(September 18, 2019 at 11:09 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote:I'm not familiar with the "existence precedes essence" axiom. I certainly do think that existence precedes essence since essence is an epistemological term and existence is metaphysical. I don't think that essences exist metaphysically, as essences are the product of abstraction.
(September 17, 2019 at 1:45 pm)Objectivist Wrote: "why is there something rather than nothing" is an improper question. As soon as you offer a reason you are talking about existence. You can't explain existence by pointing to something that exists. You'd have to step outside of existence to look for an explanation. But if something doesn't exist then it can't explain anything.
If an answer to the question of why anything exists is the basis for your belief, then you're in trouble. You don't get down to an ontological principle by starting with an error.
I'm not sure if I understand you here. Is this the "existence precedes essence" axiom? I think when we get down to what is metaphysically necessary, existence and essence must be the same thing.
What I mean is that the concept "existence" is axiomatic. That means it can't be broken down or analyzed. It can't be rationally denied and it can't be explained because there's nothing more fundamental than existence. To what would any more fundamental concept refer, if not to something that exists. that's why the question "where did everything come from?" is nonsensical. It seems to be the number one reason people propose the existence of gods, but it's a proposition that answers a question that does not exist or should be dismissed as improper for making use of stolen concepts. Cause presupposes existence.
