🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TORKEL.92Aug30084955@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>  Since your reply did not emphasize the existence of existence, it is
>not altogether acceptable. The question of the existence of existence
>should not, at any time, be left open.
>
>  However, your article does draw attention to a major source of physical
>insight arrived at by pure philosophical thought. Just a few months ago,
>as I recall, there was an article in this group in which it was demonstrated,
>using the principle of the existence of existence, that the universe is
>finite.

    Is this humor?
    Assuming it is not, everything exists equally so existence and philosophy of
science exist equally. One can ignore existence for other limits. Perhaps, however, you
are considering science as limited by various philosophies of science and that is
important.
    Be careful of "pure philosophical thought." Philosophy and science are both
based in the concrete. Philosophy is basic and science is non-basic. Philosophy
is a study of already existing situations. Science creates situations (experiments)
and relates them to philosophical knowledge of already existing situations.
    Existence is a principle, but there is more, there is always more. Existence
is also a material existent and a head of lettuce. Existence is:all of the things
it is, acc/to Leonard Peikoff.
    Rand's recognition that "existence is identity" is, by a corollary, the re-
cognition that existence is finite. I don't know if other philosophers thought
this.
    Although epistemology is important and Rand's theory of concept-formation is
morally important, metaphysics is more important. I have abstracted a few Object-
ivist insights, connected them to the Pre-Socratics, and co-written an essay,
"Existence 2" which is stored in my main directory. By computer wizardry this can
be sent in the blink of an angry cat's eye.