Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A question about axioms

Rate this topic


Leonid

Recommended Posts

Ayn Rand wrote: "The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence”, “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness"... It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced," (ITOE pg 55)

Yet: "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction " (The Romantic Manifesto, 17)

So, if existence is a concept and concepts are abstractions how concept of existence could be directly perceived? Should we differentiate between existence and concept of existence? Moreover if " The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." (ITOE 56), how they could be directly perceived?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We differentiate between existence and the concept of existence. If you want to directly perceive existence, simply look around you. If you want to grasp the concept of existence you break down, or reduce the concept to identify what has been mentally integrated. You break down what units were isolated by the process of abstraction. You break down what the abstraction was isolated from.

If you check out this piece, one of the characteristics or properties of every entity mentioned, is that it exists. You can further identify that if a rock was thrown, it moves through the air. The motion exists. When you weigh the rock, it's specific weight exists, and so on.

Existence exists integrates all these facts together. The rock exists, Its weight exits. Its mass exists. A blade of grass exists. Its length, width and breadth exist. Existence exists integrates these into a single propositional principle. It, as well as the law of identity and consciousness, are axioms, because they are implicitly contained in every possible identification.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you check out this piece, one of the characteristics or properties of every entity mentioned, is that it exists. You can further identify that if a rock was thrown, it moves through the air. The motion exists. When you weigh the rock, it's specific weight exists, and so on.

[my bold]

In his podcast, Episode 10 — March 10, 2008, Dr. Peikoff responded to the question:

05:14: [A metaphysical question.] "'What is existence? Existence is an attribute possessed by existence, and we directly perceive existence.' (...) 'The fact that I can't define "existence" bothers me. Is "existence" then kind of a misleading concept?'"

His response to the first part is especially relevant to what you have said, that existence is a characteristic or property [an attribute] of everything that exists.

You can listen to his reply to that question on his website directly here.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His response to the first part is especially relevant to what you have said, that existence is a characteristic or property [an attribute] of everything that exists.

Thanks Trebor. That underscores what I am trying to express. I should have stated that it is a fact about the rock, it exists. A thrown rock moves. The fact of motion exists. The fact that the rock has a weight, mass, etc. exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream_weaver: "We differentiate between existence and the concept of existence"

Rand specified that existence is implied in any perception, but in the definition quoted above she referred to the axiom of existence, that is-concept. Here is full quote:

"An axomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest."

“Axiomatic Concepts,”

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 55

So, here we are dealing with concept which is "a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction " and which is directly perceived. However mental integration could be perceived only by introspection, not to mention the fact that axiom of existence includes "every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." which cannot be directly perceived.

I think that, although it is true that existence is implied in any perception, the concept or axiom of existence couldn't be directly perceived, Rand 's position notwithstanding. It is rather an integration of the concept of "existent."

" The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action" (“Cognition and Measurement,Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 5–6)

One perceives that A exists, B exists C exists etc... and mentally integrates their directly observable existence into concept of "existent". Furthermore one can integrate concepts of "existent" of different units into axiomatic concept of existence.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One perceives that A exists, B exists C exists etc... and mentally integrates their directly observable existence into concept of "existent". Furthermore one can integrate concepts of "existent" of different units into axiomatic concept of existence.

I see a problem here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One perceives that A exists, B exists C exists etc... and mentally integrates their directly observable existence into concept of "existent". Furthermore one can integrate concepts of "existent" of different units into axiomatic concept of existence.

I see a problem here.

. . . and mentally integrates A is an existent, B is an existent, C is an existent, etc, into the concept "existent", an existent being something that exists, are the units of existence.. The existents ("every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.") are existence.

In a very real sense, existence is what we perceive.

From childhood we begin by identifying the existents individually (dividing them out from the implicit existence we perceive). When we integrate the tables, chairs, dogs, cats, furniture, animals, weight, length, etc, which exist into existents, being the entities, attributes, actions, etc., which exist, we can then integrate the existents into the concept of existence.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, here is not a problem. You yourself said that we should distinguish observable existence from the axiomatic concept of existence.

If existence is observable, then there is need to go through the middle term of existent before conceptualizing existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . and mentally integrates A is an existent, B is an existent, C is an existent, etc, into the concept "existent", an existent being something that exists, are the units of existence.. The existents ("every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.") are existence.

In a very real sense, existence is what we perceive.

From childhood we begin by identifying the existents individually (dividing them out from the implicit existence we perceive). When we integrate the tables, chairs, dogs, cats, furniture, animals, weight, length, etc, which exist into existents, being the entities, attributes, actions, etc., which exist, we can then integrate the existents into the concept of existence.

This is more or less what I said. However integration of entities into concept of existent requires different process of omission and different common denominator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If existence is observable, then there is need to go through the middle term of existent before conceptualizing existence.

The need is because a concept of existence also includes unobservable existents-like consciousness, capitalism, freedom etc...and also those which existed in the past and will exist in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If existence is observable, then there is need to go through the middle term of existent before conceptualizing existence.

This is more or less what I said. However integration of entities into concept of existent requires different process of omission and different common denominator.

When we perceive, we perceive what is around us, as given, unfiltered by our minds into: this, that or the other thing. As we isolate the different existents to identify, we are isolating it from the unfiltered whole of perception which is ultimately to be identified as existence when we reach the stage in our development to ask ourselves, "what is the word I should use to refer to this entirety as". This is this need that requires passing through the middle terms in order to formulate the concept. I would suggest that to identify it as axiomatic would require something more.

The concept of existence omits everything save the fact that it exists. There is nothing to distinguish or differentiate it from. Knowing it is axiomatic is understanding that in order to be axiomatic is that it is to be implicit in every identification, once again, making it necessary to go through the middle terms.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I unintentionally omitted the word 'no' in my previous statement, which should have been written If existence is observable, then there is NO need to go through the middle term of existent before conceptualizing existence. I think you figured that out.

Is the following restatement of your reasoning accurate?

Existents are observable. Existence is observable only because each existent is observable, in the same fashion as a flock of geese is observable only because each goose is observable. There must be a concept of goose before there can be a concept for a flock. In this reasoning 'existence' is a collective noun not a particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prof. B: "Existence" is a collective noun almost.

AR: That's right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists.

It sure comes across that way. But it is the "mentally unfiltered given". We mentally divy up the various aspects we observe, starting with what our minds automatically integrate into percepts, starting with what we identify as entities. We make it almost collective by the process of identification, and then, "existence" integrates it back into the "whole".

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames :"Existents are observable. Existence is observable only because each existent is observable"

Not according to Rand.

"The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage." (ITOE 5-6)

As a concept it cannot be observable by senses. Such a concept is an integration of percepts and omission all their other features except one-they exist. The concept of existence is an abstraction of abstractions, that is -two or more units of existents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prof. B: "Existence" is a collective noun almost.

AR: That's right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists.

<snip>

What I see is existence

Is the following restatement of your reasoning accurate?

Prof. B: "Existence" is a collective noun almost.

AR: That's right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists.

<snip>

What I perceive is existence. Existents are perceivable. In the same fashion, a flock of geese is perceivable and each goose is perceivable. Most people would form the concept of goose before they form the concept of a flock. In the case of a shepherd, the shepherd may have already formed the concept of "flock". Indicating that "flock" is the correct, collective term for geese should be all that is necessary at that point. Validation of the concept existence would be the integration of the units into a single new mental entity and completing the process by giving it the visual/audio percept of "existence" to retain it, and to summon it as need be.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sensation-existent-undifferentiated chaos

Perception-entity- integrated sensation allowing differentiation

Conception-unit- epistemic method required by limit consciousness

Rand is discussing the chronological development of IMPLICIT concepts in the congnitive development of normal humans. (by looking backwards)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames :"Existents are observable. Existence is observable only because each existent is observable"

Not according to Rand.

"The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage." (ITOE 5-6)

As a concept it cannot be observable by senses. Such a concept is an integration of percepts and omission all their other features except one-they exist. The concept of existence is an abstraction of abstractions, that is -two or more units of existents.

The meaning of a concept is the referent, in the case of 'existent' that would refer to every entity, action, or relationship having the quality or state of existing.

The suffix -ence is used to form words that are nouns referring to "having the quality of, or state of" the root word. Several men may confer, their conferring is a conference. Existing is observable. Several existents may exist, their quality or state of existing is referred to as their existence. It is not incorrect to refer to the existence of a single particular existent. Used as a collective noun "existence" refers collectively to every thing that has the quality or state of existing.

The concepts denoted by the words existent and existence can be formed in parallel tracks by referring to the same referents, and so neither is technically prior to the other in hierarchy. The distinction between them is that one is

Aside:

Wikipedia says "Existence has been variously defined by sources. In common usage, it is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. Others define it as every thing that is." Objectivism/Rand falls among the others using existence to refer to everything that is. Peikoff has used the word reality to refer to the world we are aware of through our senses.

Some else really bothers me about this:

As a concept it cannot be observable by senses. Such a concept is an integration of percepts and omission all their other features except one-they exist. The concept of existence is an abstraction of abstractions, that is -two or more units of existents.

There are concepts for dogs and ducks. Are dogs and ducks not observable by the senses? Obviously they are observable. Existent is a first level concept just as dog and duck are, and existence is also first level.

Existence refers directly to many things that exist whereas existent refers to a single thing that exists. Both refer directly without the need for a prior concept. One can observe a pack of dogs and a flock of ducks and existence directly without discriminating the parts conceptually. It is an error to grant special significance to the fact that one cannot write or speak of a pack of dogs without first having a concept of dog because perceiving and conceiving at the first level do not use words. Smoke and wind are collective nouns that are first level in which it is impossible for the unassisted eye to perceive the particles that comprise them, proving that concepts for the parts need not be possessed before the concept that refers to the whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames, one can use a term of " observable reality or universe". However in Objectivism Existence means something else:

"Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents. . . . The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." (ITOE 56)

"The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage. But it is implicit in every percept (to perceive a thing is to perceive that it exists) and man grasps it implicitly on the perceptual level"

(ITOE 5-6)

So I think Objectivist position is quite clear-to grasp a concept " existent" one needs to operate on conceptual, not perceptual level, but it implied in perception as any other concept, including " cat" and " dog". All knowledge starts with perception, but we mainly operate on conceptual level. So you can see that or this dog, but when you say " I see dog" you use a word which designates not a particular dog you saw, but a concept of it, a mental content which refers to all dogs in the world which exist, existed or ever will exist and describes the essential properties which differentiate dogs from all other entities. Such a concept you cannot perceive, unless you include introspection in the genus of perception ( which i think would be wrong).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leonid,

Doesn't the conceptual level operate from the perceptual level? We can divide them in thought and consider each separately, but in order for the conceptual level to be valid, the relationship of the concept to the percepts which gave rise to them, have to be maintained consciously. To introduce a breach between them, gives rise to floating abstractions and invalid concepts. To understand the role perception lends to the conceptual level should only add to the conviction of the synergistic relationship between them.

As to existence, understanding the role the suffix -ence and -ant play, to understand them is simply to grasp that something exists. Later grasping that attributes, actions, events, etc., too exist, and properly belong to, that is, should be integrated into our ever expanding grasp of existence. In this way, our conceptual grasp of existence is continually augmented by our perception(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream_weaver "Doesn't the conceptual level operate from the perceptual level?" Not necessary. Think about "dog"-if you are a dog -owner you'd think about your own dog. If not, you may imagine some animal which has essential features of dog, but doesn't represent any specific perceptual dog. You can even imagine non-existent animal-like unicorn or flying dragon, or an animal you never saw before, only read its description. Think about higher concepts like capitalism, altruism etc... You don't have any equivalents of such a concepts on perceptual level. Although it is true that concepts are implied in perception, we usually operate with explicit concepts,that is-words."With the exception of proper names, every word we use is a concept that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind". The proper function of concepts is an expanding grasp of existence because concept includes all entities which belong to the same species (all dogs) or genus ( all animals) or existence ( all existents).

In Ayn Rand words:

"A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition. By organizing his perceptual material into concepts, and his concepts into wider and still wider concepts, man is able to grasp and retain, to identify and integrate an unlimited amount of knowledge, a knowledge extending beyond the immediate concretes of any given, immediate moment. In any given moment, concepts enable man to hold in the focus of his conscious awareness much more than his purely perceptual capacity would permit. The range of man’s perceptual awareness—the number of percepts he can deal with at any one time—is limited...He cannot visualize a hundred trees or a distance of ten light-years. It is only his conceptual faculty that makes it possible for him to deal with knowledge of that kind."

“The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,”

The Romantic Manifesto, 17

Since we cannot operate on perceptual level, the situation is quite opposite to that which you've described. Even by referring to concretes we use concepts. Suppose you see a birch tree and this is a percept. But when you refer to it you refer to birch tree, not to this particular birch tree you saw. It will take hours and maybe days to describe the particular birch tree in all details which distinguish it from all other birch trees and even so you won't be able to do so without using concepts. Even if you describe it ostensibly-just point out on it and say-that what I mean, you are using at least 4 concepts.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream_weaver "Doesn't the conceptual level operate from the perceptual level?" Not necessary. Think about "dog"-if you are a dog -owner you'd think about your own dog. If not, you may imagine some animal which has essential features of dog, but doesn't represent any specific perceptual dog.

Yes, this is what measurement omission is about. The concept integrates the perceptually given similarities. In this way, when I encounter another instance of a dog, I recognize it as such, and the new instance gets "added" to the concept as another confirmation as sort of a "This, too, is a dog." It is in this way I can consciously maintain the correlation between the conceptual grasp of "dog" with the perceptually given dogs.

You can even imagine non-existent animal-like unicorn or flying dragon, or an animal you never saw before, only read its description. Think about higher concepts like capitalism, altruism etc... You don't have any equivalents of such a concepts on perceptual level. Although it is true that concepts are implied in perception, we usually operate with explicit concepts,that is-words."With the exception of proper names, every word we use is a concept that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind". The proper function of concepts is an expanding grasp of existence because concept includes all entities which belong to the same species (all dogs) or genus ( all animals) or existence ( all existents).

Rather than tackle capitalism and altruism, can I try "creator". We can form the concept of a "creator" by observing someone create a cake from ingredients, mixing them up, putting them in a cake pan and sticking it in the oven for a period of time. We can observe someone using a brush, dabbing it in paint and applying it to a canvass, becoming a "creator" of a painting. When we abstract from our observations to create our concept of creator, we too, become a "creator" in a sense. We take the material provided by our senses, and "create" a concept from those materials. Understanding this can help understand why the application of "creator" to our metaphysical understanding of "existence" is a stolen concept. Capitalism and altruism have longer, more complex, conceptual chains anchoring them back to the perceptually given, still it is the material from the data of sense which they are validly formed,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents. . . . The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." (ITOE 56)

This quote directly supports the conclusion that Rand held that existence is a first level concept because some of "... every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist" are possible percepts.

No one ever says "I see dog". They say "I see a dog" or "I see the dog" which simultaneously picks out a particular dog and identifies it as a referent of the concept 'dog'. Someone might say "I see deer" when referring to multiple animals that are each a deer (the definite articles 'a' and 'the' are singular and so do not agree with plural sense and usage of 'deer'), but the referent is still to the particular animals perceived in the line of sight not to all deer that exist, have ever existed or will ever exist.

As a proposition "I see a dog" is a perceptual judgement which David Kelley defined as "a conceptual identification of what is perceived." It is recognizing a percept as belonging to a certain type. Perceptual judgment is analyzed in terms of the two parts of the act: reference and predication. The linguistic expression of a perceptual judgment is a statement of the form "x is P". The questions that can be asked are: Why do we believe (predicate) "x is P" but not "x is R"? and Why do we believe (reference) "x is P" and not "y is P"? In the proposition "I see a dog" the reference is the object of "I see" and the predicate is "a dog". The predicate can be a word representing a concept and this never creates the claim or implication that the concept is perceived directly. What is perceived directly is only the object implied by "I see", the focus of one's perceptual faculty.

Systematically comparing terms in pairs will help combat the confusion.

"I see an existent" and "I see existents" differ in that the first predicate is singular and the second predicate is plural, and the number of referents differs.

"I see existents" and "I see existence" again differ in that the first predicate is plural and the second predicate is singular, but both have plural referents.

"I see an existent" and "I see existence" are both singular predicates, but the first referent is singular while the second referent is plural.

The grammatical singularity of 'existence' is because it is a collective noun not because it asserts only one thing exists to be a referent. This is Rand's reduction of the concept of existence to multiple units.

Existence is perceived is exactly the same manner in which an existent is perceived. The only way this could not be true is if it were only possible to perceive one existent at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream_weaver.

Yes, that what I mean when I said that concepts are working in both directions: from percept to concept and from concept to percept. However, since adult humans operate on conceptual level, when the most of concepts already formed or learned via language, the direction is mainly from concept to percept. You mind is constantly running sort of simulation program and compares it with the perceptual input. So you can recognize a dog even if you never saw one, if by that or other way you managed to form a concept of it. And even if interstellar traveler will find some completely alien animal, his mind will try to fit the new percept to the one of already existent concepts (it looks maybe like a cross between dog and crocodile). It is a well known legend that Mezzo-Americans couldn't see Columbus' ships because they hadn't had a concept of ship. They tried to fit the new percept into already existing concepts ( a cloud, giant fish etc...). The bottom line is-as adults we have constant perceptual input which immediately translated into existent concepts, since the conceptual level is the only level we can operate on.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames:"This quote directly supports the conclusion that Rand held that existence is a first level concept "

I don't think so. It simply indicates that concept of "existence" is the second level integration of the concepts of "existent" (A, B, C exist) by omission of A,B, C. The concept designates that whatever exists exists, or in Ayn Rand words " Existence exists".

Even a first level concept has to be formed as " a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.” ( ITOE 97-98) . What such a unit could be? Every entity which has a characteristic of existence when all other characteristics are omitted. Integration of such units by the common denominator would create the concept of "existent" Ayn Rand clearly differentiated between concepts of "existent" and "existence". While " existence "is an axiomatic concept, "existent " is not. This concept simply designates that A, B, C...exist. Although such a concept is implicit in every percept ( like all primary concepts), explicitly such a concept could be grasped only on conceptual level. Existence, however, is much more complicated concept since it includes not only observable existents but everything at all including all other concepts, memories, feeling etc...and not only at present but also in future and past. Evidently such a concept cannot be a first level concept, to form it one has to integrate the fact that all other things, concepts, time, mental content exist. Such an integration could be done only via concept of " existent".

"As a proposition "I see a dog" is a perceptual judgement which David Kelley defined as "a conceptual identification of what is perceived."

Once you invoke conceptual identification you operate on conceptual level, on which that or this particular dog doesn't exist. When you say " I was bitten by a dog" the particular characteristic of a dog is not relevant. When you use a word " dog" you use a concept which designates all dogs in existence. So strictly speaking you cannot see a dog, since concept is a mental content. Properly, one should say I have a perceptual input which I conceptually identify as a dog .For the same reason one cannot say " I see existence" since such a concept designates everything- physical and mental, past, present and future which are outside of the scope of perception. The very function of concept is to take you out of very limited scope of perception. As Ayn Rand observed-one cannot directly perceive a distance of ten light years, but by creating a concept of distance one can easily deal with it and measure it.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...