Huh? Do you know what the word "presuppose" means? It means assume, it does not mean "create." Nothing I ever said to you should lead you to conclude number 2, above.
If we question whether or not existence exists, that has absolutely no bearing whatsover on existence itself in any way. All it means is that just by questioning it, we must already be assuming (in conceptual form in our brains) that it actually does exist, otherwise, our question would be unintelligible.
It's kind of like asking: "This thing here and those things over there. You see those things? Well, I don't think they exist." What would that person be talking about? He had to point them out first in order to deny them. He is first assuming that they *do* exist, and then strangely tries to say that they do not exist. To put the contradiction more simply, he is saying "These things that exist, do not exist." But he doesn't say it in those words, even though that's what is happening, because it would be too obvious that what he was saying did not make any
>I meant presuppose as assume, in the sense that you used the word, does that help?
Kinda sorta. Your analysis there is awfully vague, at least to me. I will try to rephrase 2 to see if I can make it more understandable:
2a. Because we presuppose that existence exists, then we are acknowledging the truth of the axiom "Existence exists."
Well, phrased in that way it's like saying "Because I think apples are red, I think apples are red." I'm not sure what you are aiming at there.
I'm willing to help you out here, until the cows come home, but perhaps it would expidite things if you took a look at this summary of Objectivism on the AynRand.org site:
Reply
1. If we question existence, we are presupposing existence exists
2. Because of this presupposition, the universe must exist
What happens if we dont question existence; what happens if the presupposition is never raised?
It sounds slightly analogous to Descartes's cogito
I think, therefore i am
would Rand say,
If you think, you presuppose everything exists?
Reply
If we question whether or not existence exists, that has absolutely no bearing whatsover on existence itself in any way. All it means is that just by questioning it, we must already be assuming (in conceptual form in our brains) that it actually does exist, otherwise, our question would be unintelligible.
It's kind of like asking: "This thing here and those things over there. You see those things? Well, I don't think they exist." What would that person be talking about? He had to point them out first in order to deny them. He is first assuming that they *do* exist, and then strangely tries to say that they do not exist. To put the contradiction more simply, he is saying "These things that exist, do not exist." But he doesn't say it in those words, even though that's what is happening, because it would be too obvious that what he was saying did not make any
Reply
I meant presuppose as assume, in the sense that you used the word, does that help?
Reply
Kinda sorta. Your analysis there is awfully vague, at least to me. I will try to rephrase 2 to see if I can make it more understandable:
2a. Because we presuppose that existence exists, then we are acknowledging the truth of the axiom "Existence exists."
Well, phrased in that way it's like saying "Because I think apples are red, I think apples are red." I'm not sure what you are aiming at there.
I'm willing to help you out here, until the cows come home, but perhaps it would expidite things if you took a look at this summary of Objectivism on the AynRand.org site:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs
Reply
Leave a comment