This post addresses itself to the questions recently put forward by BKNewton in regard to Objectivism. For the most part, the questions BK asks are excellent questions, questions that deserve serious response, and I’m they have been asked. I hope my responses that follow are satisfactory.

An important distinction must be made at this point. When we speak of ‘presuppositions’ and ‘axioms’, we concern ourselves with concepts, which are the means of identifying those things which we say exist. In this context, I think it is crucially important to bear in mind the three fundamental axioms of Objectivism in their correct order: existence, consciousness, and identity. Just as the concept identity (in the epistemological sense*) presupposes a consciousness that can identify, and therefore positing the concept consciousness, so does consciousness presuppose the fact of existence. First there is existence ("There is something [that exists]..."), then there is consciousness ("...that I perceive."), which both presupposes the fact of existence and also grasps that ‘something’ exists. Then there is identity, which presupposes that a consciousness (i.e., a conscious being - such as you or I) has come along and discovered that something (i.e., a consciousness has perceived it), recognized that ‘something’ as ‘something that exists’, and then proceeded to identify that ‘something’ - "It is a stone, a tree, or a shoe by use of concepts.

This process of identification depends on our cognitive abilities, which are a function of our consciousness. Thus, there are concretes that exist (stones, trees, and shoes, etc.), and the function that perceives them (consciousness), as well as the ability to identify them as existing (existence) particulars (identity), which is reason.

(* Metaphysically speaking, all entities - i.e., things that exist, possess identity, and are therefore finite in nature [A is A, and A is only A], regardless of whether or not a consciousness perceives the entity in question.)

It should be borne in mind that, when dealing with the foundation of a philosophic system, one must begin with axioms, i.e., with axiomatic concepts, not with objects, i.e., concrete particulars. One does not grasp (cognitively) individual particulars outside of our concepts, and therefore we do not grasp particulars outside our axioms, even if those concepts and axioms are not explicitly identified. Objectivism, the philosophy of reason, makes this identification explicit throughout its disciplines.

This is extremely important to keep in mind: a metaphysical assessment of reality cannot hold as its irreducible primary a fact that is dependent on other facts. Thus, the axiom existence exists is necessarily tautological, however, as the concept existence is the widest concept (it includes everything that exists), it is the only valid axiomatic concept upon which to build an integrated philosophic system. One does not found his philosophy on concrete particulars: One cannot build an integrated philosophy on the foundation of ‘the birch tree outside Mrs. Wilkons’ back porch’ any more than one can build his ‘worldview’ using the ‘tennis shoes he wore in the fifth grade’ as his irreducible primary (i.e., as an axiom). Concepts representing concrete particulars presuppose the axiom existence exists.

I have never posited the idea that "existence is separable from something" that exists. Existence is an absolute. Anything that exists is necessarily something that exists - i.e., A is A (necessarily tautological). When the Objectivist says, "Existence exists", he is speaking or existence as a concept, which means, he is speaking conceptually. Remember: Knowledge is hierarchical. Concepts are the building blocks of knowledge (see my posts on epistemology). All concepts presuppose as the fundamental essential the axiom of existence. If one considers the . If one considers the concept ‘stone’, for example, which cognitively represents every concrete (i.e., particular) that fits within its definition, past, present and future, one can easily see that the basis (the axiomatic premise) to this concept is the concept existence.

"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts," (Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg. 73). The concept existence is the widest concept, as it applies to all (legitimate!) concepts; it is the axiom that cannot be broken down into ‘component parts’, such as forest is broken down into individual trees. When you consider a forest, and the trees the make up the forest, what is the concept at the root of those concepts? Answer: Existence. Trees exist. Forests exist. Is the concept existence separable from the concepts which depend upon the concept existence? no. Not ever. Such attempts would collapse into fallacies. Any notion that attempts to ‘go beyond existence’ or ’transcend prior to existence’ commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. There is no ‘thing’, ‘entity’ or ‘form of existence’, nor any legitimate concept by definition, that can elude the fact of existence. This is conceptually impossible. So, what one must recognize most of all is the fact that existence is the essential concept.

Is existence a ‘thing’ all by itself, such as an ingredient? Not in the sense that it (existence) can be added or withheld from particular concretes (things that exist). The concept existence is necessarily invoked every time one makes a statement akin to or dependent on the statement "it exists". Nor is reality (the realm of existence) made up of ‘things’ plus ‘existence’ as if existence were a ‘special additive’ which gives ‘reality’ to ‘things’ (which are existent entities or particulars). The ‘things’ are reality because they exist.

Without the concept existence (i.e., without the recognition that existence exists, either implicit or explicit), no such statement as "it exists" would be possible. Again, I refer you to Ayn Rand:

"Existence and identity are not attributes of existence (i.e., of things that exist), they are existents. The units of the concepts ‘existence’ and ‘identity’ are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has existed or will ever exist" (Ibid., 74; underscore T/box).

Therefore, the notion that the fact of existence is ‘separable’ from existents (i.e., things that exist) is conceptually contentless.

Sorry, BK. I did not mean to neglect you. I lead a very active life, and I cannot respond to every post. Yours are not the only posts I intended to respond to, but, due to prevailing circumstances of my life, the forum cannot be my highest priority. Please accept my apologies. Your questions are usually very intriguing, and I have no problem discussing the issues you bring up, provided I can get to them.

The statements above should address these questions adequately. Especially the last quote from Rand. What should be kept in mind is that when I say that a proposition or statement or position presupposes the axiom existence, I am speaking about concepts. By ‘concept’ I mean a "mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition" (Rand, The Romantic Manifesto, pg. 17). Any concept, such as ‘shoe’, ‘flower’, or ‘bowling pin’, is the cognitive identification of the particulars it represents, and the concepts presuppose (:knowledge is hierarchical:) the axiom existence exists).

Great question. The qualities of existence (or, more precisely, of existents) include the following: (the ‘it’ stands for any entity said to exist) -

1. ‘It’ exists.
2. ‘It’ possesses identity (A is A; A is only A; A is not non-A; a thing is itself).
3. ‘It’ possesses a finite nature (a corollary to identity).
4. ‘It’ can only behave according to that finite nature (causality).

These axioms apply to all entities that can be said to exist.

For the most part, BK, you hit it on the head. Most existents are in fact tangible, i.e., concrete. However, there are ‘classes’ (for a lack of a better word) such as relationships, events, actions, functions, etc., which can exist, but which are dependent upon concrete particulars (i.e., tangibles). For example, hydrogen and oxygen both exist as the elements they are (concretes, existents). When they are apart (from each other), they behave in a certain way (identity and causality); however, when they are put together into a particular kind of relationship (called a ‘bond’ - which is dependent precisely upon their individual identities as elements, i.e., as entities which exist and therefore possess identity), thus forming water by means of the relationship of the two concretes. They may exist individually, or together in a relationship; however, as individual particulars, they are uncreated in the metaphysical sense, and indestructible in the metaphysical sense. The relationship, however, which is dependent upon the natures of the elements in question, can ‘begin’ and ‘cease’. Ultimately, however, existence exists.

Likewise, consciousness is one of these ‘classes’ (see below).

An excellent question!!! Considering everything that I have said above, these are the four basic points why the fact of existence ‘precludes’ a ‘creator god’:

1) Existence has metaphysical primacy:

"If existence exists, then it has metaphysical primacy. It is not a derivative or ‘manifestation’ or ‘appearance’ of some true reality at its root... It is reality. As such, its elements are uncreated and eternal, and its laws are immutable," (Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pg. 23).

By ‘primacy’ I mean "the state of ranking first". The fundamental to all philosophy, Rand noted, is the issue of the primacy of existence vs. the primacy of consciousness. The Primacy of Existence recognizes:

A) Existence exists, and

B) Existence exists independent of consciousness

This is fundamental to any philosophic system when that system is reduced to its explicit terms Objectivism is singular in its loyalty to the principle of defining its terms in essentials, i.e., explicitly.

The Primacy of Consciousness stands in contradiction to the Primacy of Existence. The Primacy of Consciousness is the position that existence is dependent on consciousness. This view states that, before existence, there must first be consciousness. This is the view at the core of every form of god-belief. Objectivism states: IF existence exists, then the primacy of consciousness is invalid. The Primacy of Consciousness attempts a fundamental reversal of reality; as such, it is an instance of the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Observe:

The notion ‘god’ stands in opposition to the Primacy of Existence.

2) Existence is uncreated, eternal, indestructible:

Standing on the foundation of the axiom of existence (and therefore on the Primacy of Existence), we note that existence exists independent of consciousness, and therefore that existence is uncreated, eternal and indestructible.

My points above about the two elements hydrogen and oxygen, should illustrate this fact quite conclusively. There is no instance that anyone can point to where matter has been shown to come from ‘nothing’, just as existence does not come from ‘non-existence’.

The fact of existence is indisputable. It always has been, and it always will be indisputable. No new knowledge will ever refute the fact that the elements of reality exist, and that they are uncreated, eternal and indestructible. They simply exist.

The theist (who subscribes to the notion of a ‘god’ who has created existence) posits a form of consciousness (‘god’) as the source of things that exist (i.e., of existence). In philosophy, this is known as subjectivism. It is invalid because éxistence precedes consciousness, because consciousness is consciousness of an object. Not can consciousness create or suspend the laws governing its objects, because every entity is something and acts accordingly. Consciousness, therefore, is only a faculty of awareness. It is the power to grasp, to find out, to discover that which is. It is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects," (L. Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Objectivism, pg. 19).

The notion that existence originates in a form of consciousness, whether of God’s, man’s or society’s, is invalid. Existence exists regardless of who’s thinking about it, grasping it, identifying it, or blanking out on it. Existence exists independent of consciousness.

Which leads us to the third, related point:

3) Definition of God:

Every definition of ‘god’ has at its core the notion that ‘god’ is a ‘form of consciousness apart from physical (i.e., existential or natural) constraints’. In other words, ‘god’ as a ‘being’ is a ‘disembodied form of consciousness’ or a ‘bodiless form of consciousness’. This idea of ‘god’ is true of the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It is an attempt to posit ‘consciousness’ before existence, which is fallacious. I have explained this in detail above.

4) Violations of the Corollaries to the Axiom of Existence:

These violations, based on the essential definition of ‘god’ (i.e., those attributes that most or all ‘definitions’ of ‘god’ assert), include:

Thus, in sum, since the axiom existence exists is sound, and since existence has metaphysical primacy, all definitions of ‘god’ fall apart under analysis. Again, as Dr. Peikoff stated:

"Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise [the Primacy of Consciousness]. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics," (Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism, lecture series [1976], Lecture 2).

**************************************************************************************

Well, that’s about all I can cover tonight. I’ve been up since 3:30 am, and I had a vigorous day in the market. I’m metaphysically POOPED!! So, my apologies to BK, as I will have to continue my response tomorrow, or some other time. This should get you started. It is not by any means complete. I have a lot more to say, however, I do cite sources which I do recommend most earnestly if you are indeed interested in the philosophy of Objectivism. You will find that Objectivism is consistent and integrated throughout, far more than the primitive teachings of ancient priests, who had no clue what a concept or axiom is. Keep this in mind. And please, do ask more questions, as they are VERY stimulating.

Take care, and have a great day tomorrow.

Tindrbox

$

_________________________________