Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Existence exists subsidiary thread

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It's not stated explicitly anywhere; it is a conclusion I made from analyzing the way you relate existence to actual reality and vice versa. Otherwise, how would you consider existents in your concepts while you have omitted all their measurements except for the properties of existence and time?

 

P.S. I know that Objectivists are trying to escape any Kantian equation of epistemology and metaphysics, but, frankly, I do not think you can avoid this unless you have two hierarchical models of epistemology and metaphysics that correlate. I have accomplished the latter, and it's working out pretty well, avoiding any pitfalls of the previous philosophers.

The reason you cannot find it stated expliciity anywhere, is because your conclusion is based on an error in reasoning. You are holding the contradiction. ITOE specifically states:

Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind.

Or

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units . . .

where

Aa unit is is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members.

 

You're so focused on selling your neo-delusions you skipped over the part where you might want to clearly and objectively identify the strengths and weaknesses of your market audience and try tailoring the presentation to be a bit more palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason you cannot find it stated expliciity anywhere, is because your conclusion is based on an error in reasoning. You are holding the contradiction. ITOE specifically states:

Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind.

Or

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units . . .

where

Aa unit is is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members.

 

You're so focused on selling your neo-delusions you skipped over the part where you might want to clearly and objectively identify the strengths and weaknesses of your market audience and try tailoring the presentation to be a bit more palatable.

Therefore:

Words/symbols (not names) denote concepts, which are an indefinite number of definite concretes (units), which are themselves words/symbols. Words/symbols are initiated by reference to actual reality, which is later simply abandoned in favor of the unchanging words/symbols that are conceptualized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore:

Words/symbols (not names) denote concepts, which are an indefinite number of definite concretes (units), which are themselves words/symbols.

Good. Except that the unit is a way of regarding the concretes (the actual physical entities.)

 

Words/symbols are initiated by reference to actual reality, which is later simply abandoned in favor of the unchanging words/symbols that are conceptualized.

 

Where does this come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

llya said:

Words/symbols are initiated by reference to actual reality, which is later simply abandoned in favor of the unchanging words/symbols that are conceptualized.

ITOE said

A concept substitutes one symbol (one

word) for the enormity of the perceptual

aggregate of the concretes it subsumes. In

order to perform its unit-reducing function,

the symbol has to become automatized in a

man's consciousness, i.e., the enormous sum

of its referents must be instantly (implicitly)

available to his conscious mind whenever he

uses that concept, without the need of

perceptual visualization or mental

summarizing—in the same manner as the

concept "5" does not require that he visualize

five sticks every time he uses it. [....]Bear firmly in mind that the term

"measurements omitted" does not mean, in

this context, that measurements are

regarded as non-existent; it means that

measurements exist, but are not specified.

That measurements must exist is an essential

part of the process. The principle is: the

relevant measurements must exist in some

quantity, but may exist in any quantity.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, I was not arguing about the stage of conception. I only concentrated on perception. Please, forget about conception for now. All I care about in this current discussion is how words/symbols are connected to actual existents. You are saying that words/symbols are concepts, but let us concentrate on the first-level concepts then. The concept "5" does not refer to actual reality; it refers to other concepts. So the confusion now is between words/symbols and concepts, but I did not want to go there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perception is essentially the ongoing continuum of what you are seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching.

 

For 99 cents, ARI offers Harry Binswanger's presentation called Perception. His self identified theme of the lecture is "Perception is perception." Part of the first paragraph of the description:

The perceptual level of awareness, which man shares with the higher animals, is the incontestable base of all knowledge. Objectivism provides an understanding of perception that differs radically from the representationalist and subjectivist views infecting all philosophy since Thomas Aquinas. In this lecture, Dr. Binswanger explains the actual nature of perception, contrasting it with three widely held misconceptions about perception--misconceptions that make the concept of "objectivity" impossible and cut man's consciousness off from reality.

 

Perception is not going to get you very far in conversation though. You see an object moving through the sky flapping it wings with a head on one end and a tail on the other - you learn to recognize the basic shape and motion of the wings and identify it as a "bird". "Bird" is the only first-level concept in description. You could point to instances of actual physical birds you see - and refer to them, one after another, as "bird".

 

A curious child is likely to see birds flying - watch them for a while, perhaps see one on the ground hopping about, and then see it take off in flight - or notice one on a limb of a tree either prior to taking off in flight, or flying to and landing upon a branch. The child hears the flapping of the wings, the chirping, warbling and cooing sounds made. All of these perceptions are wordlessly isolated by the child, and integrated together as belonging to the same (similar) enitity(ies). Wordlessly: "All the things I saw that entity do belong together somehow." Then, pointing to a bird one day, he asks "What's that?" to his mother. Upon learning the word "bird" the child can associate the all the perceptions associated with the actual physical birds he recalls having seen up to this point in time with his now completed concept designated as the word "bird".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perception is essentially the ongoing continuum of what you are seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching.

 

For 99 cents, ARI offers Harry Binswanger's presentation called Perception. His self identified theme of the lecture is "Perception is perception." Part of the first paragraph of the description:

The perceptual level of awareness, which man shares with the higher animals, is the incontestable base of all knowledge. Objectivism provides an understanding of perception that differs radically from the representationalist and subjectivist views infecting all philosophy since Thomas Aquinas. In this lecture, Dr. Binswanger explains the actual nature of perception, contrasting it with three widely held misconceptions about perception--misconceptions that make the concept of "objectivity" impossible and cut man's consciousness off from reality.

 

Perception is not going to get you very far in conversation though. You see an object moving through the sky flapping it wings with a head on one end and a tail on the other - you learn to recognize the basic shape and motion of the wings and identify it as a "bird". "Bird" is the only first-level concept in description. You could point to instances of actual physical birds you see - and refer to them, one after another, as "bird".

 

A curious child is likely to see birds flying - watch them for a while, perhaps see one on the ground hopping about, and then see it take off in flight - or notice one on a limb of a tree either prior to taking off in flight, or flying to and landing upon a branch. The child hears the flapping of the wings, the chirping, warbling and cooing sounds made. All of these perceptions are wordlessly isolated by the child, and integrated together as belonging to the same (similar) enitity(ies). Wordlessly: "All the things I saw that entity do belong together somehow." Then, pointing to a bird one day, he asks "What's that?" to his mother. Upon learning the word "bird" the child can associate the all the perceptions associated with the actual physical birds he recalls having seen up to this point in time with his now completed concept designated as the word "bird".

The presentation was amazing. However, it totally changed the way I see the theory of concepts. Binswanger says that it should be: pre-perceptual stage first (not separate sensations), then perception, conception, and then sensation as conceptually defined. His view of awareness as the base of consciousness and as an organic, unified field (!) matched my view of awareness as I described it before, except now awareness is all (pre)perceptual. He totally removed any kind of judgements, such as how we perceive words and know their meanings, because knowing the meanings would not be perceptual but conceptual. Overall, his excellent presentation made me better understand the theory of concepts beyond ITOE. I heartily recommend it to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITOE said

A concept substitutes one symbol (one

word) for the enormity of the perceptual

aggregate of the concretes it subsumes. In

order to perform its unit-reducing function,

the symbol has to become automatized in a

man's consciousness, i.e., the enormous sum

of its referents must be instantly (implicitly)

available to his conscious mind whenever he

uses that concept, without the need of

perceptual visualization or mental

summarizing—in the same manner as the

concept "5" does not require that he visualize

five sticks every time he uses it. [....]Bear firmly in mind that the term

"measurements omitted" does not mean, in

this context, that measurements are

regarded as non-existent; it means that

measurements exist, but are not specified.

That measurements must exist is an essential

part of the process. The principle is: the

relevant measurements must exist in some

quantity, but may exist in any quantity.

I must have forgotten that passage. Thank you, Plasmatic. I have no excuse except that not enough of this information is conceptualized in my mind yet and thus my mind cannot hold much of mere percepts and that even looking at the passage now may not help me in completely understanding it. I also want to apologize for my attacks on Objectivism that were made on the premise that I am so smart and know everything, which I do not, of course. This pride in me of the breadth of my knowledge and conceptual ability irrationally overshadows my actual competence sometimes, as was evidenced in my previous posts. From now on, please consider everything I write not as written by someone who knows and understands Objectivism, but as by someone who wishes to be corrected, if applicable.

 

Since I was wrong about the modern Objectivist view of perception, let us then look at conception and how it relates to perception. If I remember correctly, Rand compares the property of quantity to the property of existence in ITOE. Similarly, in the example above she compares the concept of "5" to concretes (I will use this term for actual physical existents). By the principle that the measurements must exist in some quantity but can exist in any quantity, we have that "5" can refer to concretes. However, here are two examples of how I conceive of "5": 1) 1+1+1+1+1, where "1" is the concept of unity that is added; 2) the property of quantity that does not directly refer to existence. On the other hand, "5 oranges" is a mix of concept and percept, percept, which can also be a first-level concept. In either case, "5 oranges" is overall a definite concept that requires grasping the quantitative relationship (higher-order logic) between concretes. What I notice here is that the concept "5" can refer to as well as be composed of the same units, but "oranges," in the first-level concept stage, can only refer but not be composed of concretes. Before seeing the Binswager presentation, I was going to say "oranges" that refer to concretes is a percept, but now I understand that the act of referring means that "oranges" is already conceptualized. Therefore, "oranges" refers to and is composed of units similarly to the concept of "5." The difference, then, is that "oranges" denote the properties of quantity and existence, whereas "5" only has the property of quantity that has not been applied to concretes (this is the mistake that some modern physicists make). The former is real, whereas the latter is not necessarily real.

 

For a later post: I am still not clear how concretes that are beyond adequate perception, such as the Universe and the stars, can be conceptualized. By adequate perception I mean concretes that can be in our field of awareness versus those whose means of perception are available (their form) but not the whole of their substance. I believe that analyzing concretes beyond our field of awareness, such as particles and stars, leads to the mistake of taking sensations as actually separate concretes versus them being differentiated through conceptualization only.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My attacks of Objectivism expose the contradiction of your unification of "existence exists" and "A is A."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parataxic_distortion

 

By ignoring my arguments, you similarly contradict reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

 

people are their relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I was mistaken about the idea that Objectivism does not change. Everything changes, grows, and evolves. Otherwise, it dies. Two proofs that Objectivism is not the same as it was before with Rand: 1) Peikoff's idea of how philosophy affects culture and society about which he argued with Rand and later fleshed out in his DIM Hypothesis (please read it, if you haven't yet); and 2) Binswanger's idea of nonsensational field of perceptual awareness about which he argued with Rand and later fleshed out in his own theory of concepts (as seen in his presentation on Perception). I criticized the earlier, Rand's Objectivism, not the latter one, but I will not pursue trying to find a contradiction in earlier Objectivism. I would rather concentrate on the new findings.

Now on to your evaluations of my behavior:

"Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Oh, poor democratic socialist Orwell--your hero--who was so abused as a child in a Christian school. Read his autobiographical essay "Such, Such Were the Joys" to find where he got most of his ideas for "Nineteen Eighty-Four." You see, I do not find relationships as separate from our bodies, and just as you find our bodies and consciousness to be basically one whole, so I find our relationships to be a whole with our bodies and consciousness. Remember that no space can be separated from existence. But you keep breaking it again and again, hence you do not understand how we can be our relationships. Space is in us as well as outside, but it cannot be our space without us. Does this make sense? Maybe, you need to get out more and visit your relatives to try to find common language with them.

I realize that when one is not a master of psychology, labeling others in psych terms can be problematic, but what a hell. You are not the smartest one, right? From one of the articles you posted (and later deleted), this one most probably applies to Objectivists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29

"In psychoanalytic theory, people with borderline personality disorder are not able to integrate the good and bad images of both self and others, resulting in a bad representation which dominates the good representation. This school hypothesizes that they consequently experience love and sexuality in perverse and violent qualities which they cannot integrate with the tender, intimate side of relationships." Right away I think of the sadomasochistic relationship between Dominique and Roark.

Talk about your pernicious selfishness (in contrast to my congruent selfishness):

"Most often the narcissist does this as an attempt to stabilize his/her sense of self positivity in order to preserve his/her self-esteem, by perceiving himself/herself as purely upright or admirable and others who do not conform to his/her will or values as purely wicked or contemptible. Given "the narcissist's perverse sense of entitlement and splitting ... he can be equally geared, psychologically and practically, towards the promotion and towards the demise of a certain collectively beneficial project." "

And your fragmented, "objectivized" consciousness really shows:

"Such splitting was closely linked to the defense of "isolation ... The division of objects into congenial and uncongenial ones ... making 'disconnections'." [...] Having hateful thoughts about the other does not mean that the self is all hateful and does not mean that the other person is all hateful either. [...] "splitting of the ego into a reasonable, judging portion and an experiencing portion, the former recognizing the latter as not appropriate in the present and as coming from the past" " etc. I recommend reading the whole article. Maybe it will help you.

Seemingly, you think that your relationships have nothing to do with you. So much hate, problems with relatives, and your own relationship to yourself are areas that caused you to consider Objectivism. Rand hated her mother, had no friends in Russia, and even said in an interview that she was born an American with an inner hate for Russian inherently mystical culture. Peikoff also stated that he hated his relatives: "if I had had to choose between [Frankenstein] and my relatives, I probably would have [picked the former]" (Understanding Objectivism, 2012:317). I bet that the same kind of decay of personal relationships starting with your families applies to most Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I was mistaken about the idea that Objectivism does not change. Everything changes, grows, and evolves. Otherwise, it dies. Two proofs that Objectivism is not the same as it was before with Rand: 1) Peikoff's idea of how philosophy affects culture and society about which he argued with Rand and later fleshed out in his DIM Hypothesis (please read it, if you haven't yet); and 2) Binswanger's idea of nonsensational field of perceptual awareness about which he argued with Rand and later fleshed out in his own theory of concepts (as seen in his presentation on Perception).

 

Err, well no, those are their additions and to that extent isn't Objectivism at all. I think Binswanger is wrong more often than right even. Ideas don't die, only supporters do. And as individuals we change and grow. But specific ideas don't. Aristotle's Golden Mean is still the same. Cogito ergo is still the same. Objectivism is still the same. Philosophy doesn't stop.

 

Also you're making bad assumptions about Objectivist thought and other people. Perhaps Russia was really that bad. Maybe Peikoff had a bad family. It happens, it really does. Rand didn't like her mother, but I think she liked her father a lot. Still, don't take Rand's personal life and import that into her philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything changes, grows, and evolves.

Err, well no, those are their additions and to that extent isn't Objectivism at all. I think Binswanger is wrong more often than right even. Ideas don't die, only supporters do. And as individuals we change and grow. But specific ideas don't. Aristotle's Golden Mean is still the same. Cogito ergo is still the same. Objectivism is still the same. Philosophy doesn't stop.

 

Also you're making bad assumptions about Objectivist thought and other people. Perhaps Russia was really that bad. Maybe Peikoff had a bad family. It happens, it really does. Rand didn't like her mother, but I think she liked her father a lot. Still, don't take Rand's personal life and import that into her philosophy.

EDIT: You ignore the nonessential both in ideas and in people. That is, you ignore the substance of knowledge and concretes.

 

I don't want to derail the thread here but could you post something of his you disagree with? We don't have to discuss it here (or ever). Thanks!

I am also interested in this. Please post here.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to derail the thread here but could you post something of his you disagree with? We don't have to discuss it here (or ever). Thanks!

Okay, I just need to give another look through his book on teleological concepts. Other disagreements I have are in less substantive works like short articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I was mistaken about the idea that Objectivism does not change. Everything changes, grows, and evolves. Otherwise, it dies. Two proofs that Objectivism is not the same as it was before with Rand: 1) Peikoff's idea of how philosophy affects culture and society about which he argued with Rand and later fleshed out in his DIM Hypothesis (please read it, if you haven't yet); and 2) Binswanger's idea of nonsensational field of perceptual awareness about which he argued with Rand and later fleshed out in his own theory of concepts (as seen in his presentation on Perception). I criticized the earlier, Rand's Objectivism, not the latter one, but I will not pursue trying to find a contradiction in earlier Objectivism. I would rather concentrate on the new findings.

 

Binswanger's disagreement with Miss Rand (in Perception) was with regard to her use of sensation as a stage through with infants go - his example of a two hour old horse (add to that turtles emerging from their eggs and heading straight for the ocean, and any other animal born that "hits the ground running") was to illustrate why philosophers should look at more than just the human beings when drawing such a conclusion. Binswanger's "Consciousness as Identification" and "Abstractions from Abstractions" explore the application of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts. "How We Know" puts into book form much of the materials from several of his presentations over the years.

 

I don't know that Binswanger argued with Rand about this point on sensation, but he elaborates on her, rather than fleshes out his own, theory of concepts. Even your characterization of Peikoff here overlooks the fact that Rand herself considered philosophy as a driving factor affecting culture, that is, society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Binswanger's disagreement with Miss Rand (in Perception) was with regard to her use of sensation as a stage through with infants go - his example of a two hour old horse (add to that turtles emerging from their eggs and heading straight for the ocean, and any other animal born that "hits the ground running") was to illustrate why philosophers should look at more than just the human beings when drawing such a conclusion. Binswanger's "Consciousness as Identification" and "Abstractions from Abstractions" explore the application of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts. "How We Know" puts into book form much of the materials from several of his presentations over the years.

 

I don't know that Binswanger argued with Rand about this point on sensation, but he elaborates on her, rather than fleshes out his own, theory of concepts. Even your characterization of Peikoff here overlooks the fact that Rand herself considered philosophy as a driving factor affecting culture, that is, society.

In any case, Binswanger's and Peikoff's ideas and research is very new to Objectivism, and I think it serves as a nice 21st century face-lift for your philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, for a commie-leaning person, one place would be the Soviet Union: Lenin and Trotsky disagreed about the best way to tackle economic stagnation. Lenin pushed the N.E.P. Ilya could study that episode analytically... i.e. asking "why did this bring improvements?" "how does distributed decision-making work?" "what is the relationship between good decisions and motivation?" "why does a small street vendor approach his customers so differently from a shop-assistant?" etc. etc.

Yes, NEP was an excellent dose of capitalism into socialist Russia. That was 1921-28. Notice that from 1933-36, Roosevelt pushed The New Deal. "The New Deal’s main accomplishment may have been to provide hope, to prevent capitalism from being seen as something that had to be overcome in order to survive" (Atlas Upgrades: Objectivism 2.0 by Marc H. Gerstein, p.204). In this book, there is more on comparisons of the condition of the masses in America at the time, as depicted in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, and Russian situation after the 1905 revolution when the elite did not desire to help and the masses couldn't live1 that resulted in the socialist revolution. Did FDR save the U.S. from a socialist revolution by using some socialist ideas and thus ending the reign of free-market capitalism?

 

1edit

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did FDR save the U.S. from a socialist revolution by using some socialist ideas and thus ending the reign of free-market capitalism?

Unraveling you're saying this: FDR might have been a thug, but his thuggery pacified voters, who might have wanted a worse thug... so thank heavens for lesser thugs like FDR and boo to worse thugs like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini. That's what you're saying, but is there a point to it? Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unraveling you're saying this: FDR might have been a thug, but his thuggery pacified voters, who might have wanted a worse thug... so thank heavens for lesser thugs like FDR and boo to worse thugs like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini. That's what you're saying, but is there a point to it?

Yes, that's what I am saying--a lesser evil that saved the US. Read the book I cited and see how the US economy in 1946-2011 period was actually more stable than in 1801-1926 period. By stability I mean less recessions and more steady, matured growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fine. How would you explain the following quotes:

“AR: What is the distinction between the practical and the theoretical? That’s a distinction which I do not recognize” (ITOE, 1990:135).

“AR: the concept “existence,” at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept “universe”—all that which exists” (167).

“[AR:] But now what’s the difference between saying “existence exists” and “the physical world exists”? ” (170).

"[Peikoff:] once you say “existence,” that implies it’s something (Understanding Objectivism, 2012:149).

"[Peikoff:] Everything is something; it is what it is; it is definite, it has a nature, it is something specific" (Objective Communication, 2013:26).

Now that the contradictory question with perception is cleared, I am having an issue with "Existence is Identity." Can someone explain this definition of existence in light of the above quotes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now that the contradictory question with perception is cleared, I am having an issue with "Existence is Identity." Can someone explain this definition of existence in light of the above quotes?

Consider AR's usage of the concept "existence".

Then, using the materials cited, the two Peikoff quotes may shed some light as outlined in the following:

[O]nce you say “existence,” that implies it’s something {identity}.

Everything {existence} is something {identity}; it {existence} is what it is {identity}; it {existence or existent} is definite {identity}, it {existence or existent} has a nature {identity}, it {existence or existent} is something specific {identity}".

 

ee how the US economy in 1946-2011 period was actually more stable than in 1801-1926 period. By stability I mean less recessions and more steady, matured growth.

Reading what you wrote here simply brings to my mind Patrick Henry's salient words:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider AR's usage of the concept "existence".

Then, using the materials cited, the two Peikoff quotes may shed some light as outlined in the following:

[O]nce you say “existence,” that implies it’s something {identity}.

Everything {existence} is something {identity}; it {existence} is what it is {identity}; it {existence or existent} is definite {identity}, it {existence or existent} has a nature {identity}, it {existence or existent} is something specific {identity}".

 

Reading what you wrote here simply brings to my mind Patrick Henry's salient words:

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

When I say Existence, I mean absolutely everything. Absolutely everything does not have an identity. When you say that absolutely everything is an orange, it's like saying that "5" is "5 oranges." You make an addition to or linearize the concept when you jump right away to a concrete to which you refer it. Yes, an orange has the essential quality of existence, and, yes, it also has a quantity, but an orange, and even all oranges, cannot be an all-encompassing everything. Absolute everything is a mix of everything, and thus how can you say that it's something specific that has an identity?

 

The latter quote is quite gloomy. You would rather die than allow other people to live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that latter quote quite inspiring. It resonates of an individual that had a profound grasp of what it means to live, and what conditions are required to do so.

 

When Ilya looks out at existence, in whole or in part, Ilya perceives what Ilya perceives. When Ilya is perceiving Popeye the Sailor, Popeye simply iterates "I am what I am.". The rest of what Ilya perceives simply is what it is.

 

Consciousness is identification, i.e., consciousness is an active process consisting of two essentials: differentiation and integration - which is used in the process of identification, which no individual can perform for another. Not everyone grasps this. To do so, requires effort - discovering the right questions to ask, discovering how to integrate without contradiction new material into the sum of one's understanding, or eliminate erroneous or contradictory premises from an erroneous understanding.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

llya said:

an orange has the essential quality of existence, and, yes, it also has a quantity, but an orange, and even all oranges, cannot be an all-encompassing everything. Absolute everything is a mix of everything, and thus how can you say that it's something specific that has an identity?

Groups are groups of individuals. When one says "everything", this is a linguistic symbol that is a shorthand tag for saying each individual existent exists at a time. (This dog, that dog, this candle, that boat) since the term refers to only individuals and all individuals have identity, there is no problem such as you present. Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...