Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Conceptualising Existence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In the ITOE appendix, when asked what 'existence' is differentiated from, Rand answered:

"Close your eyes. That is what you are differentiating it from"

I do not accept this answer. When I close my eyes, I see the skin on the inside of my eyelids; this is, undoubtedly, part of existence, and not something else. I would have to step outside existence in order to see it comparatively. Even if I could perceive 'nothing' by closing my eyes (which is impossible, since any perception must be a perception of something), this still wouldn't help. What is the conceptual common denominator? What is the essential characteristic of existence?

Personally, I am skeptical that a concept of 'existence' can even exist. Surely 'existence' is a proper noun? If so, it would seem that the rug has been pulled out from under Rand's conceptual hierarchy.

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to OO.

 

In ITOE, Miss Rand writes what the units of the concept of "existence" consists of. It pertains to every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has existed or will exist.

 

Existence is an abstraction. it abstracts and integrates into a single fact that is shared and underscored by every element of the aforementioned categories; the fact that they exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked briefly to find the quote in ITOE (I couldn't), but I think you are taking the "close your eyes" a little to literally and out of context.

 

Historically, the answer to how we arrive at ANY concept, much less something as complex as "existence" has been answered different ways by different philosophers.  What Rand is alluding to is that ALL knowledge is gained via the evidence of the senses.  This is in opposition to such schools of thought as Scholasticism, Rationalism, Idealism, etc.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Appendix - Entities and Their Makeup

Prof F: I had asked the question, "What do you distinguish existence from, since there is nothing else?" And Miss Rand said, "Look at something. Now close your eyes. That is what you are distinguishing it from." And that made it perfectly clear. It doesn't imply, of course, that there is a metaphysical zero which comes into existence when you close your eyes.

 

This would be looking at something, closing your eyes, and you no longer see the something you were looking at, as opposed to replacing the something with the back of your eyelids. As indicated at the end of the quote, this does not imply that there a metaphysical zero, as the example given about seeing the skin on the inside of the eyelids dispels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to OO.

 

In ITOE, Miss Rand writes what the units of the concept of "existence" consists of. It pertains to every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has existed or will exist.

 

Existence is an abstraction. it abstracts and integrates into a single fact that is shared and underscored by every element of the aforementioned categories; the fact that they exist.

But dream_weaver, you are equivocating. First you use existence as a proper noun, to refer to the totality of all that exists, and then you use it as an abstract noun to refer to that fact which is shared by those things which are a component of that totality.

What actually is the fact which is shared by those things? Rand makes it clear that existence is not an attribute, and therefore it cannot be measured. In which case, how does measurement omission work for the concept of existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions you are asking are addressed pretty specifically in chapter 6 of ITOE.

It is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents, but of a basic fact from all facts. Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents.

 

It is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents. It is the abstraction of a basic fact from all facts.

 

There was no equivocation intended. This may better state it for you:

The concept of existence is an abstraction. It abstracts and integrates into a single (basic) fact that is shared and underscored by every element of the aforementioned categories (from all facts).

 

As to measurement omission, in the last half of the 6th paragraph is found:

The measurements omitted from axiomatic concepts are all the measurements of all the existents they subsume; what is retained, metaphysically, is only a fundamental fact; what is retained, epistemologically, is only one category of measurement, omitting its particulars: time—i.e., the fundamental fact is retained independent of any particular moment of awareness.

 

Edited: Added

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the ITOE appendix, when asked what 'existence' is differentiated from, Rand answered:

"Close your eyes. That is what you are differentiating it from"

I do not accept this answer. When I close my eyes, I see the skin on the inside of my eyelids; this is, undoubtedly, part of existence, and not something else. I would have to step outside existence in order to see it comparatively. Even if I could perceive 'nothing' by closing my eyes (which is impossible, since any perception must be a perception of something), this still wouldn't help. What is the conceptual common denominator? What is the essential characteristic of existence?

Personally, I am skeptical that a concept of 'existence' can even exist. Surely 'existence' is a proper noun? If so, it would seem that the rug has been pulled out from under Rand's conceptual hierarchy.

Any thoughts?

If I don't take this comment as a joke, I will simply regard it as a misunderstanding.  If you're eyes are open, you are seeing something, let's say a chair or desk or house.  If  you close your eyes, you are not seeing that something.  If you do not accept the answer, then I can only guess that you have X-ray vision and can see with your eyes closed.  You imply that "close your eyes" means you see nothing, which is an absurd conclusion and the exact opposite argument that Rand makes.  She simply means that you do not see what you see with your eyes open.

 

If you really think you see the back of your eyelids, then go into a room with no light leaks. Look at an object in the room with a light on, then turn off the light so that it is pitch black.  Even with your eyes open, you will not see the object.  You certainly will not see the back of your eyelids.

 

Thus "existence" is a concept that conceptualizes what you see when your eyes are open and there is sufficient light.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus "existence" is a concept that conceptualizes what you see when your eyes are open and there is sufficient light.

But when you block my view of something, I know it exists. By definition, a blocked object is something I don't see. The issue in the OP is that there is no way to compare an abstraction to itself. Existence is compared to... what? If no comparison is possible, then it'd be a proper noun. As an axiomatic concept, it seems the only comparisons you can make is when you're considering abstractions like contents or changes in form. "What's in the cookie jar?" "Nothing". There are probably crumbs, but the set of items in the jar is effectively 0. That's a very basic level, so I'd bet working from there inductively is important. Something like comparing empty sets to the set of everything. Just taking a stab at a possible answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when you block my view of something, I know it exists. By definition, a blocked object is something I don't see. The issue in the OP is that there is no way to compare an abstraction to itself. Existence is compared to... what? If no comparison is possible, then it'd be a proper noun. As an axiomatic concept, it seems the only comparisons you can make is when you're considering abstractions like contents or changes in form. "What's in the cookie jar?" "Nothing". There are probably crumbs, but the set of items in the jar is effectively 0. That's a very basic level, so I'd bet working from there inductively is important. Something like comparing empty sets to the set of everything. Just taking a stab at a possible answer.

I suggest you study Objectivist epistemology more thoroughly.  The issues you're talking about have been written about extensively.  I see no point in simply repeating what others have written.  You'll have to think and figure these things out yourself.  The answers are out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you study Objectivist epistemology more thoroughly.  The issues you're talking about have been written about extensively.  I see no point in simply repeating what others have written.  You'll have to think and figure these things out yourself.  The answers are out there.

What? Because I disagreed with you, I must need to study more? I don't like being patronized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any thoughts?

 

God doesn't exist.

 

This is not some metaphysical attribution of 'non-existence' to God.  When I say that "God doesn't exist" I mean that there is a concept in my head, which I call "God", which has no counterpart anywhere outside of my head.

 

In exactly the same way, when I say that "atoms exist" I mean that I have an idea of something called an "atom" which relates to something real and independent of me.

 

Hence, the idea of "non-existence" (I assume you've read ITOE, probably very recently) is abstracted from every instance in which something is 'all in our heads', with the particular how's and why's omitted.  The concept of existence is abstracted the same way from every instance in which we know about something that exists.

 

"Existence" is differentiated from "falsehood". 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Because I disagreed with you, I must need to study more? I don't like being patronized.

You wouldn't feel patronized if you didn't put words in my mouth.  Your disagreement had nothing to do with my statement.  Your lack of knowledge did. 

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't feel patronized if you didn't put words in my mouth.  Your disagreement had nothing to do with my statement.  Your lack of knowledge did. 

If I agreed, you wouldn't say I lacked knowledge. The only evidence you provided that I lack knowledge is, well, nothing at all, so the only evidence I have is my disagreement. It is patronizing to provide no reasons. I wanted to be more precise than "what you see", otherwise, I'd have to question that the sun exists since it's night time. Existence needs to conceptualize what you don't see, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I agreed, you wouldn't say I lacked knowledge. The only evidence you provided that I lack knowledge is, well, nothing at all, so the only evidence I have is my disagreement. It is patronizing to provide no reasons. I wanted to be more precise than "what you see", otherwise, I'd have to question that the sun exists since it's night time. Existence needs to conceptualize what you don't see, too. 

I guess I relied on the evidence of your own statement in comparison to what what I said to be clear. 

 

You said, "But when you block my view of something, I know it exists."  That is irrelevant to the point being made.  The issue was perceiving what exists and how to distinguish that perception from what could be referred to as not perceiving existence.  If your eyes are open, you see the object of perception, and can conceptualize the concept existence in the manner that Rand describes in ITOE.  If your eyes are closed, you do not see the object and hence you would be unable to conceptualize existence without your perception.  Thus, the concept existence is distinguished from "something else", which is what the point was about. Your awareness vs. your lack of awareness.  When you are aware, you are aware of existence.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, the concept existence is distinguished from "something else", which is what the point was about. Your awareness vs. your lack of awareness.  When you are aware, you are aware of existence.

But existence is everything, there is not "something else" to distinguish it from. Concept formation requires a comparison by Rand's theory. I agree with the point being made, that our awareness is how we conceptualize existence, but awareness isn't so simple as what you see in front of you. That's how a baby would do it - so some babies fail at object permanency. To make existence into a full-on concept needs a comparison to something besides itself, which is still not possible to do well by simply closing your eyes. Keep in mind the appendix quote in question was published posthumously unedited by Rand in a Q&A, so if pressed, she may have improved her answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But existence is everything, there is not "something else" to distinguish it from. Concept formation requires a comparison by Rand's theory. I agree with the point being made, that our awareness is how we conceptualize existence, but awareness isn't so simple as what you see in front of you. That's how a baby would do it - so some babies fail at object permanency. To make existence into a full-on concept needs a comparison to something besides itself, which is still not possible to do well by simply closing your eyes. Keep in mind the appendix quote in question was published posthumously unedited by Rand in a Q&A, so if pressed, she may have improved her answer.

If you can't grasp the difference between being aware of something and not being aware of it, then there's not point in arguing.  As Rand explained, the concept 'existence' is grasped by a specific method.  Go reread what she said because your argument is answered by what she says.  If you want to present her statements and offer arguements against that, I'd be open to discussing that.  But comparing an adults level of knowledge to a baby's is not going to get  you an answer. 

 

And awareness IS what you see in front of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And awareness IS what you see in front of you.

I'm aware of occluded objects. Occluded objects are by definition not what I see in front of me. That means your answer is insufficient. At best, you've given a starting point, but it doesn't answer the OPs question. Note the quotes dream_weaver gave, which point out that existence is an abstraction from all facts, indicating that its referents are also non-perceptual as well as perceptual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...