Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Discussing Metaphysical Priority

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think you're totally missing the point. Your words are imprecise and you throw a quote at me as though it reveals my error. Sorry, but it doesn't help anyone. The word metaphysical is very unwieldy. Yes what an entity IS is a metaphysical fact. It is by nature that way regardless of HOW I seek to understand it. In your quote, it says "the priority is both cognitive and metaphysical". What I'm trying to say is that even if there is a metaphysical fact, there is no "official ordering". No metaphysical ordering. I don't know if Rand means that there are metaphysical facts about entities making no entity metaphysically equal to another, which means there is a metaphysical fact that entities are related differently. Or it might mean there really is a metaphysical priority of concepts that can, for example, suggest that a thing being firewood is in all cases less important than an entity being a chair. The latter interpretation is pretty Platonic. The first one makes more sense to me.

 

Take a table made out of wood. I bought it in order to make firewood. What is it primarily? Firewood or a table? It IS both, but which is it primarily? Depends what you choose to focus on.

 

MOD NOTE: SPLIT FROM HERE

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie said:
 

I think you're totally missing the point. Your words are imprecise and you throw a quote at me as though it reveals my error. Sorry, but it doesn't help anyone.

 
From prior experience I know unless I quote a chapter title saying the exact opposite of what your saying you will not be effected by direct quotes at all. Quote me using imprecise language and back up this arbitrary assertion.
 
For others:
 

Prof. F: I have a fundamental question about the hierarchy of concepts. On page 22 you say, "The meaning of 'furniture' cannot be grasped unless one has first grasped the meaning of its constituent concepts; these are its link to reality." Now, what about the meaning of "table": can we say that the meaning of "table" cannot be grasped unless one has first grasped the meaning of "dining table," "conference table," "writing table," and so forth? Are these its constituent concepts? Or is the concept "table" a kind of privileged concept that comes at a kind of absolute bottom in the hierarchy of concepts and has a direct relationship to reality?
Or would you say that where a concept comes is determined by the context of one's own learning?
For instance, might a person form the concept of "furniture" without having formed the concept of "table" before? Might he form the concept of "living being" before he has formed the concept of "animal"?
AR: In a sense, yes. There is a big problem here, however, whether this applies all the way through the conceptual chainwhich I would claim cannot be the case. But, on the level we are discussing, there is a certain element of the optional. Because when you first form your concepts, you might conceivably first form in a very loose way the <ioe2_205> concepts "living entity" versus "inanimate object," and later subdivide into "man," "animals," "plants," etc. (and "tables," "rocks," "houses," on the other hand). In a loose way, that can be done, but only up to a certain level. Because, suppose you started with the concept "living being." You would then find that that is too generalized a category, and you would have to say, in effect, "By living beings l mean men, animals, and plants."
Therefore, understanding what your original semi-concept "living being" meant would depend on what you mean by the constituents, such as "man," "animal," and "plant."
What then is the ultimate determinant here? What I call the "first level" of concepts are existential concretes—that to which you can point as if it were an ostensive definition and say: "I mean this." Now, you can point to a table. You cannot point to furniture. You have to say, "By furniture I mean ..." and you would have to include all kinds of objects.
Prof. F: Why wouldn't one have an equal difficulty when one came, let's say, to the concept of "bird"? Why wouldn't one have to say, "By bird, I mean eagles, penguins, and hummingbirds"?
AR: Because, in fact, one doesn't. And that is the difference between subcategories of concepts and first-level concepts. Because, you see, you could not arrive at the differences between eagles, hummingbirds, etc., unless you had first separated birds from other animals.
Even if chronologically you may learn those concepts in different orders, ultimately when you organize your concepts to determine which are basic-level concepts and which are derivatives (in both directions, wider integration or narrower subdivision), the test will be: which objects you perceive directly in reality and can point to, and which you have to differentiate by means of other concepts.
Prof. F: Then you are suggesting that metaphysically there are certain lowest species or infima species: certain concepts that are directly tied to concretes. Whereas, on top of them, <ioe2_206> we continually build higher-order concepts, which refer, in turn, to the lower.
AR: Yes, if you mean, by "metaphysical," existential objects—entities which exist qua entities.

 

ITOE

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you rephrase? I don't know what you are trying to say.

The original post which you responded to was about whether a certain entity is primarily a "table" or primarily "firewood".  The question is essentially whether some attributes are more important, to any entity "out there", than others are.  So when Louie said 'Objectivism rejects that' he was saying (I think) that Rand rejected Aristotle's metaphysical essences.

 

His use of the word "metaphysical" contradicts that, so it was probably poorly chosen.  The content of his post was valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison said:

His use of the word "metaphysical" contradicts that, so it was probably poorly chosen. The content of his post was valid.

Well, recall I said that he has said the same thing about metaphysical priority before and that he responded to my statements here with direct rejection of what is clearly claimed by Ms. Rand about metaphysical primaries. There are two different issues relevant to his post. One is the contextual nature of essence and I am not challenging that. The other is his blending of the optional aspects of higher abstractions with the idea that all hierarchy is subject to the specialized context of the observer in such a way that all hierarchy is optional.

There is epistemological priority and contrary to what is sometimes held as an absolute, Oism holds to a metaphysical priority. And I don't mean that the subject of study simply has a "heuristic device" that is a convenient theoretical tool, but that the Primacy of Consciousness is making a claim about mind independent facts (the point of an objective ontology) And that I've proven. Castor is right to suspect that Ms. Rand would reject the idea that all epistemological hierarchy is optional in the way presented in this thread.

My point here is to counter the notion that hierarchy is completely unrestrained by absolute metaphysically given facts as opposed to simply man made facts.

HD said

The question is essentially whether some attributes are more important, to any entity "out there", than others are.

Well, minus the "important" and make it fundamental and the answer is yes:

ITOE said:

metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible

HD said:

The original post which you responded to was about whether a certain entity is primarily a "table" or primarily "firewood".

Yes, that is one of the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From prior experience I know unless I quote a chapter title saying the exact opposite of what your saying you will not be effected by direct quotes at all. Quote me using imprecise language and back up this arbitrary assertion.

Stop quote bombing with ITOE! How is that supposed to be an argument? Tell me specifically how your quote indicates that I am wrong. That quote is about conceptual development, which still has rules about it that aren't man-made, not a metaphysical ontological organization. I've stated no contradiction. To repeat what I do agree with as I understand:  there are metaphysical facts about entities making no entity metaphysically equal to another, which means there is a metaphysical fact that entities are related differently. The last part of your quote is what I mean, including Rand's caveat about the word metaphysical.

 

The imprecise, or rather totally unexplained, language is quote bombing, using ontology in an apparently unique way, What does this line even mean? "The Primacy of existence is the ontological principle that is the representation of the universally absolute fact that is existence itself !"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two different issues relevant to his post. One is the contextual nature of essence and I am not challenging that. The other is his blending of the optional aspects of higher abstractions with the idea that all hierarchy is subject to the specialized context of the observer in such a way that all hierarchy is optional.

So some aspects of conceptualization depend on how you look at things (they're optional) while others depend on the facts of reality, itself.

So, for example, one could either think of America's founding fathers as proponents of "capitalism" or "democracy", and both would be valid (though not necessarily of equal importance); both would be true.  But one could not think of the founding fathers as "men" or "not men" interchangeably, so that part is not optional.

 

Would that be an accurate summary of it?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD asked:

My first question is whether that's an accurate representation of your position. If so, then my second is whether all of the non-optional parts might boil down to the recognition of the fact that entities are the only primary existents?

Sounds about right. But to be fair I'm still fleshing out the edges.

Edit: looks like you edited your post while I was composing mine.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: looks like you edited your post while I was composing mine.

Sorry about that.  Less than two minutes after I posted it I realized that it seemed much less related to primary existents, and much closer to plain non-contradiction along with the fact that an entity is everything which it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding she is characterising certain concepts, i.e. labelling them, as metaphysically "first level" concepts, meaning that those particular concepts have referents which are not other concepts in a chain of higher to lower concepts which eventually refer to the existents, but which directly refer to existents (although not necessarily a specific concrete one).

 

So "individual person" would be a "metaphysically first-level concept" whereas "politics" or "philosophy" are concepts which are not "metaphysically first-level concepts".

 

At first I thought the terms "metaphysically primary" and "metaphysical hierarchy" as used by the members here were implying characteristics in reality of entities themselves. i.e. that the members were asserting the existence of some mystical or intrinsic ordering in reality itself, which of course would be rationalism akin to Platonism.   

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand was explaining to Prof F. how, per Objectivist Epistemology, a person goes from an observation of a concrete (say, the bodily needs of an individual) to an abstract concept (such as free market capitalism) and stressing that you cannot just jump to the "higher" level concept without understanding how you "got" there.  Other philosophies that Prof. F. would be familiar with would deny that there is an objective link.

 

Discussions of hierarchy (higher/lower concepts) are only really relevant in the context of explaining concept formation.  The hierarch is not ontological in an Platonic/Aristotelian sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate a bit on two points?

 

From my understanding she is characterising certain concepts, i.e. labelling them, as metaphysically "first level" concepts, meaning that those particular concepts have referents which are not other concepts in a chain of higher to lower concepts which eventually refer to the existents, but which directly refer to existents (although not necessarily a specific concrete one).

 

...   

 

My understanding is that existents are/were a concrete form of reality, as opposed to something imagined or accepted without proof.  When you say, "not a specific concrete", can you give an example of one?

 

...

 

At first I thought the terms "metaphysically primary" and "metaphysical hierarchy" as used by the members here were implying characteristics in reality of entities themselves. i.e. that the members were asserting the existence of some mystical or intrinsic ordering in reality itself, which of course would be rationalism akin to Platonism.   

 

I'm familiar with the mystical ordering of reality, but I'm wonder if you'd consider predators and prey as an intrinsic ordering in reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with the mystical ordering of reality, but I'm wonder if you'd consider predators and prey as an intrinsic ordering in reality?

Predator and prey is a matter of perspective/context, and thus epistemological - not ontological.  Even predators are prey at some point.  A fox eats a mole and a mole eats an earthworm and an earthworm eats what ever the heck an earthworm eats.  Probably the dead carcass of the fox.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in this thread thinks that the primacy of existence is simply designating an epistemological fact?

By epistemic, are you implying that it is simply subjective and arbitrary and an artifact of the mind?  (I know, of course, that you are not...)

 

But the concept "primacy of existence" is an abstraction.  It's something that you apprehend conceptually -- not something that you perceive directly as a concrete.  In this sense it is epistemic (as is essence) and not "ontological". 

 

I've been reading a bit of Aquinas lately, and to him, form is a non-material, ontological quality created by God and apprehended by man through the application of divine science.  The use of the word "ontological" is problematic in Objectivism because of it's historical baggage.  It's also not really necessary (IMHO).

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in this thread thinks that the primacy of existence is simply designating an epistemological fact?

What do you mean? Seriously, I don't understand. What would "simply" designating an epistemological fact mean? By epistemological fact, do you mean man-made as opposed to metaphysical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predator and prey is a matter of perspective/context, and thus epistemological - not ontological.  Even predators are prey at some point.  A fox eats a mole and a mole eats an earthworm and an earthworm eats what ever the heck an earthworm eats.  Probably the dead carcass of the fox.

 

OK, well setting aside carrion eaters, which hardly fits the role of a predator, moles and earthworms don't prey on foxes.  Rather, there appears to be an intrinsic ordering of predation in their relationship, e.g. foxes > moles > earthworms > dirt?

No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate a bit on two points?

 

 

My understanding is that existents are/were a concrete form of reality, as opposed to something imagined or accepted without proof.  When you say, "not a specific concrete", can you give an example of one?

 

 

I'm familiar with the mystical ordering of reality, but I'm wonder if you'd consider predators and prey as an intrinsic ordering in reality?

 

Q1:  The concept "individual" does not only mean i.e. is not limited to, as referents which are valid, concrete existing individuals... i.e. people alive now.  The concept "individual" includes all people who ever lived, all people who will or may ever live, even fictitious people (as long as they comply with the definition of individual), hypothetical people, etc.  The concept is not limited to specific concretes, the way "people in this room" (were there a specific word for that) would be limited. 

 

Q2: Ordering presupposes an "orderer".  Relationships exist amongst existents but "ordering" is over and above mere existence.  Predators eat prey.  Prey feed predators.  These facts do not form a hierarchy or an ordering but there are relationships and causality. 

 

By hierarchy I assume what is meant is something akin to importance or primacy as a qualification of the state of existence itself ... i.e. the claim would be that A exists MORE than B or A's existence is metaphysically more important than B's existence or Metaphysically more primary than B's existence.

 

A and B exist.  There are relationships between A and B. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in this thread thinks that the primacy of existence is simply designating an epistemological fact?

 

The "primacy of existence", when used to mean that man's consciousness serves to understand/identify etc. existence and does not serve to create or give rise to existence (this is not a statement about man's ability to will his physical appendages to act... which is a separate issue)  I would take to designate a fact of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "primacy of existence", when used to mean that man's consciousness serves to understand/identify etc. existence and does not serve to create or give rise to existence (this is not a statement about man's ability to will his physical appendages to act... which is a separate issue)  I would take to designate a fact of reality.

 

Just to make double sure, you mean metaphysically given fact, as opposed to a man made fact, right?

 

Edit:

 

SL said:

 

Q2: Ordering presupposes an "orderer".  Relationships exist amongst existents but "ordering" is over and above mere existence.  Predators eat prey.  Prey feed predators.  These facts do not form a hierarchy or an ordering but there are relationships and causality. 

 

By hierarchy I assume what is meant is something akin to importance or primacy as a qualification of the state of existence itself ... i.e. the claim would be that A exists MORE than B or A's existence is metaphysically more important than B's existence or Metaphysically more primary than B's existence.

 

A and B exist.  There are relationships between A and B. That's it.

 

 

 

I have something important to add to this but will wait for your clarification... 

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes

No one ever even suggested primacy of existence is "simply" man-made. You may use "epistemological" and "man-made" interchangeably, but no one else is. They're not the same. "Epistemological fact" doesn't even make sense, that sounds like you're saying that some knowledge exists "outside" minds. Any fact is metaphysically true, even if man-made. But I've never seen such a distinction between metaphysical facts and CREATING facts except for Kant and Logical Positivists, although they just said "analytic" and "synthetic" instead. Rand only ever distinguished facts in terms of the referents, not really a fact itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1:  The concept "individual" does not only mean i.e. is not limited to, as referents which are valid, concrete existing individuals... i.e. people alive now.  The concept "individual" includes all people who ever lived, all people who will or may ever live, even fictitious people (as long as they comply with the definition of individual), hypothetical people, etc.  The concept is not limited to specific concretes, the way "people in this room" (were there a specific word for that) would be limited. 

...

 

I'm primarily interested in your description of the relationship between "first level" concepts and existents.  Aren't all existents necessarily valid concretes, e.g., real forms of matter known to have existed or that currently exist?  And if this is the case, aren't all "first level" concepts that refer to existents, necessarily limited to these same real forms of matter (concrete)??

 

... 

 

Q2: Ordering presupposes an "orderer".  Relationships exist amongst existents but "ordering" is over and above mere existence.  Predators eat prey.  Prey feed predators.  These facts do not form a hierarchy or an ordering but there are relationships and causality. 

 

By hierarchy I assume what is meant is something akin to importance or primacy as a qualification of the state of existence itself ... i.e. the claim would be that A exists MORE than B or A's existence is metaphysically more important than B's existence or Metaphysically more primary than B's existence.

 

A and B exist.  There are relationships between A and B. That's it.

 

At this point I'm thinking more of a food chain, which appears to be ordered according to the nature of the participants, i.e., intrinsically.  In such an example a "metaphysically primary" would be found at the lowest end of the chain, and a "metaphysical hierarchy" would refer to the upper links.  All the participants exist and there are identifyible patterns of relationships between them.

 

Are you saying that the perception of order in relationships, resulting from the nature of the participants, doesn't posit intrinsic ordering in reality itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't all existents necessarily valid concretes, e.g., real forms of matter known to have existed or that currently exist?  And if this is the case, aren't all "first level" concepts that refer to existents, necessarily limited to these same real forms of matter (concrete)??

 

The concept 'table' does not only refer to tables that exist but every table that ever existed and any table that will ever exist. It's universal...

 

Aaaaand this was my sneaky way of subscribing to the thread. :fool:

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...