I have recently looked over a copy of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and while I have a great many disagreements with this book, the most notable is the metaphysics. Apparently, the entire edifice stands upon the statement "existence exists", and while I am more than willing to concede the truth of the statement, it's hardly self-evident, and can only be established AFTER an epistemological and metaphysical view has been established, not beforehand as a basis. An explanation? Rand takes it as evident tautologically that it is inherent in the meaning of existence that it exists. However, this devolves into a form of Anselm's ontological argument. You see, within these kinds of statements, we have an object, and then an attributable property that must adhere to it analytically (bachelors are unmarried). But these statements are HYPOTHETICAL. For example, while the previous statement must be true, it cannot prove that there are any bachelors, i.e. that they exist. So being unmarried is a property that bachelors WOULD have if they DO exist. Similarly, existing is a quality that existence WOULD have if it DOES exist. So while any existence must have this property, it does not prove, without pre-formed metaphysics and epistemology, that there is any existence to exist. If this proof WERE accurate for demonstrating existence, then any tautologically true statement would prove existence (all albino unicorns are white, there must be albino unicorns).
JOIN THE DEBATE Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity.
| ||||||||
previous response
Copyright © 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education