It would be dubious to say that we must prove every fact and then rely on self-evidence to prove existence. However, what you seem to be suggesting is that one needs to gain a preliminary, pre-objectivist understanding before objecitivism is even possible, right?Dmstifik8ion said:...Objectivity demands that we prove the validity of each fact we accept in the development of our knowledge base and that we use unerring logic to integrate our knowledge in a coherent fashion. To be objective we must first understand what knowledge is, where it comes from and how we obtain it...
Existence is self-evidentiary; this means it proves itself by its very existence. No proof is needed for existence because it is the proof; it proves itself...
Not to put words in your mouth before giving you a chance to answer, but I want show how I think this is relevant. This sort of preliminary understanding varies with the subject but not in any direct way with things only objectively present. I would argue that this preliminary understanding would be very relevant if we are to gain any sense of the meaning of existence, and objectivism would not. Things that follow from what is objectively present can only find a place after ontological notions, and can never turn around and penetrate back into these ontological notions once they has been left behind.