Essay 4-Absolute Existence of Reality

First Intuition

As dictated by essay 3, our philosophical system shall begin with multiple intuitions. Therefore, we shall begin with exactly that, the first intuitions to be used as the basis of our system and essays. As the title of this essay suggests, we shall begin with a discussion of existence. This begs the intuition of why must existence be the first topic of the philosophical system? Indeed, there is a reasoned intuition as of to why existence is to be the basis of the system and not by arbitrary choice.

The intuition is that existence is the first and most fundamental property of any object. It means that the existence of any object must be true before we can determine or know all of its other properties. We must therefore determine the existence of the object before we can examine its other properties. If an object does not exist, it is impossible for us to examine its properties as by definition those other properties do not exist either. This seems to be a tautology but further analysis will still benefit us as we can truly understand the actual meanings behind this seeming tautology.

Now this intuition of existence is a general intuition which forms the basis not for this essay only, but also for the next several essays which will all discuss the property of existence. For the discussion of the specific intuitions required for this essay, it will be discussed in the body of the essay. However, for now it is sufficient for us to understand that existence is most fundamental and so require the first analysis and examination.

Establishment of Intuitions

This section does not explain the intuitions that will be used in this essay. Instead it explains that intuitions will be used significantly in this essay. The intuitions will be used in the following manner. The essay shall be more or less structured into the intuitive parts and the examination parts. Intuitions will also be explicitly mentioned, as such it would be easier for readers to identify the intuitions and no implicit analysis to seek out the assumptions are required.

Absolute Existence of Reality

The focus of this essay is to determine the absolute existence of reality, or that is to ask, “Does reality exist absolutely?” Before we discuss the intuitions, it is better that we define the terms used here clearly. “Absolute” means it is reality of a whole that shall be examined, not just parts of it. “Existence” is difficult to define, but we do have a general idea of what it “existence means”, as such we will refer to that idea. “Reality” can be defined as the set of all existence. By that definition, the question of the existence of reality is to ask whether anything exists at all.

With those definitions, we can proceed to specify and clarify what we are doing. When we wish to determine the absolute existence of reality and discover the truth of such matter, we are actually evaluating a proposition. The definition of a proposition has been established in essay 2. The proposition that we are evaluating is as follows, “Reality exists absolutely.” We then wish to evaluate whether such proposition is true or false.

The next question is how do we evaluate the proposition? The short answer is to perform a comparison between reality and the proposition. However, that answer too can be questioned, how do we perform a comparison? We must then use the intuition of truth, which explains how we can compare a proposition to reality. The answer is through conscious experience. Experience is our window to reality; it allows us to obtain information of reality and compare it to the proposition. If the proposition matches the information supplied by the conscious experience then it is true, otherwise it is false.

Then what is conscious experience? As established in essay 3, conscious experience is the totality of human experience. It is difficult to define conscious experience, just like existence. However, we have a general idea of what conscious experience is; that are things including sensation, thought, emotion, sight, hearing, taste, feeling, and the list goes on. In fact, our image of experience is much clearer than our image of existence. As such I do not think that a very strict definition of experience is required.

We then proceed to the justification of this essay, “Why must the absolute existence of reality be the first topic?” The intuition is more or less similar to the first intuition of this essay, just applied to a more specific case. Philosophy is about the foundations of reality, as such our object of research is of course reality. Then as the first intuition dictates that existence is the first property to be determined when studying any object, it means when we study reality, its existence too is the first property to be determined before we can determine all other properties of it.

Now we may establish the methodology of the proof and examination. We first establish the condition in which the proposition is proven. That is in what condition is the existence of reality proven to be true. We refer to the intuition of the determination of existence. It seems that the truth of existence is determined by the conscious experience. The presence of experience of a certain object is indicative of its existence. Therefore, we may determine that if the analysis results in the experience of reality, reality must exist.

We then must establish the limits of reality. While to prove reality, it seems we must prove the existence of every object, that is actually false. As it presumes that there is already some amount of an objects within reality. However, there is no such presumption or assumption and instead we have an unknown number of objects in reality. In fact, the existence of reality as a whole itself is not certain yet. Meanwhile, as reality is defined as the set of all existences, as long as just one member of a set is proven to exist, then the entire set is known to exist. Therefore, we only need to prove the existence of one object to prove the existence of reality.

There is also a second condition of proof. This condition is to prove the truth of the proposition, then its negative form, stating the nonexistence of reality, must also be proven to be false. The reasoning is because without the analysis of the negative proposition, the possibility of an analysis reaching the absence of experience of reality remains. We must then destroy that possibility and ensure that all analysis will inevitably fulfil the first condition. In short, this second condition is actually an extension to the first condition, that the analysis of both propositions must result in the fulfilment of the first condition.

As the final intuition before the establishment of the method, we have the intuition of duality. This intuition states that there can only be 2 possibilities for the truth value of the proposition after examination, that is true or false. Truth is a binary and absolute value; it requires all elements of the proposition to be correspondent to reality for the proposition to be true. Therefore, there are no partial truths or partial falsehoods. If one element is incongruent, then it is false. The same can be said of existence, if one element exists, then it exists as a whole. There is no partial existence or nonexistence.

We can finally establish the method of the analysis. We acknowledge that the proposition can only have 2 possible values and possess only 1 value in all times, that is either true or false. We then analyze each possibility and determine if the analysis of both possibilities will result in the fulfilment of the same condition of proof or not. In this case the proof condition is the presence of experience of reality, or as specified by the limits of reality, of one object within reality.

We can now begin the examination of the proposition. In order to analyze the 2 possibilities, we must break the proposition into 2 propositions, that is the positive proposition and the negative proposition. The positive proposition is identical to the original proposition. The negative proposition declares the negative condition of the original proposition, that is, “Reality does not exist absolutely.” Here positive and negative do not refer to truth and falsehood but to existence and the negation of it, non-existence.

We begin with the first analysis that is the positive analysis. The positive proposition states that, “Reality exists absolutely.” If we are perceptive enough, we can understand that there is already an experience of the proposition and this fulfils the first condition of proof. If we ignore the second condition, this is actually sufficient to prove that reality exists absolutely. However, with the second condition this is only the first simple step to prove the proposition. The next analysis will be more complicated.

The next analysis is the negative analysis or the analysis of the negative proposition. The negative proposition states that, “Reality does not exist absolutely.” Yet by a keen perception we understand that there is again an experience of some sort of the proposition. So, it seems our task is done, but in truth not all analysis of this proposition has been exhausted. The analysis of this proposition will require much more analysis than the positive proposition.

The reason is we want to be sure that the negative proposition has absolutely no paths to a condition which may contradict the first condition. Therefore, we must analyze it completely until it is exhausted of analysis. Let us first examine if the analysis can result in such condition, that is the contradiction with the first condition. This means that the result is no experience of reality whatsoever and so we must eradicate the experience of the proposition.

This is problematic as we require the experience or memory of the proposition to conduct an examination of it. So, it seems that the analysis already begins with a clear falsehood of the negative proposition. Furthermore, the negative proposition is directly tied to the positive proposition, and the positive proposition to the ruins of the old systems. Therefore, we must destroy our mind and body completely, or in short die. This must be avoided as our goal is to discover the truth and obtain an answer, destruction of the self will prevent the accomplishment of that goal therefore we cannot erase the experience.

An alternative route is to reject the first condition entirely. Admittedly, this is an unwise if not utterly dumb path. However, it still merits some examination. It is dumb because that way existence will have no meaning and the positive proposition will be empty either. We will have no way of proving the proposition as that condition is the way for us to have a standard of comparison and proof. As such a rejection of the conditions of proof will necessarily defeat the goal entirely.

Though then again it seems we are presuming that there is an answer at all. However, in the effort to prove the negative proposition, it is with the intention to obtain the answer. So, by resulting in a condition contrary to an answer, we are actually defeating the intention to prove the negative proposition. Regardless, this is actually meaningless as an answer has been obtained and an answer can be obtained. Therefore, it is no longer a presumption, it is a truth and fact.

The rejection of the first condition, while rejected in of itself, does allow some interesting possibilities. It means we can declare that reality does not exist despite the overwhelming evidence against us, simply because we disbelieve in the validity or the relationship of the evidence with our propositions. Though when that happens, only God Almighty can save us. Perhaps in that condition existence means differently from us, perhaps it means color or size or something else. However, our definitions of existence are not arbitrary, instead they are based on common intuition.

This is how intuition plays a major role in our research. As stated in essay 3, the intuition is not just a thought, it is also a feeling. This feeling is not just any type of feeling but a strong and rooted feeling. As such I have selected the intuitions according to their strength and general property. If we truly seek to obtain truth, then we must accept intuition and feeling even if it is not certain yet. We must have faith and in spiritual terms, let the Holy Spirit guide us.

Based on the proofs and explanations that has been presented, it is clear that all analysis of both the positive proposition and negative proposition will lead to the fulfilment of the first condition, that is the presence of experience on reality. Therefore, it all leads back to the truth of the original proposition. All other paths will lead to the defeat of our intentions and so are undesirable and rejected or is incompatible with our intuitive faith. Therefore, we can conclude that both conditions are fulfilled and philosophically state, “Reality exists absolutely.”

However, this section is not done and there are some questions and problems that needs to be addressed. The first question is, “Why must we use a complicated proof? Is not the first condition fulfilled at all times?” It is true that we always have experience of objects but at the previous point and even now we have no certainty over those objects. We can not pinpoint at any single object. As such we must use clear and abstract propositions to directly attack the problem.

The next problem is the problem of intuition. That in truth, what we have is not yet clearly proven yet. What we have is just in the condition that such intuitions are true, then a particular proposition would be true as well. However, we have not actually proven the supporting intuitions to be true. And if we do not do that, our truth will remain a possible truth only and not a genuine truth. As truth can only be supported by either another truth or a source of proof, and as such our next duty is to determine which intuition will be elevated to the position of truth or proof source.

Determination of Existence

In the first part we have chosen several intuitions to be used as tools to determine what is the first truth we can hold. Unfortunately, the intuitions above are only intuitions and not yet elevated to the position of truth. It is a problem as truth can only be based on truth or a source of proof, and intuitions are neither of those. As such in this part we will seek to determine which intuition shall be declared as truth so the truth about the absolute existence of reality is fully proven.

The intuition that we will examine is the intuition of the determination of existence. How can we prove that reality exists? According to previous section, there is a condition of proof that is the experience of reality will prove the absolute existence of reality. It is also a fact that the results of the analysis do show that there is a conscious experience of the analyzed propositions. As such, it is this intuition or more broadly the intuition of conscious experience that we will elevate to the level of truth.

We can then ask why must it be that particular intuition that is elevated to the level of truth? The answer is rather simple, we know that the absolute existence of reality has some intuitive basis. As such it is that basis that must be proven to be true, and in this case, we have known that the basis is the conscious experience of reality, or just conscious experience in general. If the basis of conscious experience has been proven to be true, then surely existence itself will be proven to be true.

If we examine the conception of the conscious experience, we understand that it can be both truth and a source of proof. Therefore, that is what we shall be doing, that is analyzing the conscious experience so it can be elevated as truth or a source of proof. As truth, the conscious experience is present in the form of, “I experience X, therefore X,” while as a source of proof it is present in the form of, “Based on conscious experience X, X.”

If we are to elevate the conscious experience as truth, surely there must be some basis which is not further intuition. Yet for any first truths, there can never be any basis outside of itself. As such, would that imply that the basis of the truth of experience is experience itself? Yes, if that is what is meant by claiming that there is no external basis or proof to conscious experience. The experience is self-evident as we do have experience every moment in various forms. And we cannot reject these experiences, unless we are brave enough to do so, but even then, our denial would be simply false or empty.

Of course, this is done from my own perspective, which does have conscious experience, for I do not know if others possess that same experience or they are mere philosophical zombies. Evidently for myself, I do possess “feeling”, or the consciousness and experiences which has a unique image for myself. I recognize that experience and it is the most undebatable truth. As such, the conscious experience is true not by virtue of proof or some other truth, but because it is simply there since the beginning and we have it since the beginning. We can conclude then that it is not a problem which can be analysed as it is already the simplest thing, it is either we have it or not, either we accept it or not.

The conscious experience should be a truth that can be agreed by most people of the world, I say most because it can only be accepted in 2 conditions, when one’s mind is clear and when they do have the experience. People whose minds are disturbed or are philosophical zombies would probably deny the entire concept of experience. In such case, not even the most clear and distinct illustrations can convince them. Otherwise, if we accept and do possess experience, then it would be true for us, though objectively it is still an objective truth.

As a source of proof, the conscious experience becomes a source of proof and justification for certain truths. I say certain truths because other truths will have these initial truths as the justification. Source of proof here means as well as the source of justification. What is proof or justification then? It can be more or less interpreted as the “reason” we say that something is true or “what” allows us to say that it is true. It can then be further analyzed as the “criterion” for the truth of something.

Let us examine this in terms of categories, a truth is a member of the category of truths. Such category has a definition or criteria which defines what similarity is possessed by the members of the category such that they form a category. Therefore, the justification of a truth is simply the properties of that truth which are congruent with the definition of the category of truths. So, to ask, “What justifies that truth?” or, “What proves that truth?” is to ask, “What shows that the truth fulfils the criterion of being a truth?” To which we would answer, “These properties of the truth show that it fulfils the criterion of being a truth.”

We have known that the definition of truth is a proposition which corresponds to reality. So, to prove or justify a truth is to show that the truth does correspond to reality, that it can be compared with reality. Conscious experience is then used to show how the truth corresponds to reality. As experience is our sole path towards reality, and it is by that we can obtain information about reality. That information is what is compared to the proposition, if the information of the proposition matches with the information of experience, then we have justified the truth.

To synthesize the two concepts, experience acts as a source of justification and proof. This means that it acts as a source of information which can show that the proposition being evaluated is indeed true. As justification and proof is the object which shows that the proposition is true, then experience is the source of that object, as the information of reality obtained from conscious experience is what will show whether the proposition is congruent to reality or not.

Returning to existence, with the establishment of conscious experience as truth and a source of justification, then the absolute existence of reality truly becomes truth as well. Though a question might still arise, “What proves that conscious experience is the proof of existence?” The answer is not by another proof, but by establishment. It is because we have established the definition of existence as to be proven by conscious experience. Therefore, the proof is consisted in the very definition of existence and how we chose to define it.

As such this is not an entirely new thing that we are examining, rather what is already present and common but clarified and emphasized so we are truly certain. Since we define existence as to be proven by experience, then it is true that everyday such conditions are affirmed without end. However, we are becoming more aware of what we are already aware of, and so we can obtain a stronger basis especially for the philosophical system.

We can obtain 2 philosophical statements from this section, though there will be more general statements on the same topic in the future. For now, we shall summarize this entire section into the first statement, “We consciously experience reality, therefore reality exists,” and the second statement, “We possess conscious experience.” As both statements are philosophical statements, then indeed they are truths and so we have succeeded in find truth from intuition, certainty from uncertainty.

Conclusion

With that all the questions of this essay have been answered, that is regarding the absolute existence of reality and its proof. We obtain 3 philosophical statements in this essay that is, “Reality exists absolutely,” “We possess conscious experience,” and, “We consciously experience reality; therefore, reality exists absolutely.” In the next essay we will discuss something a bit different but still related to the whole concept of existence that is conscious experience. Therefore, this essay is declared to be finished.

This essay corresponds to the Indonesian version.