I’m struggling to grasp what you mean by the terms you’re using.
For example, what does it mean to “believe that one is not contingent” or “to be the source of oneself”? These phrases seem to imply a denial of dependence on anything beyond oneself—but what exactly is meant by “source” in this context?
I also find the phrase “the final reference point for truth” philosophically confused.
I understand truth as a property of a proposition that accurately describes some aspect of reality. Truth, then, is relational: it depends on a correspondence between what is said and what is. Its reference point is not the self, but reality—because truth describes reality (which can include oneself since we are part of reality).
While it is the self who forms and evaluates propositions, truth itself is not grounded in the self, but in the objectivity of what exists.
As for “power” and “reality,” I’m unclear on their connection. Reality is what it is, independent of our beliefs, preferences, or ignorance. Power does not determine reality—objectivity identifies it. That is, reality takes metaphysical precedence over mental processes.
Objectivity is the epistemological principle that recognizes this: it is the mental orientation that gives primacy to reality over the contents of the mind. And when the contents of the mind—such as evaluations or propositions—successfully reflect what is, we say they are objective and true.
So if your formulation is meant to describe a kind of radical subjectivism or self-deification, I think it would benefit from more precise language. But maybe I’m misreading you. As it stands, it appears to conflate categories—truth, power, and reality—and risks smuggling in metaphysical confusion under a rhetorical approach to these issues.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing what you have to say in an effort to clarify what you mean.
Hi James! Thank you for taking the time to engage with my essays and open up this kind of dialogue. It’s fun to see thoughtful questions brought forward.
Just to clarify the core point, since I think the heart of the argument may have been slightly reframed in your response, I’ll share a brief note and leave it there.
What I’m pointing to is the internal contradiction in claiming to be aligned with objective reality while treating reality itself as self contained without any unbiased, independent reference point to make reality itself truly objective. Without such a constant upon which to measure, reality becomes self referential and ultimately circular. And when there’s no fixed standard beyond the system, “reality” ends up defined by power or perception. In that vacuum, the self inevitably becomes the fallback reference, which is precisely what I meant by self deification.
Your response seems to resist the reality that power or will has become the ultimate measure of truth amongst individuals and groups throughout history and even today. If no objective standard exists beyond the system itself, on what basis do you reject that possibility? Isn’t it a bit ironic to question the dominance of power over truth while relying on a framework that leaves power unchecked as the final arbiter?
So while I agree with your framing of truth as correspondence, I’m raising a prior concern on how do you determine what is, and what standard grounds it, if there’s nothing beyond the system itself? That circularity is what creates the philosophical opening for ego to step in as the final arbiter, and it’s that collapse I’m highlighting.
In any case, I respect where you’re coming from and appreciate the exchange. Until next time!
I appreciate your reply and the respectful tone you bring to the exchange.
I think I understand your concern more clearly now, and I’d like to offer a few clarifications in return.
You said:
“Without some unbiased, independent reference point to make reality itself truly objective, reality becomes self-referential and ultimately circular.”
This strikes me as a category error. Reality is not a proposition or a belief system. It is not in need of validation by something “outside” itself. The idea of requiring a “reference point” for reality assumes there’s something more real than reality against which it must be measured—but what could that possibly be?
To ask, “What justifies existence?” is to step outside of reason itself. Existence is the starting point. It is not self-referential or circular; it is simply the precondition for anything, including questions, standards, or truths. If you’re demanding something beyond existence to ground existence, then we’re no longer in the realm of philosophy—we’re in mythology.
You also suggest that, absent such a transcendent grounding, truth collapses into power or perception. But here you conflate what people do with what is metaphysically necessary. Yes, people may treat power as the arbiter of truth, but that tells us nothing about the nature of truth—it only reveals a failure of epistemology.
I don’t deny that minds form propositions, and that those propositions can be influenced by desire, fear, or force. But none of that changes what truth is. Truth is the correspondence between a proposition and reality. That correspondence does not require divine validation—it only requires that reality be what it is, and that a mind can apprehend it.
You raise an important question:
“On what basis do you determine what is, if there’s nothing beyond the system?”
I would answer: we begin with perception. We don’t invent reality; we encounter it. Through perceptual contact with reality and rational integration, we form concepts, make propositions, and assess their truth by how well they map onto the world. That’s not circular—it’s hierarchical. Existence precedes consciousness. The mind identifies existence conceptually and describes it propositionally. That’s the basic structure.
So no, objectivity doesn’t collapse into subjectivity without God. Objectivity is the mind’s commitment to reality as the standard. And reality needs no external reference point because there is no such thing as “outside existence.” The concept “outside” is only meaningful within existence.
Lastly, the phrase “self-deification” still seems more rhetorical than philosophical. I’m not claiming the self creates reality or truth. I’m saying the self, when properly oriented toward reality, discovers truth. To call this “deification” is to smuggle in the very theological premise under debate.
In short, I think your framework reifies an unnecessary metaphysical “guarantor” and overlooks the self-evident primacy of existence. I say that not to dismiss your position, but to clarify why I don’t find the appeal to a transcendent “reference point” either necessary or coherent.
Thanks again for the discussion—I enjoy sharpening ideas through thoughtful engagement like this.
I appreciate your engagement, and I’ll offer this final clarification for now.
You’re framing the issue as though my position relies on a merely epistemic utility—i.e., that “existence” is something we have to assume in order to reason, but which still leaves open the question of whether that assumption truly secures coherence without circularity.
But that’s not my argument.
The axiom of existence is not merely an assumption for the sake of epistemic utility—it is a metaphysical fact. It is the precondition of any claim, any question, any act of awareness. The concept “existence” is not something inferred, constructed, or hypothesized—it’s directly apprehended and self-evident. To question it is to use it.
You say self-reference still threatens coherence, but coherence itself depends on self-reference to axiomatic concepts. There is no “ground” beyond existence to which one can appeal in order to “validate” it—because every act of validation already rests on it. That’s not circularity. That’s the nature of the fundamental. Axioms don’t collapse under their own self-reference; they define the starting point from which all further meaning flows. To demand an external justification for existence is to ask for a concept more fundamental than reality itself—a contradiction in terms.
You’re asking me to set aside the self-evident fact of existence—something directly experienced and presupposed in every act of awareness—in favor of a conceptual abstraction about what “grounds” that existence. But any such claim already assumes that existence is real, that identity is valid, and that consciousness is operative.
So yes, in essence, you’re saying: “Don’t trust what is self-evident and undeniable—trust my theory instead.” Or more sharply: “Who are you going to believe: me, or your own lying eyes?”
It’s an inversion of rational hierarchy—elevating speculation over perception, reification over recognition. And it’s precisely the kind of error I’m calling out: treating mental constructs as more real than the reality they depend on. To call this concept “objective” violates what objectivity denotes—namely, that the object of consciousness is what we perceive it to be independent of any ideas to the contrary. The only subject-object relationship there is between the ground of being and the subject of consciousness is the subject-idea relationship. But existence isn’t an idea. It’s a metaphysical fact. The ground of being remains an idea short of demonstration.
And this is where theology, and the “ground of being” discourse more broadly, leads you—into the primacy of imagination over perception, of concept over percept, of reified abstraction over the directly given. It replaces the metaphysical fact of existence with a hypothesized “source” that is only ever an idea. But existence is not an idea—it is what is, the referent of all ideas, the necessary context of all meaning.
So the deepest problem here isn’t circularity—it’s inversion. You are subordinating the real to the conceptual, and calling it depth.
But no matter how abstract or lofty the formulation, it cannot escape the fact that it uses what it denies and can’t demonstrate that the ground of being undergirds it short of asserting so.
The imaginary "systems" that some humans formed and enforced upon us aren't in any way connected to objective reality. The force of Nature, called by various names; Mother Nature, God, Ra etc, is objectively real. Physics, entropy, evolution, gravity et al objectively exist. Life is chemistry and electricity. The Universe is actually very much alive🕊
I would gently point out that while I agree physical phenomena like gravity and entropy are real and describable, they presuppose the fact of existence—they operate within reality and assume reality. Appealing to natural forces or scientific models in response to the question of why anything exists is, respectfully, a category mistake: it shifts the discussion from metaphysics to physics without addressing the prior issue.
To say “Nature is real” or “the universe is alive” may resonate poetically, but unless we first clarify what we mean by “existence” and whether that term identities that which has ontological priority, we risk reifying concepts or substituting metaphor for explanation.
My point isn’t to dismiss your view, but to ask: can any explanation begin without first affirming existence as the precondition for all explanation and causality?
From my perspective, existence simply is—and that’s the irreducible starting point. To ask why it exists assumes a casual framework that doesn’t exist. Existence is what makes causality possible.
I want to respectfully point out a crucial issue: Your entire argument insists that existence “just is” and needs no grounding, but that’s a self referential claim. It’s like defining a word using the word itself. Worse, it relies entirely on assuming the claim itself is coherent to make your case. But coherence isn’t a luxury, it’s the vital line between meaning and nonsense. If your worldview can’t account for coherence, it collapses into the very circularity it’s pretending to avoid. You reject the need for grounding while standing on it. That’s sleight of hand. So please show how self reference alone produces objective coherence without collapsing? Provide an example. If your system is coherent, demonstrate it. Assertions aren’t arguments.
I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness, and I offer this simply to clarify the importance of coherence in any worldview.
I appreciate your continued engagement—it’s clear you’re aiming for coherence, which I fully respect. That’s exactly why this discussion matters. Let me respond carefully.
You’ve claimed that saying “existence just is” amounts to a self-referential and therefore incoherent statement. But that misunderstands the nature of axiomatic concepts. This isn’t circular reasoning—it’s foundational reasoning.
An axiom isn’t self-referential in the fallacious sense; it’s irreducible. The concept existence cannot be defined by appeal to something more fundamental, because it refers to the totality of what is. All axiomatic concepts are defined only through synonyms or direct ostensive reference—not by breaking them down further—because nothing more fundamental exists to define them by. Any effort to “ground” existence presupposes it—thus committing the fallacy of the stolen concept: using a concept while denying the validity of the earlier concept on which it logically depends.
You also suggest my position only appears coherent because it assumes what it claims to prove. But coherence itself requires the very axioms I’ve named: existence (something is), identity (it is what it is), and consciousness (someone is aware of it). You can’t use “coherence” as a standard without borrowing these axioms. So if coherence matters—and I agree it does—then you’ve already granted my point. There’s no way around this short of silence.
You argue that I reject the need for grounding while standing on one. But this isn’t sleight of hand—it’s an identification of the actual ground!
Existence, identity, and consciousness are where the chain of justification stops. No further grounding is possible without collapsing into a performative contradiction.
You ask for a demonstration. But the demonstration is in the asking. To question, to argue, to object—you must exist, be something, and be aware. These aren’t assumptions; they’re epistemically and metaphysically inescapable. That’s the contradiction your critique doesn’t resolve.
In short, you’re demanding a ground for existence while standing on existence. That’s not a rhetorical move—it’s an unshakable metaphysical fact.
You can only inquire into being from within being. You cannot stand outside existence to explain it. Concepts like “ground,” “cause,” and “prior” all presuppose the very thing in question: existence.
The axiomatic isn’t the enemy of coherence—it’s its precondition. Without it, there is no discourse, no thought, no truth.
To reinforce the point: truth is tautological—not in a trivial way, but in the most fundamental sense. The predicate always affirms something already true of an existent subject. To say “truth is that which corresponds to reality” is to affirms that a proposition is true insofar as it reflects what exists.
All concepts derive their meaning from the concept existence and presuppose it. Hence, no argument is possible without reference to existence—including “ground of existence.”
You can’t have knowledge without existence. You can’t have truth without identity. You can’t have thought without consciousness. These aren’t beliefs; they are the conditions that make belief possible.
So the issue isn’t that these axioms are ungrounded. The issue is that they are the ground—of truth, of coherence, of everything. Deny them, and you lose the ability to say anything at all.
When you ask for a ground for existence, your question can only make sense if existence is already granted. The only way a claim could avoid being self-referential in terms of pointing back to existence would be if it referred to non-existence—but non-existence can’t do any explanatory work. It has no attributes, no identity, no causal power. It is literally nothing.
That’s why existence is axiomatic—not because it’s arbitrary, but because it’s the precondition for any knowledge or inquiry at all.
Lastly, I’d urge reflection on this essential distinction: existence is objective and undeniable on pain of self-contradiction. You cannot deny it without using it. It is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is not inferred. It is the starting point of all thought and discourse.
In contrast, your notion of a “ground of being” is still just that—an idea for which you are arguing. And that argument depends, every step of the way, on the very thing you’re trying to replace: existence. There’s a sea of difference between an undeniable metaphysical fact and a concept that presupposes that fact in order to be conceived, communicated, or defended.
That is the crux. One is reality. The other is a theory about reality. You’re free to hold the latter, but you cannot do so without relying on the former. And that, in the end, is why the axiom stands as an irreducible primary.
James, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. I’m going to leave it here for now:
You’re right that existence, as an axiom, is a necessary starting point. But necessity of use still doesn’t resolve the deeper issue of whether coherence itself can be accounted for within a self referential system. You’ve defended the axiom, but not demonstrated how self reference avoids collapse into circularity and still guarantees coherence beyond mere utility. That’s the key distinction and it still remains unaddressed.
In any case, we’ve probably pushed the limits of this thread. I’m happy to continue this another time.
Life is quite literally a happy accident. Kk, let's look at a cake recipe: You mix the correct amount of the correct ingredients, add the required amount of moisture and heat, and cake🎂 Life happened because all the right ingredients, in the right amounts of moisture, with the right amount of heat/light, and a CHEMICAL REACTION occurred that sparked life🌟 There's nothing mysterious about it and yet the immense beauty and amazing life forms are regularly ignored, harmed, and murdered every day by the supposedly "sentient" species called homo sapiens sapiens. Most humans don't even understand that they're animals.
I appreciate your passion and clarity of concern for life and the natural world. That said, I’d like to clarify the kind of question I’m raising—not to mystify reality, but to demystify our assumptions.
When I hear statements like “life is a happy accident” or “life arose through chemistry and heat,” I recognize those as descriptions of processes within existence. They presuppose the existence of matter, and the energy of physical entities and their relationships. But what I’m addressing is the recognition of the fact of existence and its fundamentality.
Now, to be even more precise—because I want to avoid the very error I often critique—I’m not asking, “What makes being possible?” That phrasing implies a causal framework applied to existence itself, which is incoherent. Causality is a relationship within existence; it cannot explain existence as such.
Existence is not caused. It simply is. There is no “why” behind being—no deeper explanation to chase, no external standard to measure it against. The concept of non-existence is not an alternative to existence, it’s just a mental abstraction with no ontological counterpart.
So the point isn’t to ask what caused existence—that’s a category error. The point is to recognize that existence is the irreducible starting point. Life, chemical reactions, and even the concept of “accidents” are all downstream from that axiomatic fact.
I’m struggling to grasp what you mean by the terms you’re using.
For example, what does it mean to “believe that one is not contingent” or “to be the source of oneself”? These phrases seem to imply a denial of dependence on anything beyond oneself—but what exactly is meant by “source” in this context?
I also find the phrase “the final reference point for truth” philosophically confused.
I understand truth as a property of a proposition that accurately describes some aspect of reality. Truth, then, is relational: it depends on a correspondence between what is said and what is. Its reference point is not the self, but reality—because truth describes reality (which can include oneself since we are part of reality).
While it is the self who forms and evaluates propositions, truth itself is not grounded in the self, but in the objectivity of what exists.
As for “power” and “reality,” I’m unclear on their connection. Reality is what it is, independent of our beliefs, preferences, or ignorance. Power does not determine reality—objectivity identifies it. That is, reality takes metaphysical precedence over mental processes.
Objectivity is the epistemological principle that recognizes this: it is the mental orientation that gives primacy to reality over the contents of the mind. And when the contents of the mind—such as evaluations or propositions—successfully reflect what is, we say they are objective and true.
So if your formulation is meant to describe a kind of radical subjectivism or self-deification, I think it would benefit from more precise language. But maybe I’m misreading you. As it stands, it appears to conflate categories—truth, power, and reality—and risks smuggling in metaphysical confusion under a rhetorical approach to these issues.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing what you have to say in an effort to clarify what you mean.
Hi James! Thank you for taking the time to engage with my essays and open up this kind of dialogue. It’s fun to see thoughtful questions brought forward.
Just to clarify the core point, since I think the heart of the argument may have been slightly reframed in your response, I’ll share a brief note and leave it there.
What I’m pointing to is the internal contradiction in claiming to be aligned with objective reality while treating reality itself as self contained without any unbiased, independent reference point to make reality itself truly objective. Without such a constant upon which to measure, reality becomes self referential and ultimately circular. And when there’s no fixed standard beyond the system, “reality” ends up defined by power or perception. In that vacuum, the self inevitably becomes the fallback reference, which is precisely what I meant by self deification.
Your response seems to resist the reality that power or will has become the ultimate measure of truth amongst individuals and groups throughout history and even today. If no objective standard exists beyond the system itself, on what basis do you reject that possibility? Isn’t it a bit ironic to question the dominance of power over truth while relying on a framework that leaves power unchecked as the final arbiter?
So while I agree with your framing of truth as correspondence, I’m raising a prior concern on how do you determine what is, and what standard grounds it, if there’s nothing beyond the system itself? That circularity is what creates the philosophical opening for ego to step in as the final arbiter, and it’s that collapse I’m highlighting.
In any case, I respect where you’re coming from and appreciate the exchange. Until next time!
I appreciate your reply and the respectful tone you bring to the exchange.
I think I understand your concern more clearly now, and I’d like to offer a few clarifications in return.
You said:
“Without some unbiased, independent reference point to make reality itself truly objective, reality becomes self-referential and ultimately circular.”
This strikes me as a category error. Reality is not a proposition or a belief system. It is not in need of validation by something “outside” itself. The idea of requiring a “reference point” for reality assumes there’s something more real than reality against which it must be measured—but what could that possibly be?
To ask, “What justifies existence?” is to step outside of reason itself. Existence is the starting point. It is not self-referential or circular; it is simply the precondition for anything, including questions, standards, or truths. If you’re demanding something beyond existence to ground existence, then we’re no longer in the realm of philosophy—we’re in mythology.
You also suggest that, absent such a transcendent grounding, truth collapses into power or perception. But here you conflate what people do with what is metaphysically necessary. Yes, people may treat power as the arbiter of truth, but that tells us nothing about the nature of truth—it only reveals a failure of epistemology.
I don’t deny that minds form propositions, and that those propositions can be influenced by desire, fear, or force. But none of that changes what truth is. Truth is the correspondence between a proposition and reality. That correspondence does not require divine validation—it only requires that reality be what it is, and that a mind can apprehend it.
You raise an important question:
“On what basis do you determine what is, if there’s nothing beyond the system?”
I would answer: we begin with perception. We don’t invent reality; we encounter it. Through perceptual contact with reality and rational integration, we form concepts, make propositions, and assess their truth by how well they map onto the world. That’s not circular—it’s hierarchical. Existence precedes consciousness. The mind identifies existence conceptually and describes it propositionally. That’s the basic structure.
So no, objectivity doesn’t collapse into subjectivity without God. Objectivity is the mind’s commitment to reality as the standard. And reality needs no external reference point because there is no such thing as “outside existence.” The concept “outside” is only meaningful within existence.
Lastly, the phrase “self-deification” still seems more rhetorical than philosophical. I’m not claiming the self creates reality or truth. I’m saying the self, when properly oriented toward reality, discovers truth. To call this “deification” is to smuggle in the very theological premise under debate.
In short, I think your framework reifies an unnecessary metaphysical “guarantor” and overlooks the self-evident primacy of existence. I say that not to dismiss your position, but to clarify why I don’t find the appeal to a transcendent “reference point” either necessary or coherent.
Thanks again for the discussion—I enjoy sharpening ideas through thoughtful engagement like this.
Warmly,
James
I appreciate your engagement, and I’ll offer this final clarification for now.
You’re framing the issue as though my position relies on a merely epistemic utility—i.e., that “existence” is something we have to assume in order to reason, but which still leaves open the question of whether that assumption truly secures coherence without circularity.
But that’s not my argument.
The axiom of existence is not merely an assumption for the sake of epistemic utility—it is a metaphysical fact. It is the precondition of any claim, any question, any act of awareness. The concept “existence” is not something inferred, constructed, or hypothesized—it’s directly apprehended and self-evident. To question it is to use it.
You say self-reference still threatens coherence, but coherence itself depends on self-reference to axiomatic concepts. There is no “ground” beyond existence to which one can appeal in order to “validate” it—because every act of validation already rests on it. That’s not circularity. That’s the nature of the fundamental. Axioms don’t collapse under their own self-reference; they define the starting point from which all further meaning flows. To demand an external justification for existence is to ask for a concept more fundamental than reality itself—a contradiction in terms.
You’re asking me to set aside the self-evident fact of existence—something directly experienced and presupposed in every act of awareness—in favor of a conceptual abstraction about what “grounds” that existence. But any such claim already assumes that existence is real, that identity is valid, and that consciousness is operative.
So yes, in essence, you’re saying: “Don’t trust what is self-evident and undeniable—trust my theory instead.” Or more sharply: “Who are you going to believe: me, or your own lying eyes?”
It’s an inversion of rational hierarchy—elevating speculation over perception, reification over recognition. And it’s precisely the kind of error I’m calling out: treating mental constructs as more real than the reality they depend on. To call this concept “objective” violates what objectivity denotes—namely, that the object of consciousness is what we perceive it to be independent of any ideas to the contrary. The only subject-object relationship there is between the ground of being and the subject of consciousness is the subject-idea relationship. But existence isn’t an idea. It’s a metaphysical fact. The ground of being remains an idea short of demonstration.
And this is where theology, and the “ground of being” discourse more broadly, leads you—into the primacy of imagination over perception, of concept over percept, of reified abstraction over the directly given. It replaces the metaphysical fact of existence with a hypothesized “source” that is only ever an idea. But existence is not an idea—it is what is, the referent of all ideas, the necessary context of all meaning.
So the deepest problem here isn’t circularity—it’s inversion. You are subordinating the real to the conceptual, and calling it depth.
But no matter how abstract or lofty the formulation, it cannot escape the fact that it uses what it denies and can’t demonstrate that the ground of being undergirds it short of asserting so.
All the best,
—James
The imaginary "systems" that some humans formed and enforced upon us aren't in any way connected to objective reality. The force of Nature, called by various names; Mother Nature, God, Ra etc, is objectively real. Physics, entropy, evolution, gravity et al objectively exist. Life is chemistry and electricity. The Universe is actually very much alive🕊
Thank you for sharing your view.
I would gently point out that while I agree physical phenomena like gravity and entropy are real and describable, they presuppose the fact of existence—they operate within reality and assume reality. Appealing to natural forces or scientific models in response to the question of why anything exists is, respectfully, a category mistake: it shifts the discussion from metaphysics to physics without addressing the prior issue.
To say “Nature is real” or “the universe is alive” may resonate poetically, but unless we first clarify what we mean by “existence” and whether that term identities that which has ontological priority, we risk reifying concepts or substituting metaphor for explanation.
My point isn’t to dismiss your view, but to ask: can any explanation begin without first affirming existence as the precondition for all explanation and causality?
From my perspective, existence simply is—and that’s the irreducible starting point. To ask why it exists assumes a casual framework that doesn’t exist. Existence is what makes causality possible.
Your thoughts?
I want to respectfully point out a crucial issue: Your entire argument insists that existence “just is” and needs no grounding, but that’s a self referential claim. It’s like defining a word using the word itself. Worse, it relies entirely on assuming the claim itself is coherent to make your case. But coherence isn’t a luxury, it’s the vital line between meaning and nonsense. If your worldview can’t account for coherence, it collapses into the very circularity it’s pretending to avoid. You reject the need for grounding while standing on it. That’s sleight of hand. So please show how self reference alone produces objective coherence without collapsing? Provide an example. If your system is coherent, demonstrate it. Assertions aren’t arguments.
I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness, and I offer this simply to clarify the importance of coherence in any worldview.
I appreciate your continued engagement—it’s clear you’re aiming for coherence, which I fully respect. That’s exactly why this discussion matters. Let me respond carefully.
You’ve claimed that saying “existence just is” amounts to a self-referential and therefore incoherent statement. But that misunderstands the nature of axiomatic concepts. This isn’t circular reasoning—it’s foundational reasoning.
An axiom isn’t self-referential in the fallacious sense; it’s irreducible. The concept existence cannot be defined by appeal to something more fundamental, because it refers to the totality of what is. All axiomatic concepts are defined only through synonyms or direct ostensive reference—not by breaking them down further—because nothing more fundamental exists to define them by. Any effort to “ground” existence presupposes it—thus committing the fallacy of the stolen concept: using a concept while denying the validity of the earlier concept on which it logically depends.
You also suggest my position only appears coherent because it assumes what it claims to prove. But coherence itself requires the very axioms I’ve named: existence (something is), identity (it is what it is), and consciousness (someone is aware of it). You can’t use “coherence” as a standard without borrowing these axioms. So if coherence matters—and I agree it does—then you’ve already granted my point. There’s no way around this short of silence.
You argue that I reject the need for grounding while standing on one. But this isn’t sleight of hand—it’s an identification of the actual ground!
Existence, identity, and consciousness are where the chain of justification stops. No further grounding is possible without collapsing into a performative contradiction.
You ask for a demonstration. But the demonstration is in the asking. To question, to argue, to object—you must exist, be something, and be aware. These aren’t assumptions; they’re epistemically and metaphysically inescapable. That’s the contradiction your critique doesn’t resolve.
In short, you’re demanding a ground for existence while standing on existence. That’s not a rhetorical move—it’s an unshakable metaphysical fact.
You can only inquire into being from within being. You cannot stand outside existence to explain it. Concepts like “ground,” “cause,” and “prior” all presuppose the very thing in question: existence.
The axiomatic isn’t the enemy of coherence—it’s its precondition. Without it, there is no discourse, no thought, no truth.
To reinforce the point: truth is tautological—not in a trivial way, but in the most fundamental sense. The predicate always affirms something already true of an existent subject. To say “truth is that which corresponds to reality” is to affirms that a proposition is true insofar as it reflects what exists.
All concepts derive their meaning from the concept existence and presuppose it. Hence, no argument is possible without reference to existence—including “ground of existence.”
You can’t have knowledge without existence. You can’t have truth without identity. You can’t have thought without consciousness. These aren’t beliefs; they are the conditions that make belief possible.
So the issue isn’t that these axioms are ungrounded. The issue is that they are the ground—of truth, of coherence, of everything. Deny them, and you lose the ability to say anything at all.
—James
Addendum:
When you ask for a ground for existence, your question can only make sense if existence is already granted. The only way a claim could avoid being self-referential in terms of pointing back to existence would be if it referred to non-existence—but non-existence can’t do any explanatory work. It has no attributes, no identity, no causal power. It is literally nothing.
That’s why existence is axiomatic—not because it’s arbitrary, but because it’s the precondition for any knowledge or inquiry at all.
Lastly, I’d urge reflection on this essential distinction: existence is objective and undeniable on pain of self-contradiction. You cannot deny it without using it. It is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is not inferred. It is the starting point of all thought and discourse.
In contrast, your notion of a “ground of being” is still just that—an idea for which you are arguing. And that argument depends, every step of the way, on the very thing you’re trying to replace: existence. There’s a sea of difference between an undeniable metaphysical fact and a concept that presupposes that fact in order to be conceived, communicated, or defended.
That is the crux. One is reality. The other is a theory about reality. You’re free to hold the latter, but you cannot do so without relying on the former. And that, in the end, is why the axiom stands as an irreducible primary.
—James
James, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement. I’m going to leave it here for now:
You’re right that existence, as an axiom, is a necessary starting point. But necessity of use still doesn’t resolve the deeper issue of whether coherence itself can be accounted for within a self referential system. You’ve defended the axiom, but not demonstrated how self reference avoids collapse into circularity and still guarantees coherence beyond mere utility. That’s the key distinction and it still remains unaddressed.
In any case, we’ve probably pushed the limits of this thread. I’m happy to continue this another time.
Life is quite literally a happy accident. Kk, let's look at a cake recipe: You mix the correct amount of the correct ingredients, add the required amount of moisture and heat, and cake🎂 Life happened because all the right ingredients, in the right amounts of moisture, with the right amount of heat/light, and a CHEMICAL REACTION occurred that sparked life🌟 There's nothing mysterious about it and yet the immense beauty and amazing life forms are regularly ignored, harmed, and murdered every day by the supposedly "sentient" species called homo sapiens sapiens. Most humans don't even understand that they're animals.
I appreciate your passion and clarity of concern for life and the natural world. That said, I’d like to clarify the kind of question I’m raising—not to mystify reality, but to demystify our assumptions.
When I hear statements like “life is a happy accident” or “life arose through chemistry and heat,” I recognize those as descriptions of processes within existence. They presuppose the existence of matter, and the energy of physical entities and their relationships. But what I’m addressing is the recognition of the fact of existence and its fundamentality.
Now, to be even more precise—because I want to avoid the very error I often critique—I’m not asking, “What makes being possible?” That phrasing implies a causal framework applied to existence itself, which is incoherent. Causality is a relationship within existence; it cannot explain existence as such.
Existence is not caused. It simply is. There is no “why” behind being—no deeper explanation to chase, no external standard to measure it against. The concept of non-existence is not an alternative to existence, it’s just a mental abstraction with no ontological counterpart.
So the point isn’t to ask what caused existence—that’s a category error. The point is to recognize that existence is the irreducible starting point. Life, chemical reactions, and even the concept of “accidents” are all downstream from that axiomatic fact.
Does that make sense?
Yes, the starting point is that particles and energy always existed. In other words nothing never existed.