Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Tomer Ravid

Existence . . . Exists?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

a STATEMENT

of the NATURE

of EXISTENECE

Note: This thread is based upon a critique letter about the Objectivist axioms of existence and identity. If you wonder according to which context do I rarely change my argument or what argument against which I claim, you should simply know the fact that it had all performed there. For the sake of the clarity, to be more organized; arguments included:

Do you guy think that existence exists is an infinite loop?

(1) Existence is not an attribute.

(2) A self-evident proposition is a proposition and not a wrong beginning for a closed system (both ``beginning`` and ``closed`` assume there is such, any other premise leads to a self-contradiction).

(3) Existence exist => there is something with a different context. Assuming this item I`m holding in my hand exists, something exists, and assuming something exists, this status of `exists` exists.

(4) In its syntax, this proposition does not refer to `exists` and say it contains of `existence,` but rather to `existence and say that it exists. Existence is the subject and exists is the object.

Or anyhow any corollary of identity?

(1) Every denial of any axiom involves a self contradiction, but it does not mean that the standard to an axiom is not `that which is assumed ahead` and certainly not `that which is the standard to each other axiom` (which is an actual infinite loop, attempted to be described at the above), but rather that which you cannot prove or deny. In fact, the process of validating axioms is somewhat circular: I am aware of the fact that a is a or assuming that a is a the proposition `I think but I am not` is contradictionary. It does not say anything about the nature of their being primacies, since each of these statements are necessary to each other, and certainly does not mean that identity (or its corollary of `non-contradiction`) is the axiom of all the other axioms.

(2) The axiom of existence does not equal the axiom of identity. The axiom of identity is in another phrase `existence is identity,` which assumes ahead existence.

(3) And if what you are gonna respond to this argument is that `Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse as well,` the identity is of the idea or of the fact that Mickey Mouse is presented as if he did not contradict reality.

Or, do you claim that the non-existence does exist?

(1) The assumption according to which a statement of the non-existence compared to existence is false is not based on the assumption that the non-existence does not exist, but in fact on the negation of it. It assumes that the money one doesn't have actually exists.

(2) If you get into another `infinite loop` by that, please notice: as noted above, this statement is not about the description of which does not exist, but rather about its behavior (or non-behavior) in reality: the nothing does not exist.

And eventually, above all, to prove that existence exists is axiom is the simplest thing is the world, beyond these rationalistic arguments, and any denial of the need to a primacy, to a first cause, to a beginning, shall be pointless, and will necessarily bring to a real ``infinite loop``. Every man with a proper mental status could implicitly recognize the nature of existence. So do the linguistic analytics and the post modernists. I am about to post this thread in order to those who actually get confuse from their rationalism.

(1) One can argue nothing assuming he and his arguments do not exist

(2) ==> Inferred from premise (1) there are two directions:

(2)a Any proof, the seek for something previous to or more primitive than existence, is false.

(2)b Any denial of existence, the seek for something that exists apart of existence, is false.

q.e.d

I am about to post this thread in order to disproving this torrent of nihilism which maintains that the most basic concept on which each of its claims and acts are based; is sort of an "infinite loop", a logical gibberish statement, which is so self-evident that it shouldn't be called a axiom but rather an unremarkable tautological trivia and thus a pure corollary of the axiom of identity. This argument is considered to be the "new wave equivalent and wise attack against O`ism from its very basis" among post-modern and analytic philosophers. To be noted, this consideration is not about whether "existence exists" (if one [a consideration] turned to be as such, I would stop participating in it): but, in essence, on its being an axiomatic concept. It's been pretty tough to selectively get all the whims out of my own head, though, assuming that the axiomatic concept of existence, does not actually exist.

Via abstraction (or classification) and equalization: Existence is an axiomatic concept. A concept equals a mental integration of two or more units with common characteristic(s) and with their particular measurements omitted. A unit equals a well-clarified identity. An identity is an entity. An entity equals an existence. The first idea a recently-born child observes is existence: There is something–––pointing of a bed, a tree on the street or his mother. Any of his latter claims, achieved by a process of introspection or extrospection, shall assume ahead the following: It exists. This is the full grasped meaning of the well called existence axiom.

The assumption: "The proposition 'existence exists' starts by existence and determines that, it exists. This statement is syntactically equivalent to the parallel X is Y; α belongs to p:pX, e.g., Henry is cute, the apple is red, women are unforeseeable etc. It considers a specific attribute of something which is, existence. As such, let us exam it as an axiom, according to its standard: Does existence exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask: Does the attribute of existence (from the above ``exists``) exist?–––etc."

(a) Consider the following: Does this assumption exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask, does the concept existence (from the above ``exists``) exist? That`s all.

There the linguistic analysis claims at that point that existence is an "attribute" (= a fact that differentiates a concept from another–––which leads to a contradiction of the above: There is no set called 'existence since there is nothing outside existence: From Russell's paradox, if a set is merely a great intersection it must not be called a set) since the following proposition is the simple "X is Y;" "α belongs to p:pX," in which statement they assume ahead their main future fallacy to find existence a 'meaningless' concept: that every proposition must never be any implicit self-evident. They assume that the claim 'existence exists' is supposed to consist of an axiomatic concept rather than 'existence'. They shall charter that "If something, anything [e.g., existence] exists, therefore certainly . . ." Yes, existence exists IS an axiom! There is no fundamental [or any] distinction between 'there is something' and 'there is existence'. Nevertheless, when saying 'there is' you assume ahead that 'there is' exists, so that the only reason for the rephrase is its context (the word "context" is used metaphorically over here).

The law of identity, therefore, may not replace it: and in its syntax, indeed, the subject is existence; the object: exists. The sentence does not refer to in given 'exists' (or i.e., something that exists), but simply to the fact of being existent as an existent. Every denial of any axiom leads to a self contradiction (existence exists is form as opposed to negative one: 'existence does not exist,' which is a deep and bad self contradiction but certainly not an 'infinite loop'): every axiom is a self evident that could be denied at any step of its evidence–––e.g., identity is not identity, we are not conscious of the fact we are conscious, I do not will to say I have a free will and as well, existence exists but not the 'exists'. Nevertheless, the axiom of identity which is contradicted in each of them cannot be the explanation of both of the couple of other axioms: Since the standard of axiom is not being an 'evidentless' but being in the basis of any human knowledge. Without existence, as well, no identity can exist. The standard of axiom, as noted above, is being in the basis of any human knowledge: the standard to a primacy axiom is not 'being not assumed ahead in others'–––if it were the primacy could be 'my whim is my whim'. It does nor, however, mean the Mickey Mouse has no identity: All it means is that nothing can exist without one. The facts of existence and identity, therefore, are not equivalent: they are fundamentally different axioms. Assuming that existence is a primacy over identity, the law of identity cannot be the proof to it.

Now read the fifth paragraph again.

Edited by Tomer Ravid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law of identity, therefore, may not replace it: and in its syntax, indeed, the subject is existence; the object: exists. The sentence does not refer to in given 'exists' (or i.e., something that exists), but simply to the fact of being existent as an existent. Every denial of any axiom leads to a self contradiction (existence exists is form as opposed to negative one: 'existence does not exist,' which is a deep and bad self contradiction but certainly not an 'infinite loop'): every axiom is a self evident that could be denied at any step of its evidence–––e.g., identity is not identity, we are not conscious of the fact we are conscious, I do not will to say I have a free will and as well, existence exists but not the 'exists'. Nevertheless, the axiom of identity which is contradicted in each of them cannot be the explanation of both of the couple of other axioms: Since the standard of axiom is not being an 'evidentless' but being in the basis of any human knowledge. Without existence, as well, no identity can exist. The standard of axiom, as noted above, is being in the basis of any human knowledge: the standard to a primacy axiom is not 'being not assumed ahead in others'–––if it were the primacy could be 'my whim is my whim'. It does nor, however, mean the Mickey Mouse has no identity: All it means is that nothing can exist without one. The facts of existence and identity, therefore, are not equivalent: they are fundamentally different axioms. Assuming that existence is a primacy over identity, the law of identity cannot be the proof to it.

I very appreciated your analysis. It clearly shows the difficulties we have to face trying to master our knowledge basis.

I’d like to point out that often those difficulties are generated by a misunderstanding of how our mind works.

That is, all those axioms (like “existence exists”, “A is A”, and so on...) come from the idea our thought proceeds step by step. Where each step is meant as something of concrete, definite. In such a way that after a step has been gained it will be guaranteed in the future.

That is not true at all.

Our thought is dialectical!

There is nothing of definite and guaranteed in thought process.

Any concept needs to be refreshed again and again, because it is not written on stone.

It’s a big expression of rational power to keep the concept: “A is A”. Because of its dialectical working. Where nothing is done for sure for ever.

Without “A is A” our mind would be lost. We need energy to keep that concept. Energy is necessary because rationality continuously has to face its enemy: the Chaos.

In spite of all that, the law of identity is only valid within our rationality. Applying it to the whole world we make a mistake.

In physical world, A is never A.

And because existence consists in subject / object, for existence to exist... another unknown subject would be necessary

Edited by bobgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing of definite and guaranteed in thought process.

Can you definitely guarantee that?

In spite of all that, the law of identity is only valid within our rationality. Applying it to the whole world we make a mistake.

So, trying to identify things in the real world is a mistake. In order for you to consider it a mistake, you must have identified the truth. How did you identify this truth?

In physical world, A is never A.

A dog is never a dog? A tree is never a tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In spite of all that, the law of identity is only valid within our rationality. Applying it to the whole world we make a mistake.

In physical world, A is never A.

And because existence consists in subject / object, for existence to exist... another unknown subject would be necessary

What does that even mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you definitely guarantee that?

I can’t, nothing is absolutely sure to me. Anytime I choose I have to take a risk.

So, trying to identify things in the real world is a mistake. In order for you to consider it a mistake, you must have identified the truth. How did you identify this truth?

It’s not “trying to identify things in the real world” a mistake. It is a mistake giving to that identification an absolute value. Nothing is absolute true in our world. The doubt is invincible.

However, if something would be absolutely true... how could life continue?

A dog is never a dog? A tree is never a tree?

You talk about abstraction of concepts. As I said, it is always necessary to keep “A is A” for rationality be working.

But that law is not the Truth.

The dog I called Dick, that physical dog... is never the same of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread ought to be locked, nothing good can come from this.

I've figured out now why I can't make sense of his words... A is never A and the words he uses don't mean what they mean.

That said, I hate to lock the thread from the OP who started it in good faith (as far as I can tell) just because another poster's posts don't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've figured out now why I can't make sense of his words... A is never A and the words he uses don't mean what they mean.

That said, I hate to lock the thread from the OP who started it in good faith (as far as I can tell) just because another poster's posts don't make any sense.

Bobgo doesn't make any sense, but the OP I find to be even more incomprehensible and additionally ungrammatical. That is even assuming English is not his first language, being generous about the syntax doesn't help it. That fact that the OP is such a mess sets the precedent for the kinds of posts that may follow its footsteps. This thread is a free-fire zone for wild metaphysical speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I very appreciated your analysis. It clearly shows the difficulties we have to face trying to master our knowledge basis.
Sorry, I would supposedly response to your well-phrased post assuming it were not to infer that in fact I am not.

Translation: Have you just said `Difficulties`? I am talking to you via humane knowledge, and I have nothing to say to the one who denies its very basis (or at least even on the implicit stage of awareness). I suggest that you try to shoot yourself and on the negation simultaneously. I shall be groundbreaking assuming you would not die in factual reality.

That is not true at all.
Let us observe your post without your implicitly grasped axioms:

(a) Without existence: your post does not exist, neither do you exist dor is the `that`.

(B) Without indentity: your post does not equal your post. It is true at all.

Well, do you say that it is merely `imaginary` that I prove that there are amazing fallacies in your post? Think again. Or as a matter of fact not. Thinking is a process of identification and integration. By `identification`, what do you identify---if not an existence and an identity? How do you grasp the meaning of `that`? Of `is`? What is your standard of `truth`, and by what means it is applicable to you and to the nature of existence? How do you occupy `at all`? Is there any non-contextual common nature of existence? If there isn`t, is there such thing as context? Does that mean there is a nature of a proposition? Can a proposition be true or arbitrary or wrong? ETC.

Now, I`m gonna make myself a scrumbled egg :P

Oops!

How can I know I am actually about to do that?? Hence I have neither volition nor ability to know that which I will do in future, since I am not conscious!

Perhaps the scrambled egg is toxic is well! Wait, how could I know whether it includes an onion? What in the world if an onion is not an onion.

And perhaps, as a matter of fact, the egg does not actually exist! Shit~! :confused:

There is nothing of definite and guaranteed in thought process.
This fact is not definitite or gauranteed.

Any concept needs to be refreshed again and again, because it is not written on stone.
A stone? And by what means can it be written? Assuming it were, it would not help as well---since one cannot identify the nature of certain existents in reality.

Without “A is A” our mind would be lost. We need energy to keep that concept. Energy is necessary because rationality continuously has to face its enemy: the Chaos.
After proving that existence is identity is an axiom, it is absolutely a rationalistic argument to claim that its necessarity is thus about man`s organization. Then you have a denial and not a denial of it: you deny identity and do not deny identity and dare saying that you are acting accordingly to it, fantastic <_< And if you cannot know that identity is not identity, how do you know this fact? Conclusion: the argument according to which axioms exist only in man`s consciousness is not valid to avoiding finding the masses of HORRENDOUS contradictions in your post.

And because existence consists in subject / object, for existence to exist... another unknown subject would be necessary
You must understand: to say that `existence` and `exists` are noted in the same context is equovilent to saying that `cat` and `exists` are. Everything exists as much as existence does.

Certainly I have understood, in time, that what shall one do, anything he can ever say can never constitute a proof to the absolutism of the existence of axiomatic concepts since each such proof attempts to prove it through the eyes of the metaphysics-less: the system of whom really thinks that there is no exitence, consciousness or identity was screwed out long ago. He shall say: ``Then what if you clarified? Then what if in accordance with the non-existence of existence I do not exist to complain of it? Very true. It is merely to prove that existence does not exist [point symbolizing of a sentence`s end]. Such a person is blocked: talking to him is like talking to an automat, according to his own very premises. He has been living in a world of hallucinations, where no proof proves anything, since a long ago.

The point is that one cannot prove anything without the assumption of the axioms ahead: as a one with the lack of convinction of axioms, you can observe of no proof through your own eyes. Every proof is firstly based about the fact there is a reality which could be grasped by a human being: he who does not implicitly understand it himself is metaphysically dead---and will be dead in reality.

bobgo, You are meataphysically dead!

Edited by Tomer Ravid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Existence exists sounds like tautology if one drops Objectivist context. The meaning of this statement is that existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is an axiom which doesn't require validation since every validation based on it. It also means that nothing can transcend existence, that it-to exist outside of it or to create it. Existence is identity,since nothing can exist as nothing in particular

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humane Knowledge is knowledge aquired by a rational faculty---i.e., since a human`s distiguishing characteristic is his rational faculty, ``humane`` may refer to a fact which is fundamentally discovered by it.

If you used to say ``a fact recognized by a rational faculty`` and therefore ``a fact recongized exclusively by man`` and therefore ``a fact whose attribute is the capacity to be grasped and repeated by a human being,`` for now shortly say ``a humane knowledge`` according to the grammical well known formula of ``an adj. noun;`` ``a modfier subject.``

In day-by-day language and an epistemological context (i.e., the concept of the being of a certain concept in reality and its derived nature, not `why it sounds good to a humane ear` etc.), it means ``some units of a certain concept which consist of an additional common attribute.``

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between saying: “A” rather than saying: “A is A”?

Is “A is A” just a flat tautology that doesn’t add any value to the simpler “A” or is “A is A” a rich tautology that includes some additional sense?

Indeed “A is A” adds additional value, that value is: Time.

I look at “A” and then I look again to it and I say: “A is still A”.

Doesn’t matter how mach time passes between first and second look. Some time needs to be there.

Keeping “A” identical to itself allows our mind to work. Our mind is dialectical, a continuous flux, that needs something permanent to be able to work.

The Zenone’s arrow hits the target: “The arrow leaves the bow and then the arrow hits the target”.

The first term “arrow” and the second term “arrow” both mean the same object. It is always the same arrow.

If the arrow that started flying was not the arrow that arrived we would become mad.

The law of identity is very important! For any practical action we can make in our world.

In spite of all that, if we want to talk about the Absolute that is about the Truth we have to observe how nothing remains the same, even for an infinitesimal period of time.

The arrow can move, because it changes continuously. It is never what was before.

Dear Tomer Ravid, metaphysics needs humility, the capacity to know to be not knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define ``tautology``.

I would define it as ``a statement recognized as identical without any previous knowledge of that which it deals with,`` while``identical`` means ``merely derived from the law of identity and the given facts above,`` which DOES require a knowledge about the (axiomatic) concept ``identity``.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping “A” identical to itself allows our mind to work. Our mind is dialectical, a continuous flux, that needs something permanent to be able to work.

And what you are ignoring here, is that in order to have a 'continuous flux' as you put it, requires that there be something (identity) to 'flux' into something else (causality: the law of identity applied to action)

The arrow can move, because it changes continuously. It is never what was before.

This sounds like a statement from Hegel when he declares that "you can never step into the same river twice", which ignores that the concept river encapsulates the fact of moving water.

Your grasp of Nihilism (mentioned on another thread) being a destructive force is quite accurate. Embracing Hegel as the antidote to it, is exposing your susceptibility to one of many Philosophical Snake Oil Salesmen throughout the history of its development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what you are ignoring here, is that in order to have a 'continuous flux' as you put it, requires that there be something (identity) to 'flux' into something else (causality: the law of identity applied to action)

This sounds like a statement from Hegel when he declares that "you can never step into the same river twice", which ignores that the concept river encapsulates the fact of moving water.

Your grasp of Nihilism (mentioned on another thread) being a destructive force is quite accurate. Embracing Hegel as the antidote to it, is exposing your susceptibility to one of many Philosophical Snake Oil Salesmen throughout the history of its development.

Or Heraclitus.

But whether one ingests "Dike eris" or "Aufhebung", expect paralysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define ``tautology``.

I would define it as ``a statement recognized as identical without any previous knowledge of that which it deals with,`` while``identical`` means ``merely derived from the law of identity and the given facts above,`` which DOES require a knowledge about the (axiomatic) concept ``identity``.

I'd define it as a statement in which the meaning of the subject and predicate are identical. For example "Ice is frozen water". However to make such a statement one needs previous knowledge about water and the process of freezing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd define it as a statement in which the meaning of the subject and predicate are identical. For example "Ice is frozen water". However to make such a statement one needs previous knowledge about water and the process of freezing.
Then it seems like tautology simply means any metaphysical given ( = not man-made). The so-called `human` group of common attributes contains two hands as it equally does a conceptual faculty. For instance, `A given ant is currently pinching a piece of sand` is a ``tautological`` statement as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it seems like tautology simply means any metaphysical given ( = not man-made). The so-called `human` group of common attributes contains two hands as it equally does a conceptual faculty. For instance, `A given ant is currently pinching a piece of sand` is a ``tautological`` statement as well.

This is not a proposition but an observation. Pinching a piece of sand is not an essential property of ant, such an action doesn't define it. Tautology, however, is a defining proposition which describes an essential property of the object. Therefore " Ice is frozen water" is a definition but " ice is white" isn't. Existence has only one essential property-it exists. Existence exist by definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2010 at 7:24 AM, bobgo said:

What is the difference between saying: “A” rather than saying: “A is A”?

Is “A is A” just a flat tautology that doesn’t add any value to the simpler “A” or is “A is A” a rich tautology that includes some additional sense?

 

Indeed “A is A” adds additional value, that value is: Time.

 

I look at “A” and then I look again to it and I say: “A is still A”.

Doesn’t matter how mach time passes between first and second look. Some time needs to be there.

 

Keeping “A” identical to itself allows our mind to work. Our mind is dialectical, a continuous flux, that needs something permanent to be able to work.

1. It is about the meaning rather than the words/scribbles one takes time to interpret

2. More importantly, A is A is not the complete statement, "A is A at the same time and in the same respect"

Quote

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.  http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

 

Edited by Easy Truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×