Terms are are either particular or universal. A universal is what contains many particulars inside of itself. There can also exist between universals a hierarchy, where one universal is more universal than the other.
For example, the universal “human” is less universal than “animal”. The universal “animal” contains all the particulars of the universal “human” and some other particulars, therefore it is more universal than it.
If you were to think in Venn diagrams, the universal “human” is nested inside the universal “animal”. Because of this, it is impossible to know what a human is while not knowing what an animal is as there is no such thing as a human that’s not an animal.
This hierarchy of terms being nested in each other continues upwards where things become more and more universal until it reaches a point where it can no longer be any more universal. This ultimate/absolute universal is “existence”.
Because of this, any term we use to inquire about existence is itself dependent on knowing what existence is. Since when proving something you need to stay out of circular reasoning, proving the existence of existence becomes an absurdity.
However, this is not a problem since it’s logically necessary to accept that certain things do not need proof. If everything required proof, then every proof would also require proof, necessitating an infinite regress of proofs.
Because this is impossible, there must be something that does not need proof for us to prove the existence of. That thing is existence itself.
seen on twitter @strwbmilksheikh