Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

The Big Question of Existence
What “Exists”?
“Existence” is often referred to as the "Universal Truth.” It is common for people
to ask, “What is truth?” or “What is reality?” They are asking about Existence,
the Big Question.
Cartoons depict people climbing to the top of a mountain to consult a “wise man,”
to get the answer to a question that is burning in their minds. The comic strip
B.C.1 integrated the “wise man” right into the prehistoric era of man, where the
“wise men of mysticism,” Socrates and Plato, belong.

Often when asking about the “Big Question” it is with the expectation that a
secret and mystic explanation will be given, and that perhaps it will be years
before they can “divine” what the wise man told them is “the answer to the
universe.” (That is why the mystics belong in the pre-history of philosophy.

But more than likely they harbor the wish that they, too, will comprehend this
secret and divine or mystic explanation in one single lecture, in a revelatory
moment. Sometimes, as with “Yahweh,” a single word which if spoken would do
something. There are those who even say that word, when spoken correctly, will
destroy the world.
People who ask about reality or facts don't always understand that they, too, are
asking about existence. Existence is the universal preoccupation of our
intellectual lives, because we not only want to know, “Where did it come from?”
but it is the cognoscenti of our intellect. It is the object for which our
consciousness pines and on which it is inextricably linked—cognoscenti are
objects. Our consciousness is the subject of those objects.
When the Big Question is not phrased as "What is reality?" or "How do I know I
exist?" or "Isn't the whole world subjective?", or “What exists and what does
not?”, then, the Big Question is provoked of us in the angry, defiant tone of the
indignant statement "Prove that I exist!"

Yes, people actually get angry about logic, and demand that someone talke them out
of their irrationally induced life of skepticism. More often than not the Big
Question is yet another but equal statement, “Prove God does not exist.”

Knowledge of what exists and what does not has become smudged and greyed when
“existence” comes to be seen as “perceptions”. Don't you often hear the question,
“Is reality our perceptions?” [continued]
[1Johnny Hart; ]

[continued] The lines of knowing what exists and what does not have been blurred,
sometimes erased altogether. A person can be convinced that the ego is necessarily
egotistical; that nothing one does in life can have any meaning because “in the
end we all die”; and that being “dust in the wind” has some significance to the
life one must lead.
They can be convinced there is the possibility the sun won't rise in the morning,
that the dog who got out won't get hit by a car, so they don't worry or hurry,
then the dog gets hit, proving the human is flawed because he has been convinced
of that (Kant) or because he wants to be convinced of that. Sketpicism has
convinced him he cannot be right because there is the possiblity that he his not
Those two concepts of being “dust in the wind” and “in the end we all just die
anyway” are the most skeptical arguments for un-reason in today's verbal arsenal
on existence. Those questions have a lot of people flummoxed. What is the purpose
of following a principled life if in the end you just wind up dead? We will get to
the answer.
Consciousness and “Existents” Must Exist
But this concept of existence itself is not possible to comprehend without
consciousness, and that very fact as a thing in itself implies the existence of at
least one one thing in existence: consciousness. If one thing exists in existence,
it becomes the proof of the existence of existence. That is how a tautology works,
and why it must work. It cannot be defeated without at least one unworkable
concept going to its grave, or another one proving to work right along it.
Aristotle out; Copernicus and Galileo in.

(You can also say this is the time that traditional metaphysics went to its grave,
because Aristotle out means his metaphysics. In came physics, standing alone in
the mind of one man, and his metaphysics were different from Aristotle's. It was
modernly cosmological, and ever since the cosmology of astro-physics has become
more remote from its roots. I met a cosmologist in his office on a university
campus, where he proceeded to call ideas of metaphysics other than those of
physics to be “Bunk!”

“Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive

without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy
perishes, science will be next to go,” wrote Ayn Rand, in “For the New
In her “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,” she writes, “It is not the
special sciences that teach man to think; it is philosophy that lays down the
epistemological criteria of all special sciences.”

The "universal truth" is the following: "Existence exists." It is also equally as

true that “Existents exist”, and neither statement can be true without the other
also being true.
Existents (noun) are any thing and all things that exist, have existed, and can
exist. From the “strings” in string theory—even if strings are someday proved not
to exist, they still exist as ideas—to the spaghetti on your plate and the plate
under the spaghetti.
Ideas are existents because they have existence in the mind. Rocks and gas, and
muons, and Harry Potter, trolls and fairies and elves are existents, if not in
empirical, “material” reality, then at least as subjective reality, i.e.,
concepts, in our heads. Concepts are subjective existents. Spaghetti is an
objective existent. Spaghetti the idea is a subjective existent.

An “existent” is anything that exists; therefore, existents exit in existence.

Proof of the correctness of this statement is as follows;

If: existence did not exist, You would—could not—exist in any form, not as an
independent objective existent in an independent, objective, empirical universe;
nor as a subjective existent in someone's mind or in the “godhead” or as figment
within another mind;
nor as an existent in Your own mind whether or not you believed Your mind was the
only existent in existence.

(To be existent in Your own mind, and to argue that all other things in existence
are created by Your consciousness is called “Solipsism.” This is also called the
Primacy of Consciousness.1 But it is a fallacy, having no basis in empirical
reality. It still requires the acknowledgment that at least one thing, Your
consciousness, is an existent. Solipsism is sometimes the reason for asking “IF a
tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a
sound?”; with the resultant answer, “No, because a 'sound' is something heard, and
if you were not there to create the falling tree it could not fallen in the first
(I have seen the question asked—more than once—“If I die, or close my eyes, does
the world cease to exist?”)

If existence did not exist, You, in any form whatsoever would not exist because
there would be no existents whatever. In what medium can an existent such as
"consciousness" exist except in the medium of existence? Even if we discovered
that the only existence is in “the godhead,” at least one thing would exist.
Certainly nothing can be an existent in the absence of existence.

The "axiomatic concept"3 that "existence exists" began at least no later than
Aristotle, who used it as formulaic. The formula "A is A" means literally that a
“thing” cannot be something else. To Aristotle it means first and foremost that

[[1Ayn Rand: “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”

[2This is not even the true meaning of the question, but for most people that
meaning has been lost or never found. We will examine that Q&A in Chapter &.
[3“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....all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought—consists of
axiomatic concepts.” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; Ayn Rand; © The
Objectivist, Inc. ]]

[continued] Existence exists.”

The Axiomatic Concept (see Note 3 above) becomes “Just” an Axiom.

The first “A” in the formula is any “object” you want to put in the formula; the
second “A” is its non-contradictory identity, called the “subject,” no matter
which “identity” one chooses as the subject.
For example, Man can be identified as “an upright primate with opposable thumbs”;
or as “the animal with grammatical and syntactic vocal patterns, or as “the
rational animal.” None of these description contradicts what we know “Man” is, but
the first two descriptions are more general as differentia than the second, which
is more particular. (Differentia is the difference between two or more things. The
cagegory the two or more things are in are called a genus.) They do not contradict
each other, but the identity of “rational animal” supersedes any other description
because it is the most particular of all the descriptions of “Man.”
The “most particular definition” of a thing is found in the “axiom”1. And that
“most particular definition” is called the “essence” of a thing.“Rational animal”
is the ultimate, most particular definition of the concept “Man.” The “essence” of
a thing is always contextual. The “essence” of the concept “latch” can be either a
thing that keeps something else, like a door, closed; or it can mean to secure
something like a door with that thing called a “latch.” One is a noun; one is a
verb. But if you are talking about “latching” on to a husband, the meaning of the
verb again changes. There is no contradiction in these differences, because in
each case we are not talking about the same thing.
But in the case of the question, “What is the essence of Homo sapiens?”, it can
only be “the rational animal” because Bigfoot walks upright also, but we don't
know if he is rational, yet we know that the only known rational animal is Man.
Existence in Metaphysics2 and in Epistemology3 See Chapter $"Existence exists" is
the epistemological axiomatic concept ; "existents exist" is the metaphysical
axiomatic concept. This means it cannot be said that “existence” does not exist;
and it cannot be said that existents do not exist. To say either one, is to deny
that whatever means by which you comprehend such things and come to deny them also
does not exist!
These axiomatic concepts have, therefore, been argued if not utilized by all

[[1 “An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any
further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained
in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An
axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to
accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.” Galt's Speech;
“For the New Intellectual”; Ayn Rand
[2 “Metaphysics” is the identification of the “essence” of a thing, as well as all
the constituent identities, and whether or not they exist in the first place. And
if one is found to exist, like “Goldilocks”, only in the mind and literature, but
not in empirical physics, its placement in the importance of all things
metaphysical may be low. All things metaphysical have a placement in a hierarchy
of values that your mind determines. Your spouse would probably come before
Goldilocks, your dog before your shoes.
[3 “Epistemology” is the method by which identifications are discovered,
identified, and verified as true or real. It is a hard-wired faculty of the mind,
ready at birth to go to work identifying the new world, just as the lungs are
ready to go to work breathing. But neither faculty works until birth. ]]

[continued] philosophers, and none disagrees, at least by default, that existence

exists because it would require the statement that "existents do not exist."
As axiomatic concepts, they are the given, the self-evident, and describe all
things that have existed, exist now, and ever will exist. Therefore, since no
philosopher can disagree that existence does not exist, even if he acknowledges it
with Solipsism, all must agree that existence cannot never have existed, at the
risk of contradicting that .
The Default Position on Creation Non-existence is not the "default position" to
argue from. Creationists make it the default position. But why should it be said
that at one time God was the only existent?
To argue this default position is to contradict the axiomatic definition of the
word "existence", not to mention contradicting the axiom of physics that states
that matter does not cease to exist, it only changes forms. God had to make
Creation out of things that already existed, because the matter he used never
disappears. (If you don't believe in God, it's OK; this is just a sidebar.)
Since matter, according to the accepted laws of physics, does not cease to exist,
it must always exist in the future and cannot have been created or it cannot have
always had the nature of being existent. If we admit that God exists, we must also
admit that he used material in the Creation that exhibits the physics of not ever
having been non-existant.
That goes directly back to the concept that the "absence of existents" is not the
default position. The "absence" of a thing is not the existence of the absence of
a thing. "Absence" of existence cannot be an "existent."It is from these axiomatic
concepts that all other concepts, axioms, propositions and thoughts are
derived.Axiomatic concepts are the most particularized definition (denotation) of
existents. The concept “existence” is derived from the perception of “existents,”
the very fact of which proves that at least one this exists in existence, even if
that one thing is the consciousness of a Solipsist.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm (service mark) of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, which is the educational arm of the
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®