essential principles. The definition I give above is the definition I employ consistently each time I use the term. This is how I identify the concept ‘subjectivism’ in case you don’t understand.)

Note that Dr. Peikoff mentioned that the subjectivist turns ‘his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to [his] dictates’ and that the ‘elements which possess this power are feelings.’ Compare this statement to the recent protests uttered by religionists who insist that sense-perception is not a means of discovering what they refer to as ‘ultimate truths,’ but that ‘revelations’ from ‘god’ (a form of consciousness, mind you) are. This is the epistemological consequent of the rejection of the Primacy of Existence in favor for the Primacy of Consciousness. Its religious adherents call this epistemology faith. However, even the religionist cannot escape the Primacy of Existence.

[Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pg. 23.]

Positing categories or modes of existence such as ‘material’ vs. ‘immaterial,’ to get back to Howard’s point, essentially misses the point. Positing ‘god’ as an existing entity while denying the Primacy of Existence commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. The axiom of existence necessarily applies to any ‘thing’ or ‘entity’ that one claims to exist. This is unalterable and indisputable. However, I do expect the religionist to have a hard time with this fact, a REAL hard time indeed. In this sense, Howard is right on schedule.

There is no ‘fact’ prior to existence. Can you give us an example of a ‘fact that does not presuppose existence’? If your strategy is to say that ‘nothing’ exists- as an existential entity in its own right, as an equivalent to ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’ - then by all means, go ahead. Feel free to produce evidence for this ‘nothing’. The fact is, no line of argumentation can negate the fact of existence, no matter how desperate you try, no matter how acute your panic. Existence is indisputable, and any argument to the contrary necessarily presupposes existence, any way you want to look at it. But go ahead, by all means, be my guest.

I know I’ve included the following quote twice before in previous posts, but I like it so much, as it applies so well to our discussion, that I would like to repeat it again. Consider it a freebie:

I love that quote. It hits the nail on the head every time.

Now notice how desperate some religionists are to reject the axiom of existence. Some are even willing t suggest the possibility that nothing exists, which means they are willing to entertain the possibility that their ‘god’ does not exist, in order to invalidate the fact of existence. This is the result of the psychosis that the religious mentality will breed when the believer is pressed to defend his god-beliefs. It produces nothing but one absurdity after another, when all they need to do is look around and recognize the fact that existence exists. This would dissolve all of their unnecessary panic and desperation. Ironically, Jesus allegedly recognized this himself when he is said to have stated: "Men loved darkness rather than light" (John 3:19). However, in this case, it is just another instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

Stay tuned for more great stuff,

Tindrbox

$

_________________________________