Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / What does it mean to exist?

**Posted by Dennis** 11/27/2017 7:30 am

=11pt1) To exist is to exist independently of all consciousness. (The notorious axiom)
This is the axiom that Vallicella derives from Ayn Rand's "Existence Exists," why should we not accept this axiom, without blatantly begging the question?

**Posted by Calhoun** 11/27/2017 8:21 am

Dennis wrote:
=11pt1) To exist is to exist independently of all consciousness. (The notorious axiom)

wouldn't that be false given classical theism? Can anything exist apart from God knowing that it does? granted he isn't literally consciousness like us but still.

**Posted by Dennis** 11/27/2017 8:24 am

It would be, but that would beg the question. How would we go on deciding which existence axiom to choose, or which metaphysic to prefer here?

**Posted by GeorgiusThomas** 11/27/2017 8:56 am

@Dennis

I think a more pertinent question to ask here would be "what reason is there to believe the truth of that proposition"? What is the evidence for the claim?
It doesn't seem to follow from the first principles such as PI, PSR/conceding the intrinsic intelligibility of reality etc. (the evidence of which is highlighted by successful retorsions), nor is it necessary for saving at least some of the appearances that the senses present us with (as evident), at least, as far as I can see.

**Posted by Calhoun** 11/28/2017 5:45 pm

Any link to where the topic is discussed by Vallicella?

**Posted by Dennis** 12/08/2017 5:23 pm

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2017/10/creation-and-existence.html

Sorry for the late link, but here you go.

**Posted by Calhoun** 12/09/2017 11:30 am

Dennis wrote:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2017/10/creation-and-existence.html

Sorry for the late link, but here you go.

No problem, Here is what I think.
It seems if classical theist have other sound argument for God's existence, he is able to deny premise 1. of above argument , non-question beggingly. Because he would have shown that its precisely God's activity keeps things in existence. so the principle must be restricted to finite conscious being, like us.

**Posted by DanielCC** 12/09/2017 11:58 am

Dennis wrote:
=11pt1) To exist is to exist independently of all consciousness. (The notorious axiom)
This is the axiom that Vallicella derives from Ayn Rand's "Existence Exists," why should we not accept this axiom, without blatantly begging the question?

Well that cannot be an axiom of what it means to exist as it incorporates existence. Rand used to define 'Realism'. An interesting exercise: does Rand's definition sneak in brute facts?

Here is a better version: 'To exist really is to not essentially be an intentional object' (qualifier - fictional beings e.g. Sherlock Holmes, only have existence as intentional objects).

Does theism rule this out? This might be one of the areas where possible world semantics are too weak to capture the necessity in question. Every object is dependent on God qua being an object of God's causation and God knows every object He creates but that doesn't mean He creates them by knowing them.

**Posted by Timocrates** 12/17/2017 10:53 pm

DanielCC wrote:
Dennis wrote:
=11pt1) To exist is to exist independently of all consciousness. (The notorious axiom)
This is the axiom that Vallicella derives from Ayn Rand's "Existence Exists," why should we not accept this axiom, without blatantly begging the question?
Well that cannot be an axiom of what it means to exist as it incorporates existence. Rand used to define 'Realism'. An interesting exercise: does Rand's definition sneak in brute facts?

Here is a better version: 'To exist really is to not essentially be an intentional object' (qualifier - fictional beings e.g. Sherlock Holmes, only have existence as intentional objects).

Does theism rule this out? This might be one of the areas where possible world semantics are too weak to capture the necessity in question. Every object is dependent on God qua being an object of God's causation and God knows every object He creates but that doesn't mean He creates them by knowing them.

Personally I am fairly adverse to making thoughts, ideas - even dreams and imaginings - somehow less "real" or to make, e.g., the concrete "more" real by a kind of contrast against or lessening of, e.g., intentional objects. I think we have to affirm the reality of these things simply and that they indeed exist, just in a peculiar and distinct mode of existence from other things, e.g. the physical or concrete existing independently of us.