Thoyd Loki Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 I am here to insisted that the weapon this child is trying to raze agenced the hordes of evil, is real. It is self-sameness; it is identity! I am now wondering how old you are Dunkley? You used the wrong word in your sentence "raze" instead of "raise". The latter means to go up, to rise, the other means to tear down, like when an enemy razes a city. And what, may I ask, is "agenced"? Did you mean against? That is not a typing error. This reads like a kid hapless enough to be taught under the "look-say" reading method. You also did not address Rand's point (see my post above) that existence is identity. This invalidates your primacy scheme at its root. You can keep peddling this stuff, and respond or not. I, frankly, find you disturbing, a "quack" if you will, and am no longer interested in your exponentially compounding confusion. And, despite what you may think, you have never become more clear, but more theatrical, emotionalist, melodramatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 W A Dunkley: I have read your posts, all of them. The first thing you did in your essay was to mis-state the nature of axioms. So I responded to that first, since, if we cannot agree on the nature of axioms, we are not likely to agree on anything else. No, I don't deny “self-sameness”, just as I would not deny that everything that exists possess "inherent-noncontradictoriness" or "internal-consistencyness". The point is that such phrases add nothing. We have the concept of identity. Introducing these other terms is simply multiplying concepts beyond necessity. Rand says that existence and identity are indivisible and inseparable. Why, then, have two words? Because it is useful to denote the separate stages of cognition. In Peikoff's formulation, first we grasp that something exists, then we grasp that some thing exists. First existence, then identity. However, the Objectivist position described by the phrase "The Primacy of Existence" does not derive from the order of the steps in cognition. The issue of primacy arises in the context of the relationship between existence and consciousness. The issue is, what is the function of consciousness? Does existence exist independent of consciousness, with the function of consciousness being the perception of existence? Or, is existence somehow created by consciousness? Objectivism holds that existence exists independent of the content of any consciousness -- that existence is the object, not the subject, of consciousness. Hence, the name Rand chose for her philosophy. It is in this context that Objectivism asserts "the primacy of existence". Existence is primary in the sense that it is independent of, and unaffected by, any mere process of consciousness. In this context, existence is not held primary versus identity. In this context, existence and identity are indivisible. So, if you want assert "The primacy of identity" vis-a’-vis consciousness by saying that the identity of things is independent of and unaffected by any mere act of consciousness, such a statement would be correct. However, such a statement is subsumed by the "primacy of existence" statement, is thus unnecessary, and certainly does not refute "the primacy of existence". There is no case for asserting that identity has some sort of primacy versus existence. Epistemologically, existence is grasped before identity. Metaphysically, existence and identity are indivisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 W A Dunkley: I have read your posts, all of them. The first thing you did in your essay was to mis-state the nature of axioms. So I responded to that first, since, if we cannot agree on the nature of axioms, we are not likely to agree on anything else. No, I don't deny “self-sameness”, ... It is in this context that Objectivism asserts "the primacy of existence". Existence is primary in the sense that it is independent of, and unaffected by, any mere process of consciousness. The other words you mention such as "non-contradictoriness" are just new words for "self-sameness." Self-sameness is all the axiom asserts! If you do not deny self-sameness. If you do not deny the actual existence of self-sameness, that it is something. Then I think you might want to reconsider the primacy of identity. Just remember that, the concept of identity embraced in Objectivism (i.e., the specificity of existence)is not being denied, but it is not the concept being discussed. This is a thesis about self-sameness. In regards to the primacy of existence vs. the primacy of consciousness, I sympathize with what is trying to be done, but must question the validity of the argument. Briefly stated, (because my computer is giving me some trouble) Everything that is really something is a part of existence, so how does one claim consciousness to be separate. Consciousness must be subsumed by existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Dunkley, Congrats on the conference and congrats on accurately identifying my position as "emotionalism". But your position is incomprehensible because the fuzzy notion of self-sameness does not lend itself to an understanding free of incontextuality, floating abstractions, and undefined concepts. In your objections to Ayn Rand's axioms of metaphysics, you desplay a fundamental lack of understanding of what those axioms mean. Your defense of self-sameness amounts to bullying, not reason. Case in point, your defense of it here: you assert that those who deny self-sameness must be inconsistent and that they must also not understand Miss Rand's axioms of metaphysics. Neither assertion has merit, least of all because each one is unaccompanied by argument. You are mistaken if you think those are words that unite us here. Words do not unite us here. Well-formed concepts unite us, but self-sameness is not one of them. Also, argument by intimidation (ie, bullying) does not unite us either. Argument by induction, integration, deduction, and every other facet of reason unites us. Did your eyes tear when Kedwards mentioned Cheney's gay daughter? Emotionalism is emotionalism, whether you speak of the courage of underaged Objectivists or the courage of gay women Republicans. There is only one defense of self-sameness, and only one necessary. The axiom is the incontrovertible defense of the claim that self-sameness exists! Any other defense would flow from a false assumption. "The fuzzy notion of self-sameness"??? What PART of "A is A" don't you understand? "Fuzzy notion" is the worst characterization I can imagine. Conversely, it represents the perfection of clarity. I'll have to take the concept "self-sameness" over "entity," for clarity. My concept can be nailed down with perfection because there is nothing else there. The only thing the statement ",A is A" states is identity (and I hate to use the word identity around here because of the confusion, but I am not so arrogant as to rename the first principle of the great philosopher.) "Consistent"? I know a mathematician who will claim that nothing is provable, that what we hold as proved is just social convention. This man's mathematics are consistent, but it has lost its grip on reality and his commitment to "consistency" has been made arbitrary and a hypocrisy. We all agree that existence is the most fundamental fact. But, the assertion of self-sameness is the fundamental ground of knowledge. If its existence is denied, if it is presumed to be contrived concept then one's consistency becomes just as arbitrary as the nihilist mathematician or the mystic who states: " reality and life is an illusionary game that I have decided to play." Does not Ayn Rand show that the basic metaphysical concepts cannot be "consistently" denied. Consider trying to consistently affirm them, while denying self-sameness "free of incontextuality, floating abstractions, and undefined concepts" which is what you claim self-sameness to be. The proof of all her consepts is a statement that you claim states NOTHING! By the way, emotionalism is not the acknowledgment of emotion. The failure to acknowledge emotion, or anything else, we have another word for, and it is not a river in Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadCap Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 "Axions are trivialized when the existence of self-sameness is denied. The denial of self-sameness makes the basic facts referred to by axiomatic concepts unprovable, for they would be hinged to reality by nothing but a "floating abstract."" This is Dunkley's fundamental error. He has demonstrated that he does not understand the concept 'axiom' NOR the concept 'proof' - how they are related and how they are different (his nonsense 'concept' "self-sameness" is further proof of this lack of understanding. A thing is NOT the "same" as itself. A thing IS itself. BIG difference. The latter is identification. The former is a COMPARISON. A comparison OF identities. OBVIOUSLY a comparison CANNOT be axiomatic). An axiomatic concept IS unprovable. It is unprovable BY the very fact of BEING an axiom. The concept 'proof' does not apply TO axioms. The concept 'VALIDATE' applies to axioms. Oh - and Dunkley makes one other error. If a concept is a 'floating abstraction' - it is NOT 'hinged' to reality at all. It has NO connection to reality. A floating abstraction is DIVORCED from reality. It 'floats' unconnected to reality, thus the name. -- Given the fact that these things have been said to Dunkley in the past; given the fact that he has been pointed to source materials which explain these matters in greater detail than could be achieved on this forum; given the fact that he seems unwilling to pursue these materials, and still clings to his assertions about axioms and proof - I fail to see why anyone else continues to waste their time 'discussing' the matter with him. Do you think you can force his mind? You cannot. You have given him all you can give. HE must do the work. You cannot MAKE him accept the ideas. You cannot FORCE him to agree with you. At this point (in fact at a point which occured long ago), you are wasting your time and your life. If someone ELSE is still confused by the topic, PLEASE - discuss it with them. If not, you are done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Well said, RadCap. Closing the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts