Is there any reason, any religion should still exist?

[Devil's Advocate]

...

DA said:

One definition is a contradiction and the other isn't.

Your rebranding of "creator" is invalid because your irreducible existent "god-creator" is still an instance of "creation" from nothing. Without materials your "creator" has nothing to create with. 

Nothing in my argument suggests that I am expressing faith that unreality is the source of reality.  We can all agree that a supernatural being is a contradiction in terms, and nothing in my argument suggests otherwise.  A creator, creating within existence is what the title, "Nature's God" suggests, and I'll I've done is to point that out and show that it doesn't reverse the POE.

Claiming that "rebranding" a creator is invalid, but doing the same for a Greek hero isn't, is an expression of bias.  Further claiming that the former is context dropping and contradictory, and the latter isn't, is just more of the same.  At some point you're simply tilting against a straw god of your own creation to favor a hero created by someone else.

If gods are offensive then so are heroes, and for the same reason. Either Man can live up to them or he can't.  If he can then they are redundant to the definition of Man.  If not, then they are a pointless distraction.

 

[dream_weaver]

Of course, nothing in your argument suggests that you are seeking to identify the facts of reality that gives rise to the necessity of such a concept as "Natural God" either, or is it "Nature's God" now?

Is the term "heroic", or "heroic being" to join "Exaltation," "Worship," "Reverence," and "Sacred"; to be usurped by religion from our language and be placed outside this earth and beyond man's reach?

 

[Plasmatic]

DA said:

 

Nothing in my argument suggests that I am expressing faith that unreality is the source of reality.  

Is there a reason you chose to make this statement to me? What does it have to with what I said? Unless you are refering to my comment about creation from nothing? If so, then everything youve said implies that definition of creation is part of your claim.

 

DA said:

We can all agree that a supernatural being is a contradiction in terms, and nothing in my argument suggests otherwise.  

Did I say you were arguing for supernature?

 

DA said

A creator, creating within existence is what the title, "Nature's God" suggests, and I'll I've done is to point that out and show that it doesn't reverse the POE.

You are evading that I have challenged your concept of "creation". You have done more than claim generically that all valid creation involves existence. You have applied the concept to an invalid context, one were it could not possibly apply. Creation is a dynamic concept that presupposes multiplicity of entities as a material besides the one doing the creating.

 

DA said:

Claiming that "rebranding" a creator is invalid, but doing the same for a Greek hero isn't, is an expression of bias. 

Yeah, but thats not what I said. I said that you are rebranding a concept to get rid of a contradiction by creating another contradiction.

 

DA said:

Further claiming that the former is context dropping and contradictory, and the latter isn't, is just more of the same.

Aside from the false presupposition that I made the above mentioned "claim", I made an argument that differentiated your usage from Ms. Rand's and you are choosing to psychologize instead of respond to my argument.

 

DA said:

.  At some point you're simply tilting against a straw god of your own creation to favor a hero created by someone else.

If gods are offensive then so are heroes, and for the same reason. 

      

No, at this point you are choosing to ignore the arguments made and declaring that I mean what you say I mean by hero. You can mean whatever you want but you have to define your terms! What you are claiming is that we are using the same definition of hero in spite of the fact that you have been told we are not. 

DA said:

Either Man can live up to them or he can't.  If he can then they are redundant to the definition of Man.  If not, then they are a pointless distraction.

"them" what? You still haven't defined  the "what"....

Edited October 21, 2015 by Plasmatic

[Devil's Advocate]

Gentlemen, this argument is now spinning around two definitions, both of which are derived from a historical association with the concept of God(s), in spite of your discomfiture.  Apparently heroic deeds are acceptable so long as they don't become too knowledgeable or powerful.

Lets move on.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Allow me try this from another angle...

If existence is identity and consciousness is identification, is it possible that an identity cannot be identified?

This isn't intended as a trick question so don't go nuts trying to cover all your bases with a response.  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[Plasmatic]

DA said:

Gentlemen, this argument is now spinning around two definitions, both of which are derived from a historical association with the concept of God(s), in spite of your discomfiture

So you are committed to evading the facts that have been presented that make this claim nonsense. 

DA said:

Apparently heroic deeds are acceptable so long as they don't become too knowledgeable or powerful.

That has nothing to do with anything I said....

[Devil's Advocate]

double post.... 

I hate this new software!

Finally something we can agree on

Look, I'm obviously having trouble responding to your criticism.  I suggest the possibility that Man can achieve godlike abilities on a universal scale and you accuse me of context dropping.  I compare the historic reference to heroic beings as similar to being godlike and you respond by saying I'm the only one who thinks so.  When I further point to the Greek root of the term you deny it has any meaning to Objectivism.  If you can ask a question that relates to anything I've said, I'll make an honest effort to answer it but at this point, other than being offended by the word god, I don't get what you're objecting to.

My question to you as an Objectivist is: Is it possible that an identity cannot be identified?

 

[DonAthos]

I find this discussion somewhat muddled and at cross-purposes. I don't know that I'll help remedy that situation, and could easily make it worse, but let's see...

I jumped the gun on the arbitrary when DA asked for evidence which contradicted assertion. There can be no evidence, for or against, for that which, in fact, does not exist.

There can be no evidence for (or against) that which does not exist. Agreed. But a person may sincerely believe himself to have found evidence for something, which I think saves his subsequent claims from being "arbitrary," even if false. For instance, a person may discover bones in the woods and determine that they belong to an otherwise fictitious Bigfoot. His claims may be in error, but I don't think it would be right to describe them as "arbitrary," and I don't think that his claims to evidence would rightly be dismissed except through whatever standards we would otherwise use (in this case, probably anthropological/biological in nature) to assess such. I don't think a person could rightly say, "well, I don't believe in Bigfoot, therefore no evidence which purportedly supports a belief in Bigfoot could possibly exist; thus any claim that Bigfoot exists is rendered arbitrary." It seems to me that this would be putting the cart before the horse.

True, propositions were being put forth, but only as explanation which stated man creates, which of itself is true, where supposedly the Natural God/Heroic Being, is just on a grander scale.

Right, well, that's a place to start, then -- isn't it? I mean, to my naive and cursory reading, that sounds almost like a place of initial agreement or a common ground... or at least, between yourself and Devil's Advocate:

Man creates -- we agree.
Man could conceivably create on a grander scale than he currently does -- we again agree.

The point of departure, should it exist, needs to be found.

Man terra-forming Mars, would indeed be man re shaping existence on a grander scale, but it would still simply be man re-shaping existence.

Yes, absolutely. I'd like to see (the other) DA respond to this, because it seems to me like the salient point. If he's looking to somehow "backdoor" God into the discussion, I don't see how we get there by simply making man more and more powerful.

If his concept of a "god" is nothing more than a very powerful man, well, okay. But I don't think that's what most of the religious folk of the world pray to, or would want to pray to, and I don't think it's what's typically meant by God.

What would be evidence for a "Natural God"? If you know God is an invalid concept, then by extension, you would know there can be no evidence, again, for. or against. If a "Natural God" is just man performing a feat never before accomplished, wherein lies the necessity of the concept?

Right. I suspect we're all* agreed that God (meaning: "transcendence" or "omniscience" or etc., etc.) is an invalid concept, as is any idea of the "supernatural." If it exists, it is natural.

As to the necessity of the concept, where "god" is but a powerful man...? I don't know that there is any such necessity, and I think we're agreed on that point, though given our shared cultural context I think I could see at least some valid poetic uses. I mean, if we could posit a person who lives an exceedingly long time (or as some futurists might have it, perhaps indefinitely), and with abilities that far outstrip our own, I could understand describing some of this as "god-like," in the same way that Arthur C. Clarke noted the relationship between "magic" and sufficiently advanced technology.

It seems to me that much good (and likely much bad) science fiction uses this as its very basis. It makes me think of an episode of Rick and Morty (which I highly recommend) wherein a scientist creates his own world of nano sentient beings -- for use as a car battery! -- who, perhaps unsurprisingly, revere him as a god.
___________________

*Devil's Advocate, perhaps, notwithstanding. Though he may wish to clarify.

DA's claim (at least in the recent set of posts) is worse than arbitrary. His recent posts start by supporting faith.

Yes, well, I did begin my post with a disclaimer that I don't mean to argue on behalf of (the other) DA or his positions.

If he'd said that there must be a God in order to explain creation, perhaps we could argue that his claim was arbitrary. Maybe he's done that in March or earlier, but the thrust this time was: faith. Who can argue with that?

As for whether a non-faith-based argument for God is arbitrary, I guess it depends on the specifics of the claim.

Agreed.

If God means "some powerful forces and processes that can do things that humans cannot" , then the claim for God is not arbitrary. In fact, in this sense, God does exist (but, it's really nature and.the real problem would be concept-formation and clarity of terms). When people speak about "man becoming God", they equivocate, and need to correct the fallacy by using the right concepts and terms.

Typically, God means "some powerful consciousness...". Within this meaning: what is the specific nature of the claim? One level of evidence may be sufficient for a speculative hypothesis: "such a God might exist, even though it does not seem likely" (the view of the modern agnostic). Far more evidence is required to say, as a deist, "such a God probably exists, but only as an initial prime-mover, not as an ongoing controller". And, then one can get progressively stronger claims leading to specific religions: "Christ was God or a manifestation of God". They get more arbitrary as they get stronger.

Take the weakest of these claims -- the agnostic one: "such a God might exist, even though it does not seem likely".

At first glance, whether one considers this arbitrary depends on the context of knowledge against which one weighs the claim. For instance, today we have explanations for all sorts of phenomena.  Every exploration, in every sphere of science -- around us, inside us, inside other animals, and outside Earth has continuously shown natural explanations. To postulate some super-natural consciousness against all these is completely arbitrary. By that standard, one can make almost any claim about anything. 

Also at first glance, it would seem that primitive man -- who had no explanation for most natural -- was not being so arbitrary to hypothesize: "I don't know for sure, but maybe there's some powerful consciousness out there... doing all this stuff". A philosopher among them who had understood out the problem of infinite regress would still dismiss the claim, but I still think it is less arbitrary for a primitive or uneducated person to hold the hypothesis in a very speculative way.

Actually, I think we're agreed on virtually all of this. I'd be interested in a discussion about whether a "primitive philosopher" would have had good reason to dismiss the idea of a grand consciousness (if natural, and not "supernatural") governing the movements of the stars, etc., but I suspect that would be too tangential for the current scope of discussion.

DA said:

The only person making the concept heroic of "divine" origin is you.  This is why I started by saying you had to define "the what" before we can start validation the how. 

One cannot give evidence for invalid concepts like divine, god, creator, or your conception of the "heroic". When someone tries to salvage invalid, or anti-concepts, they have to equivocate/drop context. Concepts are "green lights to induction" and an Objective approach will lead one to settle the premises of a discussion by addressing any red light concepts first.

Don Anthos' question about evidence is really answered by the analysis of concept formation between the parties accepting or  rejecting evidence. This will bring the parties in to agreement on "the what".

Until that is done no clear progress can be made.

I think that this is substantially in agreement with what I've written above... though I count on Plasmatic to correct me, if that's not the case.

If what Devil's Advocate means to argue for with respect to "god" is a man with a greater and greater mastery over nature, then I think (?) that we can all agree that this is sensible, outside of remaining questions whether the term "god" needs to be introduced at all, or whether that simply confuses.

If, however, god/God is meant to contain any of those aspects of traditional religious devotion such as somehow existing outside of time and space, or ruling over an afterlife, or being able to somehow establish morality by fiat, or etc., then we begin to float in the realm of the insensible and the arbitrary.

I suggest the possibility that Man can achieve godlike abilities on a universal scale and you accuse me of context dropping.

Along with what I've written on the subject above, I suppose the problem here is something like "how can an ability be 'godlike' if there's no god to be like"? These abilities, whatever they are, will ultimately be manlike -- won't they?

But as I've said, given our common cultural heritage, and so long as we're not trying to sneak in some belief in omniscience or etc., I agree that "godlike" is at least sensible poetically. If I met a being who far, far outstripped me in power (could create whole worlds, somehow, or whatever), I could understand describing such as having "godlike power," though I would not be inclined to begin worshiping, and I wouldn't ascribe any "supernatural" powers to the being. Rather, I'd begin to look for their technological (or otherwise natural) means.

I compare the historic reference to heroic beings as similar to being godlike and you respond by saying I'm the only one who thinks so.  When I further point to the Greek root of the term you deny it has any meaning to Objectivism.

Yeah, I don't think that the mystical roots of "heroic" matter to the way nearly anybody contemporary uses the term, least of all Ayn Rand, and so I'm not sure how this pertains to this discussion. When we say a person is a hero, we don't mean that they're born of Apollo... or at least, that's not what I mean.

If you can ask a question that relates to anything I've said, I'll make an honest effort to answer it but at this point, other than being offended by the word god, I don't get what you're objecting to.

The word "god," whether offensive or not, can signify a great range of things, depending on the person talking. I think you're being asked, at least in part, to clarify your own usage of the term. Do you mean "a very powerful man"? Or something more?

My question to you as an Objectivist is: Is it possible that an identity cannot be identified?

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what this is asking.

[Craig24]

Allow me try this from another angle...

If existence is identity and consciousness is identification, is it possible that an identity cannot be identified?

This isn't intended as a trick question so don't go nuts trying to cover all your bases with a response.  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Honestly, I don't know.  That will not satisfy anyone but since I honestly don't know then nothing else needs to be said.  What's your point?

[Devil's Advocate]

First off, thank you DonAthos for your efforts to mediate in this current discussion.  No, I have not been "looking to somehow 'backdoor' God into the discussion."  In fact I've gone to some effort to prevent my critics from trying to sneak him in beside me.  I'll try to respond to what is perhaps the main sticking point here:  Is my concept of God nothing more than a very powerful man?

Essentially yes, and I think this is the chief characteristic that has formed the concept all along; we are after all, created in his image aren't we?  As I said earlier, I think religion is bad politics because it attempts to establish an authority that can rule with impunity, and I think that accounts for all the supernatural baggage placed within the concept. Greek Heroes operated within the same sphere of influence.

My point has been, Man's effort to reveal Gods and Heroes has primarily been to point to how we ought to behave e.g., strong and virtuous.  Religions tend to offer a reward for good behavior similar to citizenship offered by governments; security for loyalty.  Nothing particularly controversial there, and we can say that the reason religions are still around is essentially the same as why governments are still around.  But why are Gods and Heroes still around?

You (DonAthos) touched on it in your observations about our discussion, and I am trying to get at it with my last question.  Amazing how questioning godlike abilities can draw so many comments from Objectivists, but asking a question directly related to the POE makes everyone go, "Duh, what's he getting at?"

1) Existence is identity*
2) Consciousness is identification*

Is there any part of #1 that cannot be identified by #2?

*http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html

[Plasmatic]

DA asked:

   

Amazing how questioning godlike abilities can draw so many comments from Objectivists, but asking a question directly related to the POE makes everyone go, "Duh, what's he getting at?"

1) Existence is identity*
2) Consciousness is identification*

Is there any part of #1 that cannot be identified by #2?

Your amazement is due to the same lack of familiarity of Oist epistemology that lead you to the previous difficulty in this thread. The question cannot be answered in the form you've asked it. 

What would constitute evidence of the non-identifiability of an existent? How would you identity such evidence? You want an answer about the possibility of some hypothetical which has no clear evidentiary status.....

 

DA said:

Look, I'm obviously having trouble responding to your criticism. [...]  If you can ask a question that relates to anything I've said, I'll make an honest effort to answer it but at this point, other than being offended by the word god, I don't get what you're objecting to.

This response took honesty and sincerity and earned some respect from me!

[Devil's Advocate]

I’m not trying to set up something like, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it…”;  we all accept that it makes a noise.  I’m looking for that kind of straight forward response to what the axioms imply.  Given that everything in existence has an identity, is or isn’t consciousness up to the task of identifying everything in existence?

[dream_weaver]

 

I find this discussion somewhat muddled and at cross-purposes. I don't know that I'll help remedy that situation, and could easily make it worse, but let's see...

There can be no evidence for (or against) that which does not exist. Agreed. But a person may sincerely believe himself to have found evidence for something, which I think saves his subsequent claims from being "arbitrary," even if false. For instance, a person may discover bones in the woods and determine that they belong to an otherwise fictitious Bigfoot. His claims may be in error, but I don't think it would be right to describe them as "arbitrary," and I don't think that his claims to evidence would rightly be dismissed except through whatever standards we would otherwise use (in this case, probably anthropological/biological in nature) to assess such. I don't think a person could rightly say, "well, I don't believe in Bigfoot, therefore no evidence which purportedly supports a belief in Bigfoot could possibly exist; thus any claim that Bigfoot exists is rendered arbitrary." It seems to me that this would be putting the cart before the horse.

Right, well, that's a place to start, then -- isn't it? I mean, to my naive and cursory reading, that sounds almost like a place of initial agreement or a common ground... or at least, between yourself and Devil's Advocate:

Man creates -- we agree.
Man could conceivably create on a grander scale than he currently does -- we again agree.

The point of departure, should it exist, needs to be found.

Yes, absolutely. I'd like to see (the other) DA respond to this, because it seems to me like the salient point. If he's looking to somehow "backdoor" God into the discussion, I don't see how we get there by simply making man more and more powerful.

If his concept of a "god" is nothing more than a very powerful man, well, okay. But I don't think that's what most of the religious folk of the world pray to, or would want to pray to, and I don't think it's what's typically meant by God.

So far, so agreed.

 

Right. I suspect we're all* agreed that God (meaning: "transcendence" or "omniscience" or etc., etc.) is an invalid concept, as is any idea of the "supernatural." If it exists, it is natural.

As to the necessity of the concept, where "god" is but a powerful man...? I don't know that there is any such necessity, and I think we're agreed on that point, though given our shared cultural context I think I could see at least some valid poetic uses. I mean, if we could posit a person who lives an exceedingly long time (or as some futurists might have it, perhaps indefinitely), and with abilities that far outstrip our own, I could understand describing some of this as "god-like," in the same way that Arthur C. Clarke noted the relationship between "magic" and sufficiently advanced technology.

It seems to me that much good (and likely much bad) science fiction uses this as its very basis. It makes me think of an episode of Rick and Morty (which I highly recommend) wherein a scientist creates his own world of nano sentient beings -- for use as a car battery! -- who, perhaps unsurprisingly, revere him as a god.

A metaphoric or poetic usage does not usually raise an objection in my mind. The following, however, does not come across as either metaphoric or poetic to me.:

First off, thank you DonAthos for your efforts to mediate in this current discussion.  No, I have not been "looking to somehow 'backdoor' God into the discussion."  In fact I've gone to some effort to prevent my critics from trying to sneak him in beside me.  I'll try to respond to what is perhaps the main sticking point here:  Is my concept of God nothing more than a very powerful man?

Essentially yes, and I think this is the chief characteristic that has formed the concept all along; we are after all, created in his image aren't we? 

Is DA's concept of God nothing more that a very powerful man? To which, the answer was tendered as: Essentially yes. What is the chief characteristic? "a very powerful man" (is this what most religious folk pray to, or would want to pray to?)

Is "a very powerful man" what has formed the concept (God, Natural God, Nature's God) all along? Then interjected, begging the question: [W]e are after all, created in his image aren't we?  Well, are we? Isn't the more likely scenario that of man creating God(s) in man's image?

 

[DonAthos]

So far, so agreed.

A metaphoric or poetic usage does not usually raise an objection in my mind. The following, however, does not come across as either metaphoric or poetic to me.:

Is DA's concept of God nothing more that a very powerful man? To which, the answer was tendered as: Essentially yes. What is the chief characteristic? "a very powerful man" (is this what most religious folk pray to, or would want to pray to?)

Is "a very powerful man" what has formed the concept (God, Natural God, Nature's God) all along? Then interjected, begging the question: [W]e are after all, created in his image aren't we?  Well, are we? Isn't the more likely scenario that of man creating God(s) in man's image?

We're agreed. Most religious folk (I presume) believe that they're praying to something fundamentally different from "a very powerful man."  Should (the other) DA wish to use the term "god" for that, I suppose he's welcome to it, but it's bound to result in confusing and frustrating discussions. Should he win agreement here that "god," where "god" is "a very powerful man," could conceivably exist... well, I don't know what purpose that would serve. Isn't it better at that point to drop "god" altogether? (Unless something more, possibly hidden, remains at stake.)

As to the second paragraph, absolutely you're right. I think there might be something to be said (and I hope to be speaking to some of Devil's Advocate's point here) for maintaining a vision of the heroic as being something to aspire to, and that this helps to account for some of the role religion has traditionally played in societies. Though I don't think religion is required to aspire, or to be able to envision the heroic; I think that there are better alternatives available which don't carry religion's supernatural, irrational and immoral baggage.

[softwareNerd]

A metaphoric or poetic usage does not usually raise an objection in my mind. The following, however, does not come across as either metaphoric or poetic to me.:

 

Metaphor: you put your finger on the problem here. The reason this thread is so muddled is the use of metaphor as part of syllogistic reasoning. The result is the fallacy of equivocation. Devil will not be able to clarify what he wants to say (nor what he really thinks in his own mind) until he can throw away all these metaphoric words ("God", "hero", etc.) and replace them with small phrases within his arguments. Alternatively, he has to settle on single, confirmed meanings for each word.

[dream_weaver]

Querying the CD for "heroic" brings up a letter by Miss Rand to the stage and film actor, Colin Clive. Here is an excerpt from page 16, The Letters of Ayn Rand:

Perhaps that which I saw in you exists only in my own mind and no one else would see it, or care to see. I am speaking of your great achievement in bringing to life a completely heroic human being.

The word heroic does not quite express what I mean. You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest type of man possible and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one's spirit wants to kneel, bareheaded. Do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat where admiration becomes religion, and religion becomes philosophy, and philosophy—the whole of one's life.

Skipping a couple of sentences:

It is not your acting that did it, nor the lines you spoke, nor even the character you played, because the character was far from the type of which I am speaking. It was something in you, in the whole of the man you were, something not intended by the play at all, that gave me, for a few hours, a spark of what man could be, but isn't. I do not say that you were that man. I say only that you let me see a first spark of him, and that is an achievement for which one has to be grateful.

 

 

[Devil's Advocate]

"... The word heroic does not quite express what I mean. You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature..."

 

So far, so agreed.

A metaphoric or poetic usage does not usually raise an objection in my mind. The following, however, does not come across as either metaphoric or poetic to me.:

 

Is DA's concept of God nothing more that a very powerful man? To which, the answer was tendered as: Essentially yes. What is the chief characteristic? "a very powerful man" (is this what most religious folk pray to, or would want to pray to?)

Is "a very powerful man" what has formed the concept (God, Natural God, Nature's God) all along? Then interjected, begging the question: [W]e are after all, created in his image aren't we?  Well, are we? Isn't the more likely scenario that of man creating God(s) in man's image?

 

Who spoke the words, "God created Man in his own image"?  A man; and really, what else did that man have to work with to form such an idea? Himself and nature.  Voltaire was correct to observe, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."  But the question remains, "Why does Man create God (or Heroes) in his own image?"

I think the answer can be found in the attributes Man assigns to the concept of a godlike self, but in the natural, not the supernatural, i.e., in what is attainable to a self-image of being stronger and more virtuous... more sublime.

So please, oh please, either answer my question or help me to form it correctly:  According to the axioms, is consciousness capable of identifying everything in reality? 

 

Edited October 23, 2015 by Devil's Advocate
cleanup

[dream_weaver]

Identification is a process.

Pat Corvini said about extending the number sequence: It gives us the sense that we can extend the (number) sequence without limit (i.e. infinitely), because we know exactly what to do (just add another symbol (number) to the left, representing 10 of the group unitized to its right), in order to accomplish it. (Paraphrased and embellished.)

If you continue to add existents in the form of new symbols, do you plan to include them as part of the everything in reality to be identified? Do we include an identification of every permutation of relationships that can be established between any two existents, any three existents, any four existents, and so on, as well?

Would you include extending the number sequence for the sake of identifying every "possible" number?

I'll second DonAthos and Craig24. What, precisely, are you asking? What, precisely, is your point?

[Devil's Advocate]

I had no idea this question would vaporlock Objectivists.

Does everything in existence have an identity or not? The statement, "Existence is Identity" suggests to me that the answer is yes. The second statement, "Consciousness is Identification" suggests to me that everything in existence can be identified by consciousness. If this were not the case, what would it mean to exist without a footprint of any kind?

You couldn't say, for example, it is some piece of existence that has yet to be identified. By what, if consciousness cannot identify it?! This seems pretty fundamental to a theory of knowledge. Is something that has a real identity identifiable or not?

[softwareNerd]

This seems pretty fundamental to a theory of knowledge. Is something that has a real identity identifiable or not?

In this thread, do you have some specific proposition that you're arguing for?

[Plasmatic]

DA said:

I had no idea this question would vaporlock Objectivists.

Does everything in existence have an identity or not? The statement, "Existence is Identity" suggests to me that the answer is yes. The second statement, "Consciousness is Identification" suggests to me that everything in existence can be identified by consciousness. If this were not the case, what would it mean to exist without a footprint of any kind?

I know you want to deal with what Hegel said of existence, "To be, is to be known". I think it would have been better to say "to be, is to be knowable". I do not see this as an axiomatic corollary though, and I dont see how we could say with certainty that all of existence is accessible to consciousness. Don't get me wrong, I like the sentiment, but can it be justified by analysis of axiomatic truths alone?  It's not obvious to me how. 

I think its obvious that anything that can be made accessible to consciousness can be identified, but that's another premise entirely.

[dream_weaver]

Miss Rand came along. She inspected the conventional philosophical foundations and discovered they were structurally unsound by her reckoning. After investigating the field of architecture, she came up with an unconventional philosophical building design which would require an equally unconventional philosophical foundation. During the process of developing the blueprints, she encountered Hank Reardon, who had engineered a metal which consisted of the metaphysical properties she recognized as being capable of supporting her unconventional vision. She ordered a new foundation to be laid, reinforced with Reardon metal.

The State Science Institute . . .

From another Letter of Ayn Rand, pg. 669-670

I decided to become a writer—not in order to save the world, nor to serve my fellow men—but for the simple, personal, selfish, egotistical happiness of creating the kind of men and events I could like, respect and admire. I can bear to look around me levelly. I cannot bear to look down. I wanted to look up.

This attitude has never changed. But I went for years thinking that it was a strictly personal attitude toward fiction writing, never to be discussed and of no interest to anyone but me. Later I discovered I had accepted as the rule of my life work a principle stated by Aristotle. Aristotle said that fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because history represents things only as they are, while fiction represents them "as they might be and ought to be."

[Devil's Advocate]

In this thread, do you have some specific proposition that you're arguing for?

Certainly, the concept of man as a natural god, with justice as the moral purpose of his life, creation as his noblest activity, and physics as his only limitation.

@ Plasmatic & dream_weaver,

Yes, and yes!

Edited October 24, 2015 by Devil's Advocate

[softwareNerd]

Certainly, the concept of man as a natural god, with justice as the moral purpose of his life, creation as his noblest activity, and physics as his only limitation.

That's a lot of things. Are they individual propositions, even if they're dependent on each other? Take the first part: "the concept of man as a natural god". Is that something you are happy to defend on its own? 

Assuming you answer "yes", I think it is still not stated in its simplest form. It isn't clear whether you are saying that man is a natural go or can be a natural god or will be a natural god. Let me assume the most defensible of these: "some day, man will have the ability to be a natural god". Are you willing to defend such a proposition?

Again, assuming your answer is "yes", the term "natural god" is simply too fuzzy and open to interpretation. It needs to be clarified. What are the features and abilities of this entity we're calling a "natural god". Do you mean the ability to shape the world around him? Can I assume that a "natural god" is a being who has the knowledge, the ability and the motivation to shape the rest of existence -- his environment -- as he sees fit, limited only by the natural laws of physics, etc.? Is that the near enough to your meaning?

Assuming your answer is "yes", we have the following proposition: "some day, man will have the knowledge, the ability and the motivation to shape the rest of existence as he sees fit, limited only by the natural laws of physics". I think I'm representing your sense accurately, but more clearly (because I have clarified the ambiguous terms, and have chosen a few boring terms where more poetic ones were used). Is that the proposition you wish to defend, or am I actually misrepresenting you in some way?

[Devil's Advocate]

You have fairly represented my proposition.  If you strip the supernatural from what have commonly been referred to as God(s) and Heroes, I think what your left with is Man as he ought to be.

That Man can act heroic doesn't need to be defended; certainly not in this forum.  But that Man can act godlike does need to be defended in this forum.  Typically there are three measures of godlike abilities.  I'm prepared to defend two of them, but I'm not certain of the third.

I was hoping to establish the credibility of one of them by drawing, what I consider, an obvious conclusion from the Law and Identity and Consciousness, but there now appears a reluctance to respond to this, although I really appreciate Plasmatic's last response.

So if no one is willing to agree that identity implies identification, I will let it go for now and perhaps further address it in another thread.  As always, thank you, et al, for your patient feedback.