Discussing Metaphysical Priority

[Harrison Danneskjold]

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

I don't think anyone genuinely thinks that the PoE is simply a matter of personal preference (which seems to be the gist of your question); even the most devout mystic will not attempt to wish away an oncoming bus.

Sure, tons of people say that you can get stuff done through prayer/meditation/witchcraft, but I don't think it can be said honestly.

 

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?

Nobody's talking about the Matrix here, either.  Observed relationships do, in fact, imply actual relationships.  You're right.

I think (?) that what SL means by an "intrinsic ordering in reality" is something like the analytic-synthetic dichotomy; the humorous assertion that certain knowledge is a different, and more important type of thing than other knowledge- regardless of the knower.

---

 

I do think that axioms, and things like the PoE, are more important than other sorts of knowledge (and a different type of knowledge), but specifically because of my mind and the nature of my knowledge.

Outside of the context of my mind, your mind or somebody else's mind, there's no such thing as a "primacy," existential or otherwise.  There are only existents.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Plasmatic]

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.

 

First, I asked  a question, if I knew what others thought I wouldn't ask!  Second, I have not claimed anywhere that ""epistemological" and "man-made" are interchangeable as though there is no difference. All epistemological facts are man-made but not all man-made facts are epistemological. However, all man-made facts are a consequence of volition. Both Rand and Searle understand the difference between ontologically objective and epistemologically objective how how they relate to the observer relative. 

 

EDIT:

For example, from ch. 6 of ITOE:

 

This gives us a lead to another special aspect of axiomatic concepts: although they designate a fundamental metaphysical fact, axiomatic concepts are the products of an epistemological need—the need of a volitional, conceptual consciousness which is capable of error and doubt.

 

 

Louie said:

"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.

 

Since we all know you claimed to have read ITOE, I suggest you throw away your copy and buy one that contains the section in the appendix labeled "Fact", wherein you will find Ms. Rand saying that " "Fact" is merely an epistemological convenience". And then go and read where she goes on to agree with Prof B about how the concept "fact" relates to the Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made section of PWNI.

 

In fact, here it is for you to read someone else besides Kant and the Positivist saying this

 

Prof. B: Is "fact" a concept like "necessity" in the following respect? The referent of "necessity" is the same in a sense as the referent of "identity"; but "necessity" is a concept which comes much later in the hierarchy and derives from our particular form of consciousness [i.e., from its volitional nature—see "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," in Philosophy: Who Needs It]. It is a concept we need to distinguish things outside our control from things in our control.

AR: Correct.

ITOE appendix

 

You are equivocating "fact" with "concrete".....If Ms. Rand didn't recognize epistemological facts why would it be necessary even to qualify "metaphysical fact" in so many places in Oist literature instead of just saying "fact"?

 

 

Oh, and lets deal with this "quote bombing" issue. 

 

Louie said:

 

Stop quote bombing with ITOE! How is that supposed to be an argument?

 

First. let me explain something to you, "read carefully". Unless you are acting as a moderator and I am breaking a rule, don't ever tell me what to do. You'll just be wasting your breath.... I have asked another moderator if I have broken a rule by quoting and they said they did not see how that would be the case here. IF you are acting as a moderator you should make that clear when you are.

 

Second, I specifically said that the quote was "For others" and not you, so you could not be being "bombed".

 

Third, in any issue that involves an "argument" about whether or not Ms. Rand held a certain premise there is only one way to resolve it and that is to quote her saying it!  Otherwise, it is just a "yes, she did" and "no, she didn't" circle that doesn't get resolved. I always quote only enough to not be accused of dropping context-selective quoting  and I always cite the source.

 

 

It is necessary that before one can become a good teacher they must be a good student...Maybe try looking up what you are claiming about Oism before posting.

 

 

I am working on a post that will address the issue of metaphysical primacy and why it is absolutely related to the thread this one was split from.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

 

First, I asked  a question, if I knew what others thought I wouldn't ask!  Second, I have not claimed anywhere that ""epistemological" and "man-made" are interchangeable as though there is no difference. All epistemological facts are man-made but not all man-made facts are epistemological. However, all man-made facts are a consequence of volition. Both Rand and Searle understand the difference between ontologically objective and epistemologically objective how how they relate to the observer relative. 

You said an epistemological fact IS the same as a man-made fact by answering yes to my question... Now you're saying it ISN'T the same. So I ask again: What is an epistemological fact? What does ontologically objective mean? What does Searle have to do with this? All this to say: I don't understand your post.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Eiuol

[Plasmatic]

You said an epistemological fact IS the same as a man-made fact by answering yes to my question... Now you're saying it ISN'T the same. So I ask again: What is an epistemological fact? What does ontologically objective mean? What does Searle have to do with this? All this to say: I don't understand your post.

 

No, I didn't say they were the "same" and you just quoted me explaining that they aren't identical, as in,  I never said there is "no difference". Epistemological facts are a species of man made facts, but not all man made facts are epistemological. A sky scraper is a fact "created" by man, that is, a man-made fact....

 

Ontologically objective means not subject to or dependent on consciousness. Epistemological fact means dependent on a conceptual consciousness, that is, if there where no conceptual consciousness' left there would be no more epistemological facts left. While skyscrapers would not exist if man didn't have a conceptual consciousness, they would remain if all conceptual consciousness' ceased to be. Ms. Rand differentiates between the species "physical" and "psychological" facts within the genus of "man-made".

 

 

 

 

[StrictlyLogical]

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

 

Edit:

 

SL said:

 

 

 

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

 

The specific thing I said about consciousness not creating reality etc. is a metaphysically given fact. 

[StrictlyLogical]

Plasmatic:

 

For background and for consistent definition/understanding what do we take facts as such to be?

 

 

Premises:  A "statement of fact" has as a referent something in reality.  We can have knowledge of/about statements and about reality.

 

 

What is the referent of the concept "fact" (as such) according to Objectivism?

 

I.e. If I simply and baldly say "A fact according to Objectivism IS x"  (here there are no modifiers as to "type" or species or particular fact, what is meant is the broadest concept subsuming anything which validly should be considered "a fact")  Can you expand x?

 

 

Eiuol, if you can answer this according to your understanding of Objectivism that would also be appreciated.

[Eiuol]

No, I didn't say they were the "same" and you just quoted me explaining that they aren't identical, as in,  I never said there is "no difference". Epistemological facts are a species of man made facts, but not all man made facts are epistemological. A sky scraper is a fact "created" by man, that is, a man-made fact....

Then the answer was "no", not "yes". You didn't say same, but saying yes to "do you mean man-made fact" means it is the same... Serious question, is English your second language? Often it seems like disagreement with you are only differences of language use. Also I see you get where/were their/they're your/you're wrong - consistently, not just as typos.

Anyway, why say "ontologically" objective instead of objective? Ontological usually implies a specific hierarchy and is more specific than metaphysical. It makes more sense to simply say metaphysical. No fact is independent of consciousness, in terms of recognition at least - an epistemological convenience. What is independent is the truth of the fact, even man-made facts are true independent of consciousness, that's why Rand made a distinction in terms of volitional control instead of truth type (there are not types of truth). Even more, the distinction of epistemological fact is not needed, since any fact is necessarily the case. A skyscraper existing is a man-made fact, but it is necessarily the case that it exists, has a height, has a width, etc. The only way I can get epistemological fact to make sense is as a synthetic truth precisely because it seems to me that you're evaluating truth type.

To be clear, I am agreeing completely with the Objectivist view. Usually I am clear when I'm disagreeing with the Oist view, and if I don't mention disagreement, I am in agreement. My overall point here is the same as SL's post #19. Nothing exists "more" than something else. A metaphysical priority only really makes sense in terms of relationships among entities, but there is no absolute Order to concepts; and entities in an order is a question of epistemology. An atom for instance isn't more or less real than a basketball, but we can identify how these entities relate in metaphysical terms, such as basketballs are made of atoms, or both entities exist no matter what I say, i.e. primacy of existence. Priority applies here in the sense primacy of existence is needed to determine anything as true or real.

[StrictlyLogical]

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)??

 

 

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?

 

DA

 

CriticalThinker2000 answered your first question, and Eiuol answered your second but I have more to add on your second.

 

Entities exist, and yes there are patterns of relationships between them.  But nothing has more ISness simply by virtue of those relationships.  One thing is larger than another, one is to the left of another, one thing is hotter than another, these are facts.  There is no metaphysical ordinal or primacy  or hierarchy, nothing has more BEING than another thing.  They are as they are, when they are. 

 

Again, a food chain is a fact of reality with causal spatio-temporal links amongst its parts.  But why bother with such an example?  Take a look at a pyramid of gold (just spatial relationships).  We can identify bits near the top and bits near the bottom.  Is the reality (as such) of the bits at the top more important to reality?  Do they possess more ISness than the bits at the bottom?

 

By what possible standard of reality itself (i.e. from the view of a non-mystical reality, i.e. metaphysically) could anything be more important in reality or exist more in reality?  No such standard exists, and to attribute one to reality IS an example of intrinsicism/mysticism. 

 

NOTE:  The discussion is about ordering in the sense of hierarchy, ranking, importance, primacy etc.  This is to be distinguished from "order" that exists in reality.  A row of billiard balls metaphysically is ordered in the sense that the locations are orderly, i.e. fall within a straight line, and have a sequence.  This kind of order which exists (in the sense that the balls all have their positions and in reality the relationships of "closeness" vary and exist) is not the kind of order being discussed, better described as metaphysical primacy or metaphysical ranking, which does not exist.

Edited August 12, 2014 by StrictlyLogical

[StrictlyLogical]

PS - The same can be said for causation and constituency.  Metaphysical entities A may cause B or Metaphysical entity B may consist of entities A but that only means A cause B, or A make B possible, or A form B. But A do not outrank or have primacy over B.

[New Buddha]

Historically, especially in Scholasticism, ontological concerns were aimed at understanding the nature of being:  Mineral, Vegetative, Animal, Man, Angels, Christ, Holy Ghost.... these were seen as distinct, qualitatively different forms of being.   Great arguments were had over "where" Christ was in the hierarchy (above or below Angles?) or was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost one thing, or three?  Did sacramental wine truly turn into the blood of Christ?  Your life often depended on how you answered these questions.  Darwin, and later geneticist, upset the apple cart by saying that speciation was driven not by God but rather, non-supernatural means, and that all life forms share a common ancestor.  This was a major "ontological' shake up.

 

Rand's Razor is that concepts ought not be multiplied beyond necessity.  She rarely discussed ontology - and her use of the term metaphysics was very limited and also very distinct from that of other philosophies.

 

Objectivism is not concerned with Truth! and Ultimate Reality!

 

Objectivist epistemology says that an individual, based on evidence provided by his senses, and through the application of reason, non-contradiction and non-evasion, is capable of obtaining objectively knowledge.  That's pretty much it.  It doesn't' say that you will at some point be omniscient or infallible or will reach a point where there is nothing more to learned or no new light can be shed on an old subject.

 

There is no qualitative difference between an objective thought held by a six year old and an objective thought held by a 50 year old - so long as they are both objectively integrated into the sum of knowledge available to each individual at the time.  The sum of one's knowledge is roughly the equivalent of a scholastic's divine ontological order.   

Edited August 12, 2014 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

StrictlyLogical,

 

Would it be correct to say that existents are metaphysical givens, and that 1st level concepts are only valid (true) when they refer to existents?

 

And that metaphysical primacy and metaphysical ranking contradicts A=A in the sense that metaphysical givens simply are what they are, independent of evaluation??

[Plasmatic]

SL said:
 

By what possible standard of reality itself (i.e. from the view of a non-mystical reality, i.e. metaphysically) could anything be more important in reality or exist more in reality?  No such standard exists, and to attribute one to reality IS an example of intrinsicism/mysticism. 
 
NOTE:  The discussion is about ordering in the sense of hierarchy, ranking, importance, primacy etc.  This is to be distinguished from "order" that exists in reality.  A row of billiard balls metaphysically is ordered in the sense that the locations are orderly, i.e. fall within a straight line, and have a sequence.  This kind of order which exists (in the sense that the balls all have their positions and in reality the relationships of "closeness" vary and exist) is not the kind of order being discussed, better described as metaphysical primacy or metaphysical ranking, which does not exist.

 
This is exactly what my distinction is in fact about. Notice, I have repeatedly rejected the notion that the sense of primacy-priority is about "importance". The ontological distinction Oism makes about the Primacy Of Existence is about causal chains not about levels of existence or importance. When Ms. Rand says that an entity has characteristics that are more fundamental or that consciousness is a "dependent"  She is answering the question "What had to come first?", not "what exists more or less?", or "what is more important?".
 
Notice, that when the axiom of the Primacy of Existence is introduced it is stated as synonymous with "existence exist" and then immediately a discussion of causal chains begins.   
 

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the <arl_178> notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness)......To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition

from Philosophy: Who Needs It?
 
In metaphysics the answer to the question, "What comes first, existence or non existence?" is "Existence exist. Existence cannot come from non-existence".
 
To the question, "what comes first entities or attributes?" is "entities are their attributes, therefore there never was a time when redness existed before the entity which is red"  So, the answer to the question, "which comes first entities or consciousness?" is "Entities are the only primary existents and while there may have been a time when consciousness didn't exist and there may be a time when there are no more conscious entities there never was or will be a time when there are no entities."
 
In the sense of fundamentality of characteristics, the answer to the question. "which comes first walking or legs" is "function follows form". 
 
In ethics, the answer to the question, "What comes first, self or others?" is "Self, because groups are groups of individuals and life comes first, or, is the cause of value."
 
Notice, right after the above section in PWNI Ms. Rand starts talking about what is "impossible" without that "by means of which" something else comes to be the case.
 

 

For example, two hundred years ago, men would have said that it is impossible to hear a human voice at a distance of 238,000 miles. It is as impossible today as it was then. But if we are able to hear an astronaut's voice coming from the moon, it is by means of the science of electronics, which discovered certain natural phenomena and enabled men to build the kind of equipment that picks up the vibrations of that voice, transmits them, and reproduces them on earth. Without this knowledge and this <arl_179> equipment, centuries of wishing, praying, screaming and foot-stamping would not make a man's voice heard at the distance of ten miles

 

 

Consciousness exists by means of the entity which has the form, by means of which, consciousness is caused. Mind is not over matter because mind is caused by matter.

 

Only concrete entities have independent existence, that is,  entities are causal primaries.

 

Nothing about this has anything to do with imputing a teleological concept of method like "evaluation" to mind independent existence...

 

I will relate this to the thread this discussion was taken from in a bit.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

What is the referent of the concept "fact" (as such) according to Objectivism?

A "fact" is a certain relation between any two existents (entities, attributes, etc.) in reality.

It is a "fact" that red is not blue.*  My own statement, that "red is not blue", demonstrates my knowledge of that fact.

 

*Every observation necessitates an observer of a certain nature, and objectivity requires that we consider all "facts" within this context.  For example, "red is not blue" should automatically be appended "red is not blue to my own eyes";** within that context this fact is always and absolutely true.

 

**Questions about whether anything is ever truly universal within that context, are not strictly fallacious; only utterly pointless.  One should not pursue "truth" in order to make the world agree with oneself; one should pursue "truth" to inform one's choices and actions, for the furtherance of one's own life.  Whether "red is not blue" to anyone else's eyes in the world is simply irrelevant.

[Plasmatic]

Harrison said:

 

 

**Questions about whether anything is ever truly universal within that context, are not strictly fallacious; only utterly pointless. 

 

This is exactly the antithesis of the Oist tenet that the axioms are the foundation and precondition to any context and the reason for the original Rand's Razor..

Edited August 12, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Harrison said:

 

 

This is exactly the antithesis of the Oist tenet that the axioms are the foundation and precondition to any context and the reason for the original Rand's Razor..

 

I'm sorry; I wasn't aware that the existence of colorblind people on Earth would pose some significant challenge to Oist epistemology.

 

---Edit:

 

"Whether anything is ever truly universal" implies that the sum of everything is fair game.  Should read "whether any particular thing is truly universal."

 

And if it's still the "antithesis" of Objectivist epistemology, given that caveat, then I would truly appreciate it if you would explain why.

[Plasmatic]

Louie said:
 

Then the answer was "no", not "yes". You didn't say same, but saying yes to "do you mean man-made fact" means it is the same...

 
No, the answer to your request for clarification to my question is dependent on whether or not your response to my question asking, if the POE is a "man-made fact", will satisfy the conditions set by my intention in asking the question. That is, since all epistemological facts are man-made, your answer to the question, "is the primacy of consciousness simply a man made fact?" will satisfy my reason for asking, regardless of the fact that there are man-made facts that are physical.
 
If you asked me, "does your wife have DD's" and I asked, "real or synthetic?" and you answered, "either", a yes answer from me is true regardless of the fact that my wife's DD's are saline or silicone because the conditions that satisfy the answer obtain regardless of what they are made of given that the standard is size not material...
 

Serious question, is English your second language? Often it seems like disagreement with you are only differences of language use. Also I see you get where/were their/they're your/you're wrong - consistently, not just as typos.

Yeah, because a consistent typo tendency is a ridiculous idea.....
 
I have a horrible time typing. I am one of those people who often need to write a word to see if it is spelled correctly and to make matters worse I type so slow that my connection to the grammar and spelling often gets disconnected for trying to focus on getting what I mean out of my head as fast as I can think.
 
Serious question, are you a linguistic analyst? Because it is often the case that you are stuffing strawmen with irrelevant differences of symbols as opposed to context... 
 
For example:
 

Louie said:
 
Anyway, why say "ontologically" objective instead of objective? Ontological usually implies a specific hierarchy and is more specific than metaphysical. It makes more sense to simply say metaphysical. No fact is independent of consciousness, in terms of recognition at least - an epistemological convenience.

 
"Usually implies" is the real problem here. You have made objections to non existent problems because you have made assumptions based simply on connotation instead of context. I am the one who "set the terms" because I asked the question and or made the statements you are responding to. The distinction, "metaphysically given fact", is the result of the "recognition" that there are things not caused by consciousness that exist.
 
louie said:
 

What is independent is the truth of the fact, even man-made facts are true independent of consciousness, that's why Rand made a distinction in terms of volitional control instead of truth type (there are not types of truth). Even more, the distinction of epistemological fact is not needed, since any fact is necessarily the case. A skyscraper existing is a man-made fact, but it is necessarily the case that it exists, has a height, has a width, etc. The only way I can get epistemological fact to make sense is as a synthetic truth precisely because it seems to me that you're evaluating truth type.

 
 
ITOE said:
 

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.

 

Propositions are true are false....Try again?

 

 

 

louie said:

 

 

To be clear, I am agreeing completely with the Objectivist view. Usually I am clear when I'm disagreeing with the Oist view, and if I don't mention disagreement, I am in agreement. My overall point here is the same as SL's post #19.

 

In order to agree with Oist tenets you have to first understand them. One cannot state a disagreement with what they do not understand because understanding is causally prior to agreement....  .

 

Louie said:

 

 

 Nothing exists "more" than something else. A metaphysical priority only really makes sense in terms of relationships among entities, but there is no absolute Order to concepts; and entities in an order is a question of epistemology. An atom for instance isn't more or less real than a basketball, but we can identify how these entities relate in metaphysical terms, such as basketballs are made of atoms, or both entities exist no matter what I say, i.e. primacy of existence. Priority applies here in the sense primacy of existence is needed to determine anything as true or real.

 

 You are equivocating two different senses of priority as well as causal chains with teleological measurements... The exact issue that brought all this up is the false belief that there is "no absolute order to concepts". This is a consequence of not understanding the difference between the optional and the mandatory parts of epistemological hierarchy.

 

The logical hierarchy of knowledge is determined by metaphysically-given facts! This is precisely what it means for Dr. Peikoff to say in the 1976 lectures that Oism holds an "ontological view of logic".

 

I will explain this in detail in a bit.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Plasmatic

[New Buddha]

"All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved.

 

It's important to note that Rand specifically uses the term "identities of the elements" and not "identities of forms".

 

The boundaries of directly perceived "forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions" are established by our automated, perceptual mechanisms.  And because humans are visually biased, we tend to believe that the way a thing looks (its visual form) is somehow fundamental to it's identity and what establishes it as a "concrete existent".  However, the way a car sounds, smells or feels is every bit fundamental as how it looks.  And nothing - the seats, color wheels, tire, windshield, motor, sound, color, the smell of it's gasoline or motor oil - is more "car" than any other part.

 

Every "thing" is constantly going undergoing "combinations and dissolutions" (even atomic elements).  Some "things" change slowly - and we tend to think of them as "the" concrete existents.  But a sound, touch, scent is a concrete existent no different than a photon on the retina.

Edited August 12, 2014 by New Buddha

[Plasmatic]

Buddha said:

 

 

It's important to note that Rand specifically uses the term "identities of the elements" and not "identities of forms".

 

 

Are you proposing that Ms. Rand was using "element" in the fundamental constituent sense?

 

 

Buddha said:

 

 

The boundaries of directly perceived "forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions" are established by our automated, perceptual mechanisms.  And because humans are visually biased, we tend to believe that the way a thing looks (its visual form) is somehow fundamental to it's identity and what establishes it as a "concrete existent".  However, the way a car sounds, smells or feels is every bit fundamental as how it looks.  And nothing - the seats, color wheels, tire, windshield, motor, sound, color, the smell of it's gasoline or motor oil - is more "car" than any other part.

 

Every "thing" is constantly going undergoing "combinations and dissolutions" (even atomic elements).  Some "things" change slowly - and we tend to think of them as "the" concrete existents.  But a sound, touch, scent is a concrete existent no different than a photon on the retina.

 

I don't know if your trying to make Oism consistent with some sort of eastern mysticism but these are not Oist tenets. The words "smells or feels is every bit fundamental as how it looks" make no sense at all. The above is a repudiation of an objective basis for fundamentality. Perception is the foundation for all knowledge and the very meaning of concrete is perceptually established. Besides the structure-form of an entity is not only visually grasped . Blind folks have the concept structure-form.

 

On what basis do you claim that there are not simple substances who's structures do not change anyway?

 

Edit: Sounds, scents and touches are relationships among concretes not concretes as such.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Plasmatic

[New Buddha]

Buddha said:

 

 

Edit: Sounds, scents and touches are relationships among concretes not concretes as such.

And photons are not?

 

 

Sound:  Energy propagated through air particles that are translated into bioelectric energy in the ear.

Scent:  Negative charged electron that are translated into bioelectric energy by the nasal scent cells.

Touch:  Negative charged electrons that are repulsed by the negative charged electrons in your skin and translated into bioelectric energy by your nerve receptor cells.

Taste: Negative charged electrons that are translated into biochemical energy by your taste buds.

Sight:  Photons that are translated into biochemical energy in the cells of your retina.

 

Which of the above elements are not concretes "as such"?  And what in the Universe is not composed of elements "as such".

 

Quote:  "On what basis do you claim that there are not simple substances who's structures do not change anyway?"

 

Heavy atomic elements which are created in stars and then decay (known as half-life)?  Assuming that the Big Bang was correct, and at one time there were NO atoms - only energy - and that the Universe might one day contract back to pure energy or just "cool-off" and with a subsequent decay of all atomic elements as entropy decreases to a stand-still.  Maybe gravity is a constant?

 

I challenge you to name one thing that is not changing.

 

Rand chose her word with her typical brilliant precision.  Are you saying that she was sloppy?

Edited August 13, 2014 by New Buddha

[Plasmatic]

And photons are not?

 

You appear to be equivocating entities in the primary sense with entities in a derivative sense by citing the theoretical object "photon" in response to a post about discrete entities interacting... look up the section on entities in the appendix to ITOE. Subatomic combinations are not merely "touching".....

[New Buddha]

You appear to be equivocating entities in the primary sense with entities in a derivative sense by citing the theoretical object "photon" in response to a post about discrete entities interacting... look up the section on entities in the appendix to ITOE. Subatomic combinations are not merely "touching".....

Elaborate on "entities in the primary sense with entities in a derivative sense".  You are saying that some entities existentially "primary" and some entities existentially "derivative"?

 

 

And again, what "simple substances" are not changing?  And what is a "simple" substance.

 

Edit: "Subatomic combinations are not merely "touching"...

 

What does this mean?

Edited August 13, 2014 by New Buddha

[Eiuol]

Plasmatic,

If I ask if X is Y, and you say yes, it means X is always Y. If X is only sometimes Y, then saying yes is a non-answer as the answer is at best "usually, yes". Maybe it is nitpicky, but it's one example that your explanations don't help. I didn't mean my question about English as sarcasm, it's just that it would explain why a yes/no response didn't convey what you intended. If you type so slow that your connection of grammar and spelling is disconnected for trying to focus, then that leads to unclear communication.

I even told you why ontological isn't a term that made sense, and how I understand it so far, and stated in a way that shows that I don't know what you mean. The terms you set didn't make sense nor were they terms in Objectivist literature, all while the terms are still uncertain in my mind. Define your terms!
 

Propositions are true are false....Try again?

Uhh, I didn't say otherwise? The quote doesn't even mention propositions anyway... If you mean evaluating "truth type" is important, "true/false" isn't a type of truth, it's an evaluation of a fact. The ITOE quote confirms this view, as there is no types of truth mentioned and truths are not ever products of the facts of the mind.

 

In order to agree with Oist tenets you have to first understand them.

Wow. I'm disagreeing with you, so therefore, I don't understand? Because of this line, I won't be responding to you further. You need to demonstrate that I don't understand before saying I don't understand...

[Plasmatic]

Buddha said:

 

Elaborate on "entities in the primary sense with entities in a derivative sense".  You are saying that some entities existentially "primary" and some entities existentially "derivative"?

 

 

The derivative sense of "entity" is an epistemic distinction. The primary sense is metaphysical. You can call the universe an entity but metaphysically it isn't a singular "thing" but a collection of things.

 

Buddha said:

 

And again, what "simple substances" are not changing?  And what is a "simple" substance.

 

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNTN_enUS363US364&q=define+element

 

" Element

2.

 

each of more than one hundred substances that cannot be chemically interconverted or broken down into simpler substances and are primary constituents of matter. Each element is distinguished by its atomic number, i.e., the number of protons in the nuclei of its atoms."

 

 

 

Buddha said:

 

 

Edit: "Subatomic combinations are not merely "touching"...

 

What does this mean?

 

When a laptop is resting on a table the two are touching but they are still two entities not one. The bonds of subatomic constituents are not a mere matter of touch as in the table example. A pile of sand is not an entity but if you glued the sand together it would be. 

 

Buddha said:

 

Sound:  Energy propagated through air particles that are translated into bioelectric energy in the ear.

Scent:  Negative charged electron that are translated into bioelectric energy by the nasal scent cells.

Touch:  Negative charged electrons that are repulsed by the negative charged electrons in your skin and translated into bioelectric energy by your nerve receptor cells.

Taste: Negative charged electrons that are translated into biochemical energy by your taste buds.

Sight:  Photons that are translated into biochemical energy in the cells of your retina.

 

Which of the above elements are not concretes "as such"?  And what in the Universe is not composed of elements "as such".

 

 

 

 

First, we are getting away from philosophy here so any further examples should be restricted to non specialized contexts. Energy is not a substance but the effect of substances on other substances. When a biological entity consumes or absorbs other substances it becomes a part of that entity like a pile of sand glued together. But when I touch a table I do not become one concrete with the table.

 

 

Buddha said:

 

Heavy atomic elements which are created in stars and then decay (known as half-life)?  Assuming that the Big Bang was correct, and at one time there were NO atoms - only energy - and that the Universe might one day contract back to pure energy or just "cool-off" and with a subsequent decay of all atomic elements as entropy decreases to a stand-still.  Maybe gravity is a constant?

 

 

The BB never happened and  "energy" is not a thing. I have no interest in discussing the standard model of cosmology here. All singularities are irrational. 

 

Buddha said:

 

I challenge you to name one thing that is not changing.

 

 

Everything undergoes some type of change but not in all respects. Fundamental constituents change location but not shape. None of this makes entities non existent.

 

This is not relevant enough to the topic for me to continue this here in this thread.

 

Buddha said:

 

 

Rand chose her word with her typical brilliant precision.  Are you saying that she was sloppy?

 

I said no such thing.

[StrictlyLogical]

Are there any conclusions / take-aways here? 

 

Can you each sum up your own position as a positive assertion (as opposed to a reaction to someone else...) and why it matters?

[StrictlyLogical]

Plasmatic:

 

For background and for consistent definition/understanding what do we take facts as such to be?

 

 

Premises:  A "statement of fact" has as a referent something in reality.  We can have knowledge of/about statements and about reality.

 

 

What is the referent of the concept "fact" (as such) according to Objectivism?

 

I.e. If I simply and baldly say "A fact according to Objectivism IS x"  (here there are no modifiers as to "type" or species or particular fact, what is meant is the broadest concept subsuming anything which validly should be considered "a fact")  Can you expand x?

 

 

Eiuol, if you can answer this according to your understanding of Objectivism that would also be appreciated.

 

Unfortunately the word "fact" (and necessarily the accepted concept(s) represented by the word "fact") is somewhat problematic as it includes two completely different types of things:

 

Merrian-Webster:

 

Fact:

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

 

there are also 5 further meanings some of which refer to knowledge (information, truth of statements) some of which refer to reality/existence (actual occurrence, something that has actual existence)

 

 

It would appear to me that any discussion regarding the boundaries of metaphysics and epistemology should avoid the use of such a schizophrenic term altogether or limit its use to only one of the above types of meanings, or be qualified in every case of its usage as either referring to information, etc. or reality etc.

 

PS:  When the word "fact" is used in the context regarding reality it can be somewhat superfluous.  We can simply say "something Is", also saying it is a "fact" adds nothing.

Edited August 13, 2014 by StrictlyLogical