Existence

[DragonMaci]

I got some silly comments about existence on my blog the last couple of days. The gist of them is that existence isn't self-evident. I just shook my head at this and decided to to publish them (I have comment moderation on). I also had a comment about the "greyness" of human existence. I read this as A is b, C, D, or maybe even F in relation to human existence, as if the Law of Identity is somehow inapplicable to us.

I simply decided not to publish it. I was wondering, out of curiosity (I often get curious), what would Objectivists do? (I am only a student of Objectivism.) Comments from non-Objectivists are also welcome, but if you aren't one please specify that you aren't.

[Shading Inc.]

I got some silly comments about existence on my blog the last couple of days. The gist of them is that existence isn't self-evident. I just shook my head at this and decided to to publish them (I have comment moderation on). I also had a comment about the "greyness" of human existence. I read this as A is b, C, D, or maybe even F in relation to human existence, as if the Law of Identity is somehow inapplicable to us.

I simply decided not to publish it. I was wondering, out of curiosity (I often get curious), what would Objectivists do? (I am only a student of Objectivism.) Comments from non-Objectivists are also welcome, but if you aren't one please specify that you aren't.

Kindly point out that the continued existence of silly comments isn't self-evident either.

[aequalsa]

what would Objectivists do?

"If a man says that A is true, and also not-A is true, then he is really nothing but a cabbage-head." - Aristotle.

I usually disregard people on the grounds that talking to cabbage is unbeneficial to my life in most respects.

What choices of action are you choosing from. Not sure I understand your question.

[D'kian]

Ignore them. Someone who will not admit existence is self-evident, is incapable of any kind of rational discourse. As anything at all can be wished away by the simple claim "It may be real for you...."

[Prometheus98876]

Yes, if they will permit themselves to question reality then they will question anything at all, there can be on absolutes in their mind and no basis for a rational discussion whatever. As K'Kian points out, they will always be willing to resort to claims of non-absolutism at any turn.

[DragonMaci]

Well basically one of them claimed that reality is not self-evident, that we must think and consider the truth of reality to know it is not real. I just shook my head in wonder. Yes, we must think about it, but is a choice of whever or not to acknowledge the self-evident nature of existence, not proof against the self-evident nature of existence.

[DragonMaci]

It gets worse. Look at this comment I refused to publish:

Kane - this is a bit harsh "I have had comments denying that reality (read: existence) is self-evident and another equally as stupid comment about the "greyness" of human existence. I refused to publish them on the grounds of not wanting to help spread stupid views. ." I presumed that your posting was for critical exchange of ideas. I am not a philosopher nor have I studied it, but it seems to be a recurring theme in philosophy that reality is questionable. George Berkeley, who was one of the founders of modern empiricism, did not believe that there exists any material substance external to the mind, but rather that objects exist only as collections of sensible ideas. If there are only minds and ideas, there is no place for some scientific constructs. Newtonian absolute space and time disappear. Even Aurelius Augustinus (St Augustine)in his text "Confessions" touched on it "For all that we contemplate we either perceive through cogitation, or through a sense or through the intellect. But those things which are perceived through sense we also sense to be outside us"... Descartes himself thought the phrase "I think, therefore I am" was misleading and therefore he later changed it to "I am, I exist".(The first certainty). So I find myself in good company and, although I might not subscribe to the above philosophy, one cannot reject it out of hand.

[Shading Inc.]

It gets worse. Look at this comment I refused to publish:

If this is the gist of it, they're not denying existence is self-evident. Rather, they're (or at least the person you quote is) denying that reality is what we (that is, most people) think it is: In quoting Berkeley, St. Augustine and Descartes this person is not saying that existence isn't self-evident, but that material reality isn't. Which for all I know it actually really isn't.

Denying the self-evidence of existence would be to say that Descartes' cogito-argument is false. If anything Descartes (and St. Augustine too I believe) explicitly confirm that existence (of oneself) is self-evident, and I don't doubt Berkeley held similar ideas.

[DragonMaci]

If this is the gist of it, they're not denying existence is self-evident. Rather, they're (or at least the person you quote is) denying that reality is what we (that is, most people) think it is: In quoting Berkeley, St. Augustine and Descartes this person is not saying that existence isn't self-evident, but that material reality isn't. Which for all I know it actually really isn't.

Denying the self-evidence of existence would be to say that Descartes' cogito-argument is false. If anything Descartes (and St. Augustine too I believe) explicitly confirm that existence (of oneself) is self-evident, and I don't doubt Berkeley held similar ideas.

I know that second person wasn't denying existence's self-evident nature. I just thought that since i had already mentioned the other existence comments here it was a better place to place it than a new thread.

[jbw]

I got some silly comments about existence on my blog the last couple of days. The gist of them is that existence isn't self-evident. I just shook my head at this and decided to to publish them (I have comment moderation on). I also had a comment about the "greyness" of human existence. I read this as A is b, C, D, or maybe even F in relation to human existence, as if the Law of Identity is somehow inapplicable to us.

jbw 3/7/07. Existence is an axiomatic concept and is self-evident, requiring the acceptance of existence in the attempt to deny existence (per Ayn Rand).

My concern is that Existence, as accepted by most of our Objectivist intellectuals, is the Expanding Universe of today's cosmologists, which required a Big Bang to launch it some 15 billion years ago, which would have required an act of Creation (of Something from Nothing), which would, of course, have required a Creator!

This same Expanding Universe is purported to be about 20 billion light-years in radius (a light-year being the distance light will travel in one year) and to be creating space as it expands. In answer to the question of "What lies beyond the edge of this universe?" one is told "There is no beyond beyond.", and "Space is curved." I.e., our universe is an island of existence surrounded by non-existence!

Total nonsense!, and for our Objectivist leaders to accept and teach such nonsense as the Existence of Ayn Rand is disappointing.

"Existence Exists.", per Ayn Rand. There can be no such thing as non-existence in space, nor in time. I.e., the existence we see (our Observable Universe) must be but a tiny sample of an infinite and eternal ocean of galaxies not unlike that which we are able to see. From this we can only conclude that there exists a cosmic cycle where-in the mass being spewed into space by all the stars of all the galaxies as they burn is somehow being turned into new galaxies at an efficiency of 100%. Otherwise, everything would have been burned up an eternity ago, and the marvelously beautiful galaxies we do see in our Observable Universe would not be.

Now this is an "Existence" worthy of the name, not one in a state of flux destined to collapse some day.

If the scientists would take this stance as their starting point and try to make sense of what they observe, such as the cosmological redshift, they could stop patching their Expanding Universe theory (putting it in the trash barrel) and end up with a far more rational scheme of things.

???? Jim Wright

[John McVey]

Jim:

I think you're misunderstanding what existence means, to some degree at least. Existence is just what's "there," by which I mean *this* (waving hands about, pointing at things at random). There is something, out there, which I am conscious of. It is self evident because all you have to do is perceive it. To consider it as not independent of consciousness requires a conceptual-level invention of ideas with zero basis for making them, it necessarily lead to contradiction in their making. One example is the old brain-in-a-vat idea, discussed by both Miss Rand and Dr Peikoff, wherein the proposer has to posit a whole bunch of things we are expected to hold as plausible yet denying the foundation of what is being relied upon to generate that plausibility.

Something exists, and you just start with that. Now, what that something happens to be is a separate question. At this point you cannot claim anything about it other than that this something that exists, combined with your own existence, has perceptual effects. Whether that existence is material or something else is for philosophy beside the point (including brains in vats or whatever), and introduction of that kind of talk about the Observable Universe in the manner you describe it into metaphysics is an error. IIRC, in her Journals, she deftly smashed that error as the fundamental source of the dichotomy of rationalism versus empiricism, and pointed out that cosmology - which is what you're trying to smuggle in - should be utterly evicted from philosophy and kept strictly in the physical sciences where it belongs. My present layman's attitude (ie I am not willing to stake the farm on this) is that I wouldn't go as far, as I would leave behind one thing, just one, and that is the cosmological principle, that the laws of existence are the same everywhere, on the grounds that it is a direct corollary of the Law of Causality. Beyond that, I agree with Miss Rand on the matter.

JJM

[DragonMaci]

The whole expanding universe theory is based upon the fact that the galaxies are all moving away from each other in an "outward" direction. Personally even if that is happening I believe the universe if infinite, i.e., everything.

Oh, and John, there is nothing "out there". The word universe when used properly means, "existence", so therefore there can be nothing outside of the universe. Jim had it right, you don't.

"It is self evident because all you have to do is perceive it."

That's the thing. You can't percieve things outside of the universe given either definition of the word.

"I would leave behind one thing, just one, and that is the cosmological principle, that the laws of existence are the same everywhere, on the grounds that it is a direct corollary of the Law of Causality."

Are you saying that Existence is a corallary of Causality? Because if you are you are wrong. The three axioms are, in order: Existence, Conciousness, and Identity. Causality is a corallary of Existence and Identity. Without Existence and Identity and Causality cannot occur. Both the cause and the effect of Causality have to have an Existence and an Identity in order to occur.

[John McVey]

The whole expanding universe theory is based upon the fact that the galaxies are all moving away from each other in an "outward" direction.

The truth of that is not in dispute, at least insofar as the measurable distances between the galaxies is generally increasing. What is in dispute is the notion that this is a philosophical issue. It is an assertion I reject. It is part of the physical science of astronomy, not philosophy, and I dare say that this is the sort of thing that Miss Rand was referring to in her journals.

Oh, and John, there is nothing "out there". The word universe when used properly means, "existence", so therefore there can be nothing outside of the universe. ... You can't percieve things outside of the universe given either definition of the word.

I reject your conflation of existence with the universe (and see below on tone). "Out there" means beyond one's consciousness, which as I said is self evident because it is perceived. Existence is simply that which is, making no statement as to what it is other than the axiomatic observation that every part of it will be a definite something (identity) and act according to its nature (causality).

The universe, and its contents, by contrast, are again part of a physical science, and the investigation of this is NOT philosophy. The term refers to a view of the totality from a what it is perspective rather than the that it is perspective that philosophy takes and refers to as existence. It is a scientific term, referring to the totality of matter and energy and whatnot, existing in a particular form and acting in a particular way, as identified and catalogued by physics and astronomy.

The two concepts are very close together, and do refer to the same existent to the point that they are frequently interchangeable if one phrases one's thoughts carefully enough as Dr Peikoff does in OPAR chapter 1. So, I can sympathise with the conflation, but still ultimately reject it. They are not synonymous as they refer to the same thing from different perspectives and treat that thing differently, even if that difference is often slight. Those are my own thoughts, and I am not alone, either. From Appendix 2, "Axiomatic Concepts", of ItOE 2nd edition, p241:

the concept "existence," at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept "universe"—all that which exists.

Clearly, Miss Rand differentiates the two as well.

Further, p 293:

The only thing that concerns philosophy is that we can say: whatever it is, it will have to be what it is, and no contradictions claimed about it will be valid - as for instance, the current theories about a particle that goes from one place to another without crossing the places in between. Now you see that is metaphysically impossible, and you don't have to be a scientist to know that. A philosopher can tell you without ever entering a laboratory that that is not possible. But for a philosopher to attempt to define what kind of particle it has to be, or how we will determine its properties, that is unwarranted and Rationalistic. That is the province of science, not philosophy.

You see it isn't the job of philosophy to tell us what exists, it's only to tell us what has to be true of everything that exists [identity] and what are the rules by which you can claim knowledge. And in regard to the constituent elements of the universe, all we can say is that they would have to have identity. That we can prove. Any other conclusions we cannot draw philosophically.

Talking about whether the universe is expanding, how big it is, and so on, are included within what she refers to as outside the province of philosophy.

Are you saying that Existence is a corallary of Causality?

Not in the slightest. How on earth could you glean that from what I wrote?? All I said was that Miss Rand recommended the ejection of cosmology from metaphysics entirely (Journals of Ayn Rand, pp698-699), and that I mused simply that one thing, and only one, might be retained. That's it.

Incidentally, I have no problem with the suggestion I may be in error, but I didn't much care for the tone you took, especially not from someone who - if I read that confusing line about 'personally' correctly - makes the mistake of either thinking the universe infinite or being so sloppy in exposition as to imply it. Did it occur to you that someone who owns a copy of an Objectivist text as comparatively obscure as the Journals might be just a wee bit more than a 6-month neophyte or something?? But I don't want a fight, and harbour no ill will. It will suffice if you blush slightly, grin sheepishly, and make a mental note to be a bit more circumspect in future I too was that brusque at times at your age. Cheers!

JJM

[DragonMaci]

I reject your conflation of existence with the universe (and see below on tone). "Out there" means beyond one's consciousness, which as I said is self evident because it is perceived. Existence is simply that which is, making no statement as to what it is other than the axiomatic observation that every part of it will be a definite something (identity) and act according to its nature (causality).

Here is what the Oxford Dictionary has to say abiut the word universe:

• noun 1 all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That fits in perfectly with what I said On top of that Dictionary.com says:

1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

Again, it fits in with what I said. The word universe means, "all of existence" or "everything that exists". Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. That is what the word means. Therefore anything that is outside what is classically considered to be a part of the universe is actually a part of the universe as well.

The universe, and its contents, by contrast, are again part of a physical science, and the investigation of this is NOT philosophy.

Never said it was. However, a good philosophy is necessary to approach science correctly. Ayn Rand herself said as much.

Clearly, Miss Rand differentiates the two as well.

Then she was unaware of what the word actually means. But then no one, not even a writer, can correctly know what every English word means. There are over 400,000 of them.

Talking about whether the universe is expanding, how big it is, and so on, are included within what she refers to as outside the province of philosophy.

The universe is all of existence, therefore its size is infinate. After all something that includes everything that exists can't expand. What is clasically defined as the universe might be expanding, but the actualy universe, i.e., everything, isn't. It can't. Existence can't expand therefore the universe can't.

Not in the slightest. How on earth could you glean that from what I wrote?? All I said was that Miss Rand recommended the ejection of cosmology from metaphysics entirely (Journals of Ayn Rand, pp698-699), and that I mused simply that one thing, and only one, might be retained. That's it.

Sorry I read a sentance wrong before. You didn't say what I tought you said. I went back and reread it and see where my mistake was. My bad. I appologise.

Incidentally, I have no problem with the suggestion I may be in error, but I didn't much care for the tone you took, especially not from someone who - if I read that confusing line about 'personally' correctly - makes the mistake of either thinking the universe infinite or being so sloppy in exposition as to imply it.

Firstly, I see nothing wrong with my tone. My tone was an emotionless, "you're wrong" and an emotionless explanation of how so. I was wrong about what you said, but that doesn't make mt tone bad. I made an error, I admit, but it was to miss a word or two not in my tone.

Secondly, as I said the word universe means, "all of existence". Existence is infinite, therefore the universe is. Therefore I was neither wrong nor sloppy in saying the universe is infinite.

As for the personally, I meant it as in, "I", very heavy enthasis on the "I" intended. I use the word "personally" as a self-possessive word in the same way as I is. That is the way the word was originally intended to be used, but over the years its use got corrupted into something with a non-objective use, like the use of many other words. I, however, refuse to use that modern non-objective use. I will only ever use it in the original objective use.

Did it occur to you that someone who owns a copy of an Objectivist text as comparatively obscure as the Journals might be just a wee bit more than a 6-month neophyte or something??

I am no 6-month neophyte, though i am still learning. However, I was the meaning and usage of a word. Being more experienced with Ayn Rand's work doesn't make you a more qualified disputer of the meaning and usage of words. While we are on, "did it occur to yous", did it occur to you that someone with 14 years of writing experience, i.e., me, might be more qualified to speak of the correct meaning and usage of words? I have studies not just modern usage and definitions, but older ones as well. I have also formed my own opinions about words that are more objective than most non-writers and even some writers. I know more about words than those that teach most people, making me better.

But I don't want a fight, and harbour no ill will. It will suffice if you blush slightly, grin sheepishly, and make a mental note to be a bit more circumspect in future I too

was that brusque at times at your age. Cheers!

No. I don't like curcumspection. I find it to be dishonest. So, no I won't be more circumspect next time. I don't do things I think to be dishonest. I prefer to look at face value and no other way. I consider all other ways to be dishonest.

"At my age"? Do you even now what my age is?

[Prometheus98876]

I am going to point out here that the fact that the galaxies are moving further apart (which is rather hard to rationally dispute from what I have read) does not serve to prove that the universe is neccesarily expanding, unless I am missing something. They are moving further apart, that does not mean existence is somehow getting bigger, as they galaxies are reall; embedded on a rubber sheet, and somehow stretch the amount of that which exists.

The universe is not really a rubber sheet, it is that which exists, lets not misapply metaphors and use them to try justify obviouslyi incorrect assumptions...

Edited March 23, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[Prometheus98876]

Did it occur to you that someone who owns a copy of an Objectivist text as comparatively obscure as the Journals might be just a wee bit more than a 6-month neophyte or something??

Also..lets not resort to THOSE tactics. A claim of possibly superior knowledge is not an argument, and is usually the tactic of someone that in fact has no argument to make, however wishes their opponent to beleive they do.

If you have a point, make it, do not allude to the fact your points are more valid just because you might know more. You might indeed have access to more information than Kane there, but that does not mean he should based on that assume you are right and he is wrong. The potential of knowledge and being correct is no replacement for actually being correct.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[DragonMaci]

Also..lets not resort to THOSE tactics. A claim of possibly superior knowledge is not an argument, and is usually the tactic of someone that in fact has no argument to make, however wishes their opponent to beleive they do.

If you have a point, make it, do not allude to the fact your points are more valid just because you might know more. You might indeed have access to more information than Kane there, but that does not mean he should based on that assume you are right and he is wrong. The potential of knowledge and being correct is no replacement for actually being correct.

Yeah, well the only reason I done it was to see how he liked his own behaviour being thrown back at him.

[Prometheus98876]

Yeah, well the only reason I done it was to see how he liked his own behaviour being thrown back at him.

I knew why you were doing it, however I do not agree with you doing it eithear. It would have been better off telling him not to try and intimidate you into accepting his argument, and not engaging in the same ridicolous "tactic", but three-fold.

I know more about words than those that teach most people, making me better.

That I take issue over. Sure you probably do know more than it about some teachers of the subject, however so what? Had you not already hurled enough bak at him at that point?

Also knowing more than them, doesnt neccesarily mean you are "better". I bet lots of people know less about some subjectgs than you , but due to superior intelligence/drive etc are "better" than you at them. I hope you realise this...

[DragonMaci]

I knew why you were doing it, however I do not agree with you doing it eithear. It would have been better off telling him not to try and intimidate you into accepting his argument, and not engaging in the same ridicolous "tactic", but three-fold.

That I take issue over. Sure you probably do know more than it about some teachers of the subject, however so what? Had you not already hurled enough bak at him at that point?

Also knowing more than them, doesnt neccesarily mean you are "better". I bet lots of people know less about some subjectgs than you , but due to superior intelligence/drive etc are "better" than you at them. I hope you realise this...

I meant linguistically better obviously.

[John McVey]

DM:

Mate, seriously, go back and read what I wrote PROPERLY. You've already admitted misreading once, and given what you wrote this time either "I'm still learning" is quite an understatement or you were in such a great rush or fury to post as to skim without paying things due attention. With spelling and grammatical errors one would expect from a teenager, your claimed 14 years' experience and advanced study are not even remotely evident.

I specifically wrote that ultimately the concepts of existence and the universe refer to the same thing, but do so from a different perspective (in the same manner, existence and identity are the same thing, viewed from a different perspective). You can quote all the dictionaries in the world about the meaning of the universe and I will neither disagree with them nor yet think the concept as identical with that of existence.

Existence is infinite, therefore the universe is. Therefore I was neither wrong nor sloppy in saying the universe is infinite.

No no no. Existence is by its nature, literally, finite. To be infinite is to be of a quantity greater than any actual quantity. It means to lack any specific quantity, which means not to possess identity. Infinitude is an abstract concept referring to the potentiality of an amount to be open-ended without stating that at any time something actually exists in an infinite (ie non-specific, non-identifiable) amount.

Then she was unaware of what the word actually means.

I strongly advise you do a LOT more learning, thinking, and growing up, before you start slinging accusations like that around - about anyone never mind Miss Rand. You have way too many fundamental errors of content and method to make statements like that and expect to be treated as potentially having something worthwhile to say. I think you are honest, intelligent, and willing to explore, so for the moment I am happy to continue discussing things. Other Objectivists are far less forgiving than I, and would treat your statement as fightin' words and proceed to tear you to shreds, if they would ever respond to you again at all.

I see nothing wrong with my tone. My tone was an emotionless

Bull. Your tone - moreso now than before - was that of a bright but arrogant and miffed youth trying to look down on people and waggle a finger in emulation of the grown-ups, totally lacking comprehension of his own shortcomings and how he actually comes across to others. As well as what I note below, you're acting your age.

As to that age, your profile states that you're 24 years old, born 23/9/82 (for the record, I am 34). If this is not the truth and you did not want people to know, why did you put this up?? I'm inclined at this stage to believe it the truth as everything fits.

Back on the note, as well as you generally acting your age, your entire post reeks of rationalism. This matches the arrogance and dogmatism. At this rate, you are in considerable danger of later concluding that Objectivism is detached from reality to some degree, and ultimately associate a bad feeling with it and us. I think it would be a shame if you went that way. SO, you're an intelligent young man, and as you say you are no newbie so the time has come for you to get serious. At 24 (or older), presumably you have more than loose change to spend. If you haven't done so already, go to the Ayn Rand Bookstore and order up "Understanding Objectivism" by Dr Peikoff. After that, get "The Art of Thinking." Not next year, not next month, but now. If you don't have the money, then scrimp and save HARD. As a bonus, one of those two (IIRC) gives an even better description than I provided on the non-infinitude of existence.

Also..lets not resort to THOSE tactics...

There were no tactics in argument. I was responding to the questionable tone he took, especially the patronising rattling off of the order of the axioms that he then admits to have originated in error, not trying to intimidate him into accepting my argument. That should have been clear by the paragraph beginning with the word 'incidentally' - but evidently I should have been even more specific.

JJM

[Prometheus98876]

There were no tactics in argument. I was responding to the questionable tone he took, especially the patronising rattling off of the order of the axioms that he then admits to have originated in error, not trying to intimidate him into accepting my argument. That should have been clear by the paragraph beginning with the word 'incidentally' - but evidently I should have been even more specific.

Ok, my mistake, and I apologise for perhaps missing the point there.

And Kane (DM) is 25 in September, if that makes any real difference, I know him in person.

[Steven_M]

I believe that unless you accept the axiom that existence exists, then a rational argument becomes impossible, since there is nothing concrete to base it on.

[Prometheus98876]

I believe that unless you accept the axiom that existence exists, then a rational argument becomes impossible, since there is nothing concrete to base it on.

Indeed. Without accepting reality you cannot make any sort of argument. An argument is an attempt to establish a proposition based on certain facts (or perhaps what you beleive to be facts if you accept that an argument can be based from an incorrect premise). However without accepting reality enough to at least observe and think about it you have no premises to base any argument on, rational or otherwise.

[$$$]

"Again, it fits in with what I said. The word universe means, "all of existence" or "everything that exists". Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. That is what the word means. Therefore anything that is outside what is classically considered to be a part of the universe is actually a part of the universe as well."

This seems completely wrong to me. Existence is not universe. There is only one existence, while there potentially could be many universes.

It seems that we are pretty certain our universe came into existence. Therefore existence is different from universe.

[DavidOdden]

There is only one existence, while there potentially could be many universes.

What is your evidence that there can be? Also provide your definition of "universe".