Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Metaphysicist

Regulars
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Metaphysicist

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  1. RadCap: "This is an error in logic. It is what is called an "arbitrary assertion". This means an assertion which is not based on fact - ie on reality. Such an assertion is not 'possible', 'probable', 'improbable' or anythign else, because all these concepts require an evaluation of FACTS about reality....To make the claim that it X is 'possible', you must provide evidence OF x. 1. Beings exist (and are therefore existents) 2. Beings are composed of many existents 3. It is possible for a Being to exist which is composed of all existents The evidence is contained within premises
  2. What i meant was that having accepted the basic axioms of objectivist metaphysics, one may derive alternative interpretations from them. Discovering the absolute truth can be harder than it looks. For example, even accepting the premise that "self-interest is the highest good" can lead to radically different conclusions. (e.g. Is there a higher Self or merely atomised individual selves?) If it can be demonstrated that a variety of competing assertions can logically be made from the same axioms, it disputes the notion that the political and ethical ideology associated with objectivism is
  3. RadCap: Thank you for your interesting reply. You said that "Because it is NOT an existent, but is simply a specific quantity of existents, 'existence' therefore does not possess ANY attributes...... Existence has no attributes because there is no THING to possess them." What you appear to be doing is ruling out the possibility of existence being a thing, simply because it is a quantity of existents. However, any particular Man is also a quantity of existents yet i'm sure you would regard him as a thing. I'm asserting that it is at least logically possible that all existents
  4. It's possible that i have made a logical error in claiming that " If part of X has proprety z, then X has proprety z" What i thought was that X does not have the property of being X, it simply is X. Maybe that is the same thing. In any case, i reasoned that if consciousness exists in one part of an object (i.e. the brain) then one can rightly say that the entire system of which the brain is one part has the attribute of consciousness. So if Man is part of existence and he is conscious, then existence has the quality of being conscious. That is not to say that Existence is Man.
  5. Please show me what sentence of mine indicated that "existence = consciousness" I said existence is conscious. There's quite a difference.
  6. That's not quite what i'm saying. What i'm proposing is that Existence has an identity. It's constituent parts, existents, also have identities. (Although there is no fixed number of identities, given that any object can be sub-divided infinitely). Why does Existence have an identity? Because anything that exists must have an identity. Existence is not merely an abstraction, it is a set of real phenomena. Some existents have the attribute of consciousness. Even when only one part of X has an attribute, that attribute can be said to be an attribute of X as a whole. Therefore E
  7. The way i see it, Objectivism is not the only "true" philosophy but there are others that may be possible as well. It appears to be true that the axiom existence exists is undeniably correct. If existence did not exist, then what exactly would this mean? Nothing in reality would be different, just because we said it didn't exist. Now Rand tells the story that existence is made up of units called existents. A man is an existent who has the attribute of consciousness, which allows him to perceive (through the use of his sense organs) the existence around him. We are told also that con
×
×
  • Create New...