What's more self-evident than existence, well, you yourself provided the answer: consciousness. You see, the issue in dispute here isn't whether or not existence exists, but whether that is in fact a primary, rather than derivative, conclusion. The fact that every line of argumentation might (I can think of a few that could dodge the problem, but those don't play to the issue at hand) posit that there is existence does not prove that they all accept it as a given from which all other metaphysics, derive, rather than the other way around. Even looking at your own proof, we can see that you start with the certainty of your own consciousness, and THEN move to the fact that this necessitates existence. In order for Ms. Rand's view to hold, existing would have to be posited analytically in the meaning of existence, rather than just a description of a property that existence possesses, WITHOUT any other metaphysical facts preceding it. (It seems that this version of proof is falling right into the oh-so-rejected Decartesian mold.).
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