โExistence existsโ tells us nothing beyond the fact that what exists, exists. It's a tautology.
Descartes went further by establishing at least one thing he could know with certainty: his own existence as a thinking being.
But neither statement establishes that the objects we experience exist independently of our consciousness.
What additional knowledge does Rand's axiom actually establish?
@fxxkbia So. If your soul merged do you become a stalker or something. What if his soul didnt merge? Or his did and yours didnt? Like how can u be sure? Or do you merge with different prople all the time. So the soul merge thing is a passing event. Which sounds like its casual.
@mysteriouskat Sometimes people are required to take therapy by court order. But they just play thr game to pass the test
Maybe other people do the same.
Its all Greek to me.
Speaking of Greek it took a while to understand John.
John 1:1 โ โIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.โ
But the original Greek does not say โWordโ in the ordinary English sense. It uses Logos (ฮปฯฮณฮฟฯ), a term that can mean reason, rational principle, or the underlying order of existence.
Centuries before Christianity, Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus used Logos to describe the rational order of the universe.
So perhaps John 1:1 deserves a deeper philosophical examination. Was John describing God as a personal being, or was he identifying God with the rational principle underlying existence itself?
And if the Logos existed โin the beginning,โ does that suggest reason and order are fundamental to existence rather than something that emerged later?
For example, Rand treats several premises as axiomatic and unquestionable: existence exists, consciousness is awareness of existence, sensory perception is valid, and objective knowledge is possible.
But Descartes identified a fundamental problem. โI think, therefore I amโ establishes my own existence, but how do I establish that anything else exists independently of my consciousness?
I may perceive a tree, but that doesn't establish that the tree exists independently of my perception. I could be dreaming, or my experiences could be generated by a computer simulation.
Rand rejects this skepticism, but rejecting an argument is not the same as disproving it.
When philosophical premises are treated as unquestionable, rather than subjected to the same critical examination applied to competing philosophies, isn't that dogmatism?
@ThomasSayre13@WEschenbach I used to think it was a cult. Now I realize it is a gang. Like many gangs you cant leave. Like many gangs you have to follow their rules.