more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 7687

[filed under theme 7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 5. Reason for Existence ]

Full Idea

A combinatorial ontology holds that existence is nothing more or less than completeness and consistency, or what is also called 'maximal consistency'.

Gist of Idea

Existence is completeness and consistency

Source

Dale Jacquette (Ontology [2002], Ch. 2)

Book Ref

Jacquette,Dale: 'Ontology' [Acumen 2002], p.62


A Reaction

You'll have to read Jacquette to understand this one! The claim is that existence is to be defined in terms of logic (and whatever is required for logic). I take this to be a bit Platonist (rather than conventionalist) about logic.


The 18 ideas with the same theme [why do things (or anything at all) exist?]:

Nothing could come out of nothing, and existence could never completely cease [Empedocles]
Maybe necessity and non-necessity are the first principles of ontology [Aristotle]
There must always be a reason or cause why some triangle does or does not exist [Spinoza]
Possibles demand existence, so as many of them as possible must actually exist [Leibniz]
God's sufficient reason for choosing reality is in the fitness or perfection of possibilities [Leibniz]
First: there must be reasons; Second: why anything at all?; Third: why this? [Leibniz]
Leibniz first asked 'why is there something rather than nothing?' [Leibniz, by Jacquette]
There must be a straining towards existence in the essence of all possible things [Leibniz]
Because something does exist, there must be a drive in possible things towards existence [Leibniz]
I do not believe in the existence of anything, if I see no reason to believe it [Berkeley]
Hegel gives an ontological proof of the existence of everything [Hegel, by Scruton]
I assume existence, rather than reasoning towards it [Kierkegaard]
Being is maximal consistency [Jacquette]
Existence is completeness and consistency [Jacquette]
It is necessarily contingent that there is one thing rather than another - so something must exist [Meillassoux]
Either p is true or not-p is true, so something is true, so something exists [Liggins]
Current physics says matter and antimatter should have reduced to light at the big bang [New Sci.]
CP violation shows a decay imbalance in matter and antimatter, leading to matter's dominance [New Sci.]