Chris Cathcart writes that "The point is that ['existence exists'] itself is a tautology, not deserving of the status of some fundamental metaphysical truth. All it tells us is that what exists, exists" and that those who use it will be rightfully laughed at in respectable forums. It is clear that what Rand meant by the statement is the premise she also called the Primacy of Existence. To construe it as the tautology that Chris Cathcart says it is, is to use the conventions appropriate to mathematical logic outside of the context in which they make sense. "Formal", or "symbolic", or "mathematical" logic belongs in mathematics, and not in broader contexts. And those who disagree with this should do something other than laugh at it, as Chris Cathcart proposes. On this point I agree with Gian-Carlo Rota's premise in his article titled, "The Pernicious Influence of Mathematics upon Philosophy", reproduced in his book Indiscrete Thoughts.
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