Metaphysicist

RadCap: "This is an error in logic. It is what is called an "arbitrary assertion". This means an assertion which is not based on fact - ie on reality. Such an assertion is not 'possible', 'probable', 'improbable' or anythign else, because all these concepts require an evaluation of FACTS about reality....To make the claim that it X is 'possible', you must provide evidence OF x. 1. Beings exist (and are therefore existents) 2. Beings are composed of many existents 3. It is possible for a Being to exist which is composed of all existents The evidence is contained within premises 1 & 2. The problem with asking for further evidence, is that it may not be practical to obtain. Imagine if a human cell was capable of thought. It might think to itself "i am an individual, working together with other individuals." If it was of a philosophical bent, it might wonder "What if i and my fellow cells are merely particles of a much greater Being?" The only evidence available would be the fact that the cell is itself composed of multiple organelles. The cell is simply not in a position to be able to "prove" the existence of this vast superstructure called a Human Being. But that doesn't make it any less REAL. That is the problem with you claiming that something is not possible just because it is not proved. That seems to be taking a subjective view that unless you can perceive something, it doesn't exist. btw: I'm not claiming that a number is a thing. To say that a human body is composed of "many cells" does not mean that "many" is a thing.

What i meant was that having accepted the basic axioms of objectivist metaphysics, one may derive alternative interpretations from them. Discovering the absolute truth can be harder than it looks. For example, even accepting the premise that "self-interest is the highest good" can lead to radically different conclusions. (e.g. Is there a higher Self or merely atomised individual selves?) If it can be demonstrated that a variety of competing assertions can logically be made from the same axioms, it disputes the notion that the political and ethical ideology associated with objectivism is absolutely correct beyond a doubt.

RadCap: Thank you for your interesting reply. You said that "Because it is NOT an existent, but is simply a specific quantity of existents, 'existence' therefore does not possess ANY attributes...... Existence has no attributes because there is no THING to possess them." What you appear to be doing is ruling out the possibility of existence being a thing, simply because it is a quantity of existents. However, any particular Man is also a quantity of existents yet i'm sure you would regard him as a thing. I'm asserting that it is at least logically possible that all existents together form the body of a Being which is superior to all others in the universe. I'm not hoping to prove such an assertion, but merely suggest it as a possible alternative. Unless i'm mistaken, you haven't actually proven that such a theory is impossible. If millions of existents can form a thing in one case, then surely all existents can together do the same. If there's some sort of error in my reasoning, i'm not sure what it is. "Because one existent possess X attribute, it is not true that "all existents" possess X attribute. Some existents will not possess that attribute. And others will possess the OPPOSITE attribute." This is correct, as long as "all existents" do not share a common identity. Whether or not they do is unprovable in my opinion, and so the question remains an open one.

It's possible that i have made a logical error in claiming that " If part of X has proprety z, then X has proprety z" What i thought was that X does not have the property of being X, it simply is X. Maybe that is the same thing. In any case, i reasoned that if consciousness exists in one part of an object (i.e. the brain) then one can rightly say that the entire system of which the brain is one part has the attribute of consciousness. So if Man is part of existence and he is conscious, then existence has the quality of being conscious. That is not to say that Existence is Man.

Please show me what sentence of mine indicated that "existence = consciousness" I said existence is conscious. There's quite a difference.

No, you are obviously a collection of atoms.

Itself.

That's not quite what i'm saying. What i'm proposing is that Existence has an identity. It's constituent parts, existents, also have identities. (Although there is no fixed number of identities, given that any object can be sub-divided infinitely). Why does Existence have an identity? Because anything that exists must have an identity. Existence is not merely an abstraction, it is a set of real phenomena. Some existents have the attribute of consciousness. Even when only one part of X has an attribute, that attribute can be said to be an attribute of X as a whole. Therefore Existence is Conscious. As mere "individuals" within this potentially infinite superstructure, how can we pretend to know the exact distribution of Consciousness? We can look at an insect and see that its consciousness (if it has any, which i'll leave as an open question) is so minute that human beings appear as gods before it. Our reason tells us that consciousness has something to do with complexity of organisation. The molecules of the human being are arranged in such a way that he can perceive, think and imagine far above the level of the lower animal races. The universe is surely the most complex system that we can perceive. Is it not then possible, at least theoretically, that this sytem possesses a consciousness of its own? It is after all, a highly organised arrangement of particles which possesses an identity. It's at least worth considering.

Thank you all for this interesting discussion.

The way i see it, Objectivism is not the only "true" philosophy but there are others that may be possible as well. It appears to be true that the axiom existence exists is undeniably correct. If existence did not exist, then what exactly would this mean? Nothing in reality would be different, just because we said it didn't exist. Now Rand tells the story that existence is made up of units called existents. A man is an existent who has the attribute of consciousness, which allows him to perceive (through the use of his sense organs) the existence around him. We are told also that consciousness cannot exist separately from existence, but that the reverse is possible. Consciousness is an attribute, and must be conscious of something, even if only that which it is an attribute of (i.e. "I am conscious of myself"). Rand makes the standard common sense argument that existence (from the ego's perspective) can be divided up into "self" and "other". Self is all the faculties under the jurisdiction of the ego. It is completely separate from the other. It appears to my mind that there are several philosophical possibilities at this point. The nature of existence is such that it may seem on the one hand to be composed of an infinite variety of forms, which are complete and separate from one another. But on the other hand there is a sense in which reality presents itself as a seamless whole. Existents are no more separate from existence than a drop is separate from the ocean. The many are merely particles of the One. But is this inconsistent with the facts presented by objectivism? I submit that it is not. For we realise that existence is sub-divided into existents only by the human mind, which does so out of conceptual convenience. In accordance with Rand's observations, we see that consciousness is an attribute of existence. Would not a unified, absolute reality have as its attribute a singular, unitary consciousness? Nevertheless such a conscious totality, may in the course of its evolutionary action, subjectify itself, atomise itself into a series of ego-perspectives. Like a wave storming across the ocean, these "selves" have their own separate existence while at the same time being an extension of, and ultimately caused by, the Reality of which they are a manifestation. We see Man thus as a microcosm of Existence. Man, the existent, is conscious of himself just as Reality is Conscious of Itself. I find this to be an interesting variation on the objectivist ideas, and look forward to hearty and intelligent discussion on this matter.