Existence exists subsidiary thread

[Ilya Startsev]

Do you differentiate between existence that you perceive and existence that you conceptualize? Seemingly, you don't. However, not all people start with the concept of existence. I will need to chew on this further.

[Plasmatic]

llya said:

Do you differentiate between existence that you perceive and existence that you conceptualize?

I think you want to point at the open-endedness of concepts. Concepts are ampliative in that they say any existent which possesses the property of x is an instance of the class which I am referring to.

In any case perception is not conception of course.

[Ilya Startsev]

I think you want to point at the open-endedness of concepts. Concepts are ampliative in that they say any existent which possesses the property of x is an instance of the class which I am referring to.

In any case perception is not conception of course.

You do not differentiate between the existence of an atom, a human body, or a star, for instance. They all either exist or do not exist. But I also see an essential difference between them--a degree of existential relationship. This quantitative differentiation of degree of existence I call a critical point. The concept of a critical point is formed from the relationship of objects to their contexts. This abstract quantitative relationship includes both, but does not differentiate between them. Thus, a critical point of atoms in their fields is lesser than a critical point of human bodies in their environments, whose critical point is in turn lesser than a critical point of stars in their nebulae. This is the way I classify things. Your way of classification still eludes me.

[Plasmatic]

llya said:
 

This is the way I classify things. Your way of classification still eludes me.

 
Oism classifies things by similarity and differences. Integration and differentiation. 
 
ITOE said:
 

A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members. (Two stones are two units; so are two square feet of ground, if regarded as distinct parts of a continuous stretch of ground.) Note that the concept "unit" involves an act of consciousness (a selective <ioe2_7> focus, a certain way of regarding things), but that it is not an arbitrary creation of consciousness: it is a method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality. This method permits any number of classifications and cross-classifications: one may classify things according to their shape or color or weight or size or atomic structure; but the criterion of classification is not invented, it is perceived in reality. Thus the concept "unit" is a bridge between metaphysics and epistemology: units do not exist qua units, what exists are things, but units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships.

 

llya said :

 

 

You do not differentiate between the existence of an atom, a human body, or a star, for instance. They all either exist or do not exist.

 

That's because existence is the widest abstraction to which no genus could preceed...Their are no levels-degrees to such absolutes.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Ilya Startsev]

Oism classifies things by similarity and differences. Integration and differentiation. 

 

ITOE said:

A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members. (Two stones are two units; so are two square feet of ground, if regarded as distinct parts of a continuous stretch of ground.) Note that the concept "unit" involves an act of consciousness (a selective <ioe2_7> focus, a certain way of regarding things), but that it is not an arbitrary creation of consciousness: it is a method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality. This method permits any number of classifications and cross-classifications: one may classify things according to their shape or color or weight or size or atomic structure; but the criterion of classification is not invented, it is perceived in reality. Thus the concept "unit" is a bridge between metaphysics and epistemology: units do not exist qua units, what exists are things, but units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships.

 

That's because existence is the widest abstraction to which no genus could preceed...Their are no levels-degrees to such absolutes.

Ok, so do you get to existence by units? If so, how do contexts (e.g., natural environment) convert to units?

[Ilya Startsev]

You integrate units to get to conceptual existence. You differentiate units in their contexts, compare them by finding similarities that are the contexts, then integrate by abstracting units from their contexts. What happens in every instance of integration is your abandoning the contexts, the relationships, the spacetime, the nonessentials, the irrational, the emotional, the real. What remains is isolated objects with no connections to anything but themselves. Existence exists. Welcome to hell.

 

P.S. By reality I mean the nonlinear--not merely a mathematical concept, but everything in the world that does not have exact boundaries.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

Which is why I admire them [the Wright brothers] for their accomplishments, and disregard the insignificance of any flaws others may wish to place under their microscopes

don't take Rand's personal life and import that into her philosophy.

Those who only concentrate on the positive are very similar to those who only concentrate on the negative. I profess that people need to be taken and studied as wholes. It helps to keep yourself in balance and sometimes even makes you learn something new and reevaluate your perspective. It takes a relationship with a whole human being, not some mechanical or half-filled zombie. The concept of a relationship really needs to be understood.

 

There are three stages of human development: 1) body, 2) consciousness, 3) relationships. The first stage is physiological--the birth, perception, and development of your body (your heart and brain). You are your body at stage 1 and are aware of the world perceptually. This is also the stage of a primitive person. The second stage is conceptual--the creation of the concept of "self."¹ You are your consciousness and are emotionally and rationally conscious of the world. Your mind and soul are developing. This is the stage of a thinker. The third stage is interpersonal--the voluntary creation of relationships with others. You are your relationships at stage 3 and can relate to other people in your life. Your private and public persons are developing. You are becoming a whole individual interconnected with others based on what you value. This is the stage of a well-rounded, social individual. Note that each stage includes, by definition and reference, the previous stages.

Instead of ignoring people's relationships and calling that without which people could not exist nonessential, read Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand's biography that throws light upon her success as a novelist and philosopher dependent on relationships with people. Zinovy Rosenbaum, Frank O'Connor, Isabel Paterson, Nathaniel Branden, and others shaped who she was and had become. We should talk more about whole people in their contexts, not just their achievements. In contrast to Rand, I do not ignore people who influenced me and proudly display her as an indispensable influence on my views.

¹Note that in order to form the concept of "self," one needs the word, its definition referring to one's body and thus building a relationship to it, and the observance of conscious relationships of others (the facts of "third-person" consciousness). Conceptually relating to others is fundamental to relating to yourself.

 

While reading another theistic criticism of Objectivism (Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality), I came up upon this quote from ITOE with a new understanding of it:

[in contrast to nominalism] one of the important issues here, and the reason for going into the process in detail, is to indicate the metaphysical base of similarity and the fact that it is grasped perceptually, that it is not a vague, arbitrary abstraction, that similarity is perceptually given, but the understanding of what similarity means has to be arrived at philosophically or scientifically. And similarity, when analyzed, amounts to: measurements omitted.

What she is saying is that we perceive the similarities between objects not inherent to them but that those similarities are a metaphysical reality, which becomes conceptual when we try to understand it. This is the same as my concept of a critical point. A critical point is not in a reality; it is a reality. However, it is a part of the reality of existence, not the reality. A (specific) reality is more definite than the (overall) reality, however. The whole of existence is all of relationships. Interestingly, if we ignore quantitative relationships for a moment (i.e., don't differentiate singular from plural, which may be your common mistake anyway), a relationship between a body and its environment is the same as a relationship between two bodies, so an environment can be seen as a contextual object. This is what I meant when I said that people are their relationships. Relationships are a metaphysical reality. Their contents--extended consciousness--do not have exact boundaries.

So, the issue still remains how all existing relationships that we conceptually integrate (universal everything) are some specific existing relationship (particular something). Even conceptually, everything is not something. Everything is everything. Something is something. I think what's confusing is that "Existence is existence" is viewed not as objects but as relationships of being: Existence exists. There are three basic parts to the concept existence:

(1) an existing relationship that we do not yet know but can only perceive; this is a purely perceptual stage (e.g., existence of some two objects); these are metaphysical concretes with no meaning (i.e., metaphysical and the beginning of an epistemological stage);

(2) a conceptual relationship referring to a specific one that we can now understand and thus know (the concept existence of any two objects); this is a definition (i.e., epistemological stage but not metaphysical);

(3) an absolute conceptual relationship that can be applied to any specific relationship, but cannot be known, for it omits any parts of (or that refer to) specifically objective knowledge (i.e., 1 or "of any two objects" of 2); this is the word "existence" without a definition (or with an incomplete one--whichever way you see it; metaphysical but not epistemological stage).

[in my view: (1) is a critical point, if it's a relationship between spatiotemporal extremes or some critical amount of human relationships; (2) is a conceptual definition of it, such as Body--Environment; and (3) is existence.]

Thus, (3) can refer to (2), but not absolutely, and (2) can refer to (3), but only absolutely (i.e., by principle), so (2) can only refer to (1) specifically. Notice that (3) does not refer to (1) because (1) is not referring to anything, it just is. What can refer is only a conceptual definition, such as (2). (1) can also be confused with what we know because it is our metaphysical perception, which we overlay on physical reality. Yet, the key word is that it is a perception in our mind, not a fully integrated conception yet. The word (percept) "existence," before its meaning is understood, does not refer to anything. To rephrase in other words, "existence" (3) is a conceptual universal that simultaneously refers to all concretes that existed, exist, or will exist, but a particular concrete is only an instance of "existence."

I have shown the formation of the concept of existence, but note that existence is neither just (1) nor just (2) nor just (3). It is all of them. When you say existence exists, you are saying that existence is (1), but this is not true, and so the axiom cannot be applied in this way.

[dream_weaver]

The concept of a relationship really needs to be understood.

In order to understand the concept of a relationship, do you think it might be beneficial to explore beyond the narrow scope that you are delimiting it to?

 

Does understanding the concept of a relationship only encompass what you profess, or what you don't ignore (while ignoring its broader contexts), or what your view is, or what you claim you have shown?

[Ilya Startsev]

In order to understand the concept of a relationship, do you think it might be beneficial to explore beyond the narrow scope that you are delimiting it to?

 

Does understanding the concept of a relationship only encompass what you profess, or what you don't ignore (while ignoring its broader contexts), or what your view is, or what you claim you have shown?

These are all excellent points. Of course, I cannot show you the concept of a relationship as it refers to human beings. To this, I concede, you must come on your own. More than anything, I would like to know your concept of relationships that you have already formed.

[Ilya Startsev]

Okey, I have thought through this again, and I think I have cleared my issue. I confirm, Existence is Identity and Everything is something but  metaphysically, not physically. My short comparison chart of philosophies follows:

 

P for physics, M for metaphysics, E for epistemology.

1 for object of perception (the what), 2 for form of perception (the how), x for none.

 

Plato: P2 M1 Ex

Aristotle: P1 M2 Ex

Kant: Px M2 E1

Rand: Px M1 E2

mine: P1 Mx E2

 

Check to see whether I understand this. I think I now especially need to study Kant.

[Plasmatic]

Your still using metaphysical as a synonym for nonmaterial or some such invalid concept. There is no such thing as a existent that is something metaphysically but not physically ....I recommend you download the History of Modern Philosophy lectures which start with Kant. However the lectures can be misleading in that Dr. Peikoff tries to present Kant in a way that is neutral as possible. The result is that Kant seems to accept things that he actually denies via his theory, and these stolen concepts aren't expressly stated until late in the lectures.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Ilya Startsev]

Your still using metaphysical as a synonym for nonmaterial or some such invalid concept. There is no such thing as a existent that is something metaphysically but not physically ....I recommend you download the History of Modern Philosophy lectures which start with Kant. However the lectures can be misleading in that Dr. Peikoff tries to present Kant in a way that is neutral as possible. The result is that Kant seems to accept things that he actually denies via his theory, and these stolen concepts aren't expressly stated until late in the lectures.

No, the metaphysical is what remains after you omit the physical. The difference between the Objectivist metaphysical and the Platonist one is that your metaphysical is at the base (and the conclusion) of a unique epistemology, which of course refers to reality. The similarity between Objectivism and Kantianism is exactly in the acceptance of physical reality but an overall omission of it, albeit a different one in each case. While Kant omits reality by saying that we can only know the way we know it, Rand says that reality is omitted in concepts, but metaphysics is also the conceptual stage of your epistemology.

[dream_weaver]

I would like to know your concept of relationships that you have already formed.

In the context that you seem to keep bringing up, there are quite a number. Consider the terms "child", 'parent", "acquaintance", "coworker", "boss", "employee", "friend", "foe", "marriage", "divorce", "team", "classmate", "pen pal", "mentor", "disciple", "student", "teacher", "president", "congressman", "senator", "voter". You'll find a few of these on page 70 of ITOE in the section about  concept formations which are considered to be mandatory, specifically subsection (d) "complex human relationships involving combinations of physical and psychological behavior".

 

Keep in mind these relationships involve other relationships.

Child describes relationships to two adults. Parent describes relationships between another adult and a child. Acquaintance describes casual relationships, while coworker describes working relationships. A working relationship ties into economical relationships as well. All of these involve relationships to various virtues and values which are determined by the consideration of the relationship of the objects involved relative to one's own life.

 

Consider taking a gander at Peikoff's breakdown of "friend" in OPAR starting on page 134 showing a hierarchal relationship back to the perceptual level (a relationship between existence and consciousness serving as the base of all man's knowledge).

[Plasmatic]

llya said:

No, the metaphysical is what remains after you omit the physical. The difference between the Objectivist metaphysical and the Platonist one is that your metaphysical is at the base (and the conclusion) of a unique epistemology, which of course refers to reality. The similarity between Objectivism and Kantianism is exactly in the acceptance of physical reality but an overall omission of it, albeit a different one in each case. While Kant omits reality by saying that we can only know the way we know it, Rand says that reality is omitted in concepts, but metaphysics is also the conceptual stage of your epistemology.

You will not find support for this nonsense anywhere in Oist literature. The "meta" of metaphysical only refers to the organization of Aristotle's works by Andronicus of Rhodes, not some distinction from the physical. Aristotles discussion of what exists was placed after (meta) the books on physics. That is the only reason for this.

[Ilya Startsev]

In the context that you seem to keep bringing up, there are quite a number. Consider the terms "child", 'parent", "acquaintance", "coworker", "boss", "employee", "friend", "foe", "marriage", "divorce", "team", "classmate", "pen pal", "mentor", "disciple", "student", "teacher", "president", "congressman", "senator", "voter". You'll find a few of these on page 70 of ITOE in the section about  concept formations which are considered to be mandatory, specifically subsection (d) "complex human relationships involving combinations of physical and psychological behavior".

 

Keep in mind these relationships involve other relationships.

Child describes relationships to two adults. Parent describes relationships between another adult and a child. Acquaintance describes casual relationships, while coworker describes working relationships. A working relationship ties into economical relationships as well. All of these involve relationships to various virtues and values which are determined by the consideration of the relationship of the objects involved relative to one's own life.

 

Consider taking a gander at Peikoff's breakdown of "friend" in OPAR starting on page 134 showing a hierarchal relationship back to the perceptual level (a relationship between existence and consciousness serving as the base of all man's knowledge).

The only difference is that when I say "body" I mean a physical body, and when you say "existence" you mean a metaphysical property. Body is a physical entity that is not an attribute or property or a collection thereof. Our concept of it is a universal, but it does not refer to a property of existence--it refers to an actual concrete or concretes. So in my case the relationships are not just metaphysical descriptions but are the definitions of who we are--at least those of us who realized themselves on stage 3 of development and who are not merely thinkers.

 

You will not find support for this nonsense anywhere in Oist literature. The "meta" of metaphysical only refers to the organization of Aristotle's works by Andronicus of Rhodes, not some distinction from the physical. Aristotles discussion of what exists was placed after (meta) the books on physics. That is the only reason for this.

You mean the theory of measurement-omission is nonsense? Let me explain. You create some metaphysical measurement, overlay it on some physical stuff, omit the stuff, and the measurement is imprinted into your mind with new data from the physical world. You repeat the process, not realizing that you originally used an a priory metaphysical measurement in order to create measurements that involve actual evidence. This is a pseudo-science you got there. You took Aristotle, removed his science and kept his metaphysical analyzing as the real world.

 

This "nonsense" is all over the Oist literature. It's in your conflation of physics and metaphysics, particulars and universals, something and everything, identity and existence, practical and theoretical, belief and truth, etc. All of them are contradictions. You are saying that an atom within a body and the body are both existence, but how do you know whether there is existence within existence or not?

Definitions from dictionary.com:

Physics: "the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force."

Metaphysics: "3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry" (this definition is not in conflict with the treatise by Aristotle).

Here are questions for you:

1) Are matter, energy, motion, and force principles (in your sense of the word)?

2) Do principles qua principles, or abstract attributes, have mass?

If you have answered "no" to both questions, then physics and metaphysics are not identical. If you have answered "yes" to any of them, then you misunderstand physics and metaphysics. To an Objectivist, meta- means "after" in a sequential way, not in a substantive way. In other words, metaphysics is simply a continuation of physics, it is more of the same. However, the definition of "meta-" is: "2. a prefix added to the name of a subject and designating another subject that analyzes the original one but at a more abstract, higher level" (e.g., metaphilosophy, metalinguistics, metaphor). You are ignoring that "after" also means "in consequence of" or "about."

[Plasmatic]

llya said:

You mean the theory of measurement-omission is nonsense? Let me explain. You create some metaphysical measurement, overlay it on some physical stuff, omit the stuff, and the measurement is imprinted into your mind with new data from the physical world. You repeat the process, not realizing that you originally used an a priory metaphysical measurement in order to create measurements that involve actual evidence.

It's becoming clear that you intend to find whatever way you can to take some symbols used by Oism and make them into something completely nonsensical in order to appear to justify your own ridiculous mysticism.

You have no idea what a measurement is either...a measurement is measurement of something! You take measurements, not create them. Measurement is an abstraction from the metaphysically given. It appears you are confused by equivocating measurement with a standard of measurement. You have no understanding of the difference Rand makes between the "metaphysically given" and "the man made".

llya said:

This is a pseudo-science you got there. You took Aristotle, removed his science and kept his metaphysical analyzing as the real world.....This "nonsense" is all over the Oist literature. It's in your conflation of physics and metaphysics, particulars and universals, something and everything, identity and existence, practical and theoretical, belief and truth, etc. All of them are contradictions. You are saying that an atom within a body and the body are both existence, but how do you know whether there is existence within existence or not?

Now your equivocating physics with physical along with metaphysics. Provide an instance of conflating particulars with universals. I mean an actual quote! You have no idea what a contradiction is either.

You are saying that an atom within a body and the body are both existence, but how do you know whether there is existence within existence or not?

You actually want to reject the claim that both atoms and the entity that is comprised of them exists? I know there is no more than existence because existence is everything, that is, I know what existence means....

llya said:

Physics: "the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force."

Metaphysics: "3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry" (this definition is not in conflict with the treatise by Aristotle).

Here are questions for you:

1) Are matter, energy, motion, and force principles (in your sense of the word)?

2) Do principles qua principles, or abstract attributes, have mass?

If you have answered "no" to both questions, then physics and metaphysics are not identical. If you have answered "yes" to any of them, then you misunderstand physics and metaphysics. To an Objectivist, meta- means "after" in a sequential way, not in a substantive way. In other words, metaphysics is simply a continuation of physics, it is more of the same. However, the definition of "meta-" is: "2. a prefix added to the name of a subject and designating another subject that analyzes the original one but at a more abstract, higher level" (e.g., metaphilosophy, metalinguistics, metaphor). You are ignoring that "after" also means "in consequence of" or "about."

More conflation of physical with physics...

You don't go to a dictionary to figure out what Oist mean by metaphysics. Nor does a rational person rely on dictionary.com for philosophical guidance. That definition of metaphysics is a conflation with epistemology. The original use of meta does not in any way mean "in consequence of" or "about". It just meant that Andronicus placed Aristotle's discussion of "first philosophy" AFTER the book on physics. No where does Rand claim that metaphysics comes after physics in a sequential way! Metaphysics is the foundational science at the root of all other science! Your referring to a modern usage by non Oist cannot be used as a foil against Oism because thats not what we mean!

There should be a rule for people like you that after claiming so many retarded things about Oism that you have to supply a quote as an instance to support your arbitrary and obviously contradictory claims......

Edited August 4, 2014 by Plasmatic

[dream_weaver]

The only difference is that when I say "body" I mean a physical body, and when you say "existence" you mean a metaphysical property. Body is a physical entity that is not an attribute or property or a collection thereof. Our concept of it is a universal, but it does not refer to a property of existence--it refers to an actual concrete or concretes. So in my case the relationships are not just metaphysical descriptions but are the definitions of who we are--at least those of us who realized themselves on stage 3 of development and who are not merely thinkers.

When I say "existence" in the broadest sense, as I used it here, I meant what you perceive or a capable of perceiving with your senses, period. 

 

Telling others what they mean, and/or making unsubstantiated, misrepresentative statements about what Miss Rand, Dr. Peikoff or other acknowledged spokespersons of Objectivism mean is banal and an all too frequent aspect of your repertoire. If you want to claim what someone other than yourself said (not meant), do so by concisely citing the relevant or pertinent passage(s).

Edited August 4, 2014 by dream_weaver

[Ilya Startsev]

I have given you so many quotes already, and you have seen my views displayed in 398 posts, but you are not connecting much of that since post 1.

"Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents" (ITOE, p.56, original emphasis).
Although she said that "[a]n existent is a concrete. “Existent” is a very convenient term in that it subsumes entities and attributes and actions and even mental events" (ITOE, p.167, my bold emphasis). So, is it a concrete, an attribute of a concrete, or existence?

"[AR:] [T]he concept “existence,” at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept “universe”—all that which exists.
Prof. B: “Existence” is a collective noun almost.
AR: That’s right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists" (ITOE, p. 167). Existence is a universal and yet it's a particular. Pick one already and stick to it!

"Strictly speaking, existents are not objective; they simply are. It is minds, and specifically conceptual processes, that are objective—or nonobjective" (OPAR, p.117). And reality is objective because it is metaphysically viewed.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "It is not easy to say what metaphysics is." They divide it into old and new. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has 45 entries. You seemingly prefer the Aristotelian one. If so, I have already given you the definition.¹ If you want more, to make this shorter, I will give examples of what metaphysics is and deals with: "being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."² Measurement is an abstraction, the standard of measurement is a unit (also an abstraction). You are measuring concepts by concepts. The man-made is like art or technology--it is a selective re-creation of reality, viz., the application of concepts to matter. The existence of the man-made is contingent; the existence of the metaphysically given, like nature, is necessary, or just is. In either way, it is viewed by you metaphysically.
So, in my view, metaphysics is the conceptual stage of epistemology, and it is purely mental. In your view, your reality is mental where an attribute is the same as a concrete and singular is the same as plural. It's like a blur if it is not sharpened by what you perceive. Yet, you cannot keep your entire mind³ sharpened, since Rand said that "man is not omniscient,"⁴ but existence was likened to the universe by her.

"Every truth about a given existent(s) reduces, in basic pattern, to: “X is: one or more of the things which it is” (ITOE, p.100). So what specific quantity does existence have? Metaphysics cannot answer on that question, but physics can, since physics does not just use an indefinite attribute of quantity, but it uses a definite quantity with a quality (e.g., 10 apples, 5.3 meters). Physics says that at about this time the Universe has 10^80 particles and 10^122 of their possible interactions.⁵ But physics also says that things and reality are always changing, growing, evolving, and it can only take a snapshot at any one time. You consider this mysticism, and I embrace this physical mysticism wholeheartedly.

Yes, I conflate physical reality with physics just as you conflate metaphysical reality with metaphysics. Your conflation is much worse, though, since we can get conversations like these:
Kant might have said: "People, our minds are reality. We are for altruism."
And Rand might have countered: "You idiot! Reality is my mind. I am for egoism."

While both equated reality and mind, Kant had put mind first, Rand put reality first, but both missed that our reality is physical and contains no mental entities. The consequences of Kant's view we already know, but the consequences of Rand's view we have yet to see. What's encroaching, though, is the real conflict of Kantian and Randian philosophies in the minds of Americans and the unknown effects it will have on the rest of the world. I would rather prefer to prevent it and show the inadequacies of both worldviews.

 

You actually want to reject the claim that both atoms and the entity that is comprised of them exists?

Where did you get this from? Atoms have existence, bodies have existence, but the two have different existences in physical reality, since you can place one into the other. Can you do the same in your mind, especially with my model? Maybe that's the reason my model does not fit into your mind. Because you can only fit what you perceive directly.
 

No where does Rand claim that metaphysics comes after physics in a sequential way! Metaphysics is the foundational science at the root of all other science!

An earlier quote by you: "Aristotles discussion of what exists was placed after (meta) the books on physics. That is the only reason for this." Aristotle was a physicist first, metaphysicist second. How is metaphysics at the root of all science again? Oh, but it is at the root of Objectivism. Guess what, Objectivism is not a science! Have any of you made any contributions to the scientific knowledge yet? Ok, I am waiting...

¹

That definition of metaphysics is a conflation with epistemology. [...] Your referring to a modern usage by non Oist cannot be used as a foil against Oism because thats not what we mean!

Indeed it is also epistemological in a way, since Aristotle used metaphysics to tell him about reality, to tell him how, rather than what. But there was none of our epistemology back then, so you might have imported it into the interpretation of that definition.

² from a definition by google

³ i.e., existence, or as Greg said: "what you perceive or a[re] capable of perceiving with your senses"

⁴ “Philosophy: Who Needs It” (from App.A in Objective Communication by Peikoff).

⁵ Seth Lloyd's Programming the Universe, pp. 24, 113 (Digital).

 

edit: corrected a misspelling

Edited August 5, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

I have given you so many quotes already, and you have seen my views displayed in 398 posts, but you are not connecting much of that since post 1.

Perhaps the lack of connecting has something to do with the content of what your posting?

 

"Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents" (ITOE, p.56, original emphasis).

Although she said that "[a]n existent is a concrete. “Existent” is a very convenient term in that it subsumes entities and attributes and actions and even mental events" (ITOE, p.167, my bold emphasis). So, is it a concrete, an attribute of a concrete, or existence?

I believe she said they are the existents, which as you properly cited her as identifying: subsumes entities, attributes, actions and even mental events. Concretes are more (or are too delimited?) delimited, which, per TheSage’s English Dictionary, is “capable of being perceived by the senses; not abstract or imaginary.”

 

"[AR:] [T]he concept “existence,” at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept “universe”—all that which exists.

Prof. B: “Existence” is a collective noun almost.

AR: That’s right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists" (ITOE, p. 167). Existence is a universal and yet it's a particular. Pick one already and stick to it!

 

What is the issue here? Are you capable of considering existence as an existent? Can you also consider existence as all the existents?

I am not sure if you are trying to go from Rand's use of "existence" as "universe" to your quandary about "existence" as a "universal" or a "particular".

 

"Strictly speaking, existents are not objective; they simply are. It is minds, and specifically conceptual processes, that are objective—or nonobjective" (OPAR, p.117). And reality is objective because it is metaphysically viewed.

 

This is a non sequitur, not to mention ambiguous at best. He just got done pointing out that it is minds, and specifically conceptual processes, that are objective-or nonobjective.

 

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "It is not easy to say what metaphysics is." They divide it into old and new. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has 45 entries.

How difficult was it for Dr. Peikoff’s to write: “Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the universe as a whole.”, on page 3 of OPAR?

 

You seemingly prefer the Aristotelian one. If so, I have already given you the definition.¹ If you want more, to make this shorter, I will give examples of what metaphysics is and deals with: "being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."²

A dictionary, Google’s or otherwise, hardly offers philosophical guidance. “Knowing” for instance, falls under epistemology, and indeed - what you accept in epistemology is influenced by what you accept in metaphysics.

 

Measurement is an abstraction, the standard of measurement is a unit (also an abstraction). You are measuring concepts by concepts. The man-made is like art or technology--it is a selective re-creation of reality, viz., the application of concepts to matter. The existence of the man-made is contingent; the existence of the metaphysically given, like nature, is necessary, or just is. In either way, it is viewed by you metaphysically.

So, in my view, metaphysics is the conceptual stage of epistemology, and it is purely mental. In your view, your reality is mental where an attribute is the same as a concrete and singular is the same as plural. It's like a blur if it is not sharpened by what you perceive. Yet, you cannot keep your entire mind³ sharpened, since Rand said that "man is not omniscient,"⁴ but existence was likened to the universe by her.

I don't understand how reducing a concept back to the perceptual level (developing a concept's hierarchy) would be a case of measuring concepts by concepts.

I also don't understand how the reality I perceive and abstract concepts from is mental, nor why an attribute would be indistinguishable from a concrete or singular would be indistinguishable from plural.

And the relevance of the rest of these two paragraphs is pretty much lost on me.

 

The rest of your post appears directed toward this post.

[Ilya Startsev]

What is the issue here? Are you capable of considering existence as an existent? Can you also consider existence as all the existents?

What you wrote makes no sense. Is it one existent? Is it two existents? Is it an attribute? Is it a percept? A concept, maybe? Complete ambiguity. Complete lack and at the same time fullness of specious awareness, as you keep jumping between them ad absurdum never getting a final result. Listen to reason: Rand had created your concept existence that you follow so devotedly. I am capable of analyzing existence and considering it as 32 concepts subsuming sensations and perceptions. In my definition, Existence is absolute everything that is physical and can be analyzed. Physicalism is based on science, not some vague abstractions.

 

what you accept in epistemology is influenced by what you accept in metaphysics

Metaphysics is a bunch of concepts and falls under the conceptual stage of epistemology. That is my case. I don't perceive existence. What I perceive is the interactions with the physical world, physical properties and responses, and on the basis of these perceptions, I form the concept of existence. In order for there to be the concept of existence, there had to be, first, the physical world and, second, my consciousness.

 

I don't understand how reducing a concept back to the perceptual level (developing a concept's hierarchy) would be a case of measuring concepts by concepts.

Concepts do not get reduced. Concepts are contents of your mind. Try omitting them. But you surely can ignore the physical reality by just concentrating on your concepts of which you are and are not even fully aware (i.e., existence). You surely are proficient at omitting physical measurements, as well as most of everything I have been telling you, while I have been trying to reach your isolated mind for five months. As I have already seen so many times, you will simply continue invincibly ignoring me.

[dream_weaver]

What you wrote makes no sense. Is it one existent? Is it two existents? Is it an attribute? Is it a percept? A concept, maybe? Complete ambiguity. Complete lack and at the same time fullness of specious awareness, as you keep jumping between them ad absurdum never getting a final result. Listen to reason: Rand had created your concept existence that you follow so devotedly. I am capable of analyzing existence and considering it as 32 concepts subsuming sensations and perceptions. In my definition, Existence is absolute everything that is physical and can be analyzed. Physicalism is based on science, not some vague abstractions.

 

You ask: "Is it one existent?" Why didn't you phrase it "Are they one existent? Are they two existents?

You address existence as "an it" while playing the "inability to distinguish singular from plural" card. Just as "it" can be used in a singular or plural sense, so there are other terms that do as well. "Existence" just happens to be one of them.

 

Concepts do not get reduced. Concepts are contents of your mind. Try omitting them. But you surely can ignore the physical reality by just concentrating on your concepts of which you are and are not even fully aware (i.e., existence). You surely are proficient at omitting physical measurements, as well as most of everything I have been telling you, while I have been trying to reach your isolated mind for five months. As I have already seen so many times, you will simply continue invincibly ignoring me.

The fact that we exchange posts contradicts your claim that you are being ignored.

 

The issue is one of communication.

The desire to be understood burdens the one trying to communicate the responsibility of discovering how best to communicate their idea.

The desire to understand places the responsibility on the listener to seek clarity on the points they do not grasp.

 

With that in mind, note that you are on a forum that geared toward a specific philosophy. Are you really surprised that what you are presenting, and the manner in which it is presented, are not being embraced with open arms?

[Ilya Startsev]

You address existence as "an it" while playing the "inability to distinguish singular from plural" card. Just as "it" can be used in a singular or plural sense, so there are other terms that do as well. "Existence" just happens to be one of them.

It's a nice correlation with a dummy pronoun. Can it mean that a dummy pronoun is more abstract than "existence"? It is more often used.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

As I have already seen so many times, you will simply continue invincibly ignoring me.

Nobody is ignoring you; not even me.  You simply haven't said anything that's worth a response.

 

You don't have to understand neurobiology in order to use your brain, nor do you have to analyze the axioms in order to understand them.

[Ilya Startsev]

Nobody is ignoring you; not even me.  You simply haven't said anything that's worth a response.

 

You don't have to understand neurobiology in order to use your brain, nor do you have to analyze the axioms in order to understand them.

That's encouraging and good to hear.

 

As you might have seen through these discussions, I am not merely analyzing your axioms, but I am using them as tools to understand the contents of your minds and mental processes therein. More specifically, I am interested in your outlooks, so I can truly understand Objectivism. It is a difficult process indeed because I simply think differently and on cardinally different fundamental grounds.

[Ilya Startsev]

Is existence an orange? Please answer yes or no.