StrictlyLogical

Are you just having an argument with yourself or what?

SL said:
 
 
This is exactly what my distinction is in fact about. Notice, I have repeatedly rejected the notion that the sense of primacy-priority is about "importance". The ontological distinction Oism makes about the Primacy Of Existence is about causal chains not about levels of existence or importance. When Ms. Rand says that an entity has characteristics that are more fundamental or that consciousness is a "dependent"  She is answering the question "What had to come first?", not "what exists more or less?", or "what is more important?".
 
Notice, that when the axiom of the Primacy of Existence is introduced it is stated as synonymous with "existence exist" and then immediately a discussion of causal chains begins.   
 
from Philosophy: Who Needs It?
 
In metaphysics the answer to the question, "What comes first, existence or non existence?" is "Existence exist. Existence cannot come from non-existence".
 
To the question, "what comes first entities or attributes?" is "entities are their attributes, therefore there never was a time when redness existed before the entity which is red"  So, the answer to the question, "which comes first entities or consciousness?" is "Entities are the only primary existents and while there may have been a time when consciousness didn't exist and there may be a time when there are no more conscious entities there never was or will be a time when there are no entities."
 
In the sense of fundamentality of characteristics, the answer to the question. "which comes first walking or legs" is "function follows form". 
 
In ethics, the answer to the question, "What comes first, self or others?" is "Self, because groups are groups of individuals and life comes first, or, is the cause of value."
 
Notice, right after the above section in PWNI Ms. Rand starts talking about what is "impossible" without that "by means of which" something else comes to be the case.
 
 
 
 
Consciousness exists by means of the entity which has the form, by means of which, consciousness is caused. Mind is not over matter because mind is caused by matter.
 
Only concrete entities have independent existence, that is,  entities are causal primaries.
 
Nothing about this has anything to do with imputing a teleological concept of method like "evaluation" to mind independent existence...
 
I will relate this to the thread this discussion was taken from in a bit.

DA
 
CriticalThinker2000 answered your first question, and Eiuol answered your second but I have more to add on your second.
 
Entities exist, and yes there are patterns of relationships between them.  But nothing has more ISness simply by virtue of those relationships.  One thing is larger than another, one is to the left of another, one thing is hotter than another, these are facts.  There is no metaphysical ordinal or primacy  or hierarchy, nothing has more BEING than another thing.  They are as they are, when they are. 
 
Again, a food chain is a fact of reality with causal spatio-temporal links amongst its parts.  But why bother with such an example?  Take a look at a pyramid of gold (just spatial relationships).  We can identify bits near the top and bits near the bottom.  Is the reality (as such) of the bits at the top more important to reality?  Do they possess more ISness than the bits at the bottom?
 
By what possible standard of reality itself (i.e. from the view of a non-mystical reality, i.e. metaphysically) could anything be more important in reality or exist more in reality?  No such standard exists, and to attribute one to reality IS an example of intrinsicism/mysticism. 
 
NOTE:  The discussion is about ordering in the sense of hierarchy, ranking, importance, primacy etc.  This is to be distinguished from "order" that exists in reality.  A row of billiard balls metaphysically is ordered in the sense that the locations are orderly, i.e. fall within a straight line, and have a sequence.  This kind of order which exists (in the sense that the balls all have their positions and in reality the relationships of "closeness" vary and exist) is not the kind of order being discussed, better described as metaphysical primacy or metaphysical ranking, which does not exist.

The concept 'table' does not only refer to tables that exist but every table that ever existed and any table that will ever exist. It's universal...
 
Aaaaand this was my sneaky way of subscribing to the thread.

Then the answer was "no", not "yes". You didn't say same, but saying yes to "do you mean man-made fact" means it is the same... Serious question, is English your second language? Often it seems like disagreement with you are only differences of language use. Also I see you get where/were their/they're your/you're wrong - consistently, not just as typos.

Anyway, why say "ontologically" objective instead of objective? Ontological usually implies a specific hierarchy and is more specific than metaphysical. It makes more sense to simply say metaphysical. No fact is independent of consciousness, in terms of recognition at least - an epistemological convenience. What is independent is the truth of the fact, even man-made facts are true independent of consciousness, that's why Rand made a distinction in terms of volitional control instead of truth type (there are not types of truth). Even more, the distinction of epistemological fact is not needed, since any fact is necessarily the case. A skyscraper existing is a man-made fact, but it is necessarily the case that it exists, has a height, has a width, etc. The only way I can get epistemological fact to make sense is as a synthetic truth precisely because it seems to me that you're evaluating truth type.

To be clear, I am agreeing completely with the Objectivist view. Usually I am clear when I'm disagreeing with the Oist view, and if I don't mention disagreement, I am in agreement. My overall point here is the same as SL's post #19. Nothing exists "more" than something else. A metaphysical priority only really makes sense in terms of relationships among entities, but there is no absolute Order to concepts; and entities in an order is a question of epistemology. An atom for instance isn't more or less real than a basketball, but we can identify how these entities relate in metaphysical terms, such as basketballs are made of atoms, or both entities exist no matter what I say, i.e. primacy of existence. Priority applies here in the sense primacy of existence is needed to determine anything as true or real.

I just wanted to make an observation on a Friday leading into, hopefully a great weekend..
 
 
We have all heard the statement "The truth will set you free".  This is somewhat of an insipid bromide, and it pertains mostly to the relief of the cessation of evasion, self-denial, or dishonesty.  Relief from the guilt and the stress/worry of being caught or from being in a state of dis-integration.  The relief from the self inflicted problems of vices is not like setting one's self free, it's more like taking one's hand out of the burning fire he never should have idiotically placed his hand into.
 
For us Objectivists however this statement, used in a different context, reflects a reality few non-Objectivists, if any, would understand.
 
We all (almost all) were raised in and indoctrinated with religion, false dichotomies, evasion, disintegration, duty, rationalism, intrinsicism,.. these all create actual mental prisons.  Prisons in the sense that they restrict freedom of thought and action in ways which are not rational, valid, properly justified, nor in accordance with reality, and from which the prisoner, to the extent of his ignorance, is helpless to escape.  When one discovers the truth, the Axioms, what morality IS, what rights are, i.e. Objectivism, even though the structures around us remain, the religions, the statism, the public consensus in irrationality etc., one nevertheless has been literally, albeit only mentally and spiritually, set free by that discovery.  In this way the truth HAS set you free.
 
On a Friday perhaps it is a nice thing to remember in the face of all of the coercion and unjust initiation of force upon your lives... .at least you have found a way, the truth, to free yourself from the mental and spiritual prison you once occupied!
 
Have a great weekend!

I just wanted to make an observation on a Friday leading into, hopefully a great weekend..
 
 
We have all heard the statement "The truth will set you free".  This is somewhat of an insipid bromide, and it pertains mostly to the relief of the cessation of evasion, self-denial, or dishonesty.  Relief from the guilt and the stress/worry of being caught or from being in a state of dis-integration.  The relief from the self inflicted problems of vices is not like setting one's self free, it's more like taking one's hand out of the burning fire he never should have idiotically placed his hand into.
 
For us Objectivists however this statement, used in a different context, reflects a reality few non-Objectivists, if any, would understand.
 
We all (almost all) were raised in and indoctrinated with religion, false dichotomies, evasion, disintegration, duty, rationalism, intrinsicism,.. these all create actual mental prisons.  Prisons in the sense that they restrict freedom of thought and action in ways which are not rational, valid, properly justified, nor in accordance with reality, and from which the prisoner, to the extent of his ignorance, is helpless to escape.  When one discovers the truth, the Axioms, what morality IS, what rights are, i.e. Objectivism, even though the structures around us remain, the religions, the statism, the public consensus in irrationality etc., one nevertheless has been literally, albeit only mentally and spiritually, set free by that discovery.  In this way the truth HAS set you free.
 
On a Friday perhaps it is a nice thing to remember in the face of all of the coercion and unjust initiation of force upon your lives... .at least you have found a way, the truth, to free yourself from the mental and spiritual prison you once occupied!
 
Have a great weekend!

I just wanted to make an observation on a Friday leading into, hopefully a great weekend..
 
 
We have all heard the statement "The truth will set you free".  This is somewhat of an insipid bromide, and it pertains mostly to the relief of the cessation of evasion, self-denial, or dishonesty.  Relief from the guilt and the stress/worry of being caught or from being in a state of dis-integration.  The relief from the self inflicted problems of vices is not like setting one's self free, it's more like taking one's hand out of the burning fire he never should have idiotically placed his hand into.
 
For us Objectivists however this statement, used in a different context, reflects a reality few non-Objectivists, if any, would understand.
 
We all (almost all) were raised in and indoctrinated with religion, false dichotomies, evasion, disintegration, duty, rationalism, intrinsicism,.. these all create actual mental prisons.  Prisons in the sense that they restrict freedom of thought and action in ways which are not rational, valid, properly justified, nor in accordance with reality, and from which the prisoner, to the extent of his ignorance, is helpless to escape.  When one discovers the truth, the Axioms, what morality IS, what rights are, i.e. Objectivism, even though the structures around us remain, the religions, the statism, the public consensus in irrationality etc., one nevertheless has been literally, albeit only mentally and spiritually, set free by that discovery.  In this way the truth HAS set you free.
 
On a Friday perhaps it is a nice thing to remember in the face of all of the coercion and unjust initiation of force upon your lives... .at least you have found a way, the truth, to free yourself from the mental and spiritual prison you once occupied!
 
Have a great weekend!

I just wanted to make an observation on a Friday leading into, hopefully a great weekend..
 
 
We have all heard the statement "The truth will set you free".  This is somewhat of an insipid bromide, and it pertains mostly to the relief of the cessation of evasion, self-denial, or dishonesty.  Relief from the guilt and the stress/worry of being caught or from being in a state of dis-integration.  The relief from the self inflicted problems of vices is not like setting one's self free, it's more like taking one's hand out of the burning fire he never should have idiotically placed his hand into.
 
For us Objectivists however this statement, used in a different context, reflects a reality few non-Objectivists, if any, would understand.
 
We all (almost all) were raised in and indoctrinated with religion, false dichotomies, evasion, disintegration, duty, rationalism, intrinsicism,.. these all create actual mental prisons.  Prisons in the sense that they restrict freedom of thought and action in ways which are not rational, valid, properly justified, nor in accordance with reality, and from which the prisoner, to the extent of his ignorance, is helpless to escape.  When one discovers the truth, the Axioms, what morality IS, what rights are, i.e. Objectivism, even though the structures around us remain, the religions, the statism, the public consensus in irrationality etc., one nevertheless has been literally, albeit only mentally and spiritually, set free by that discovery.  In this way the truth HAS set you free.
 
On a Friday perhaps it is a nice thing to remember in the face of all of the coercion and unjust initiation of force upon your lives... .at least you have found a way, the truth, to free yourself from the mental and spiritual prison you once occupied!
 
Have a great weekend!

Objectivists have a unique view of self-interest, we have read and thought much about the fundamental alternative of life and death, what it means to flourish, that life's purpose and reward is happiness (in the full sense of the term) and that all of these things are tied with and defined by Man's nature... i.e. qua Man.
 
I believe any assessment of an animal, if it is to avoid anthropomorphizing the animal, must also be based on the animal's nature, i.e. qua particular animal.  What does it mean for that animal to flourish, what is it's natural qua animal life?  This obviously is not simple nor universally applicable and must be done in a way that makes sense to the animal's existence as that animal. 
 
For the aspect of captivity alone, this will depend on factors such as intelligence, normal range of activity/migration, how travel affects the animal physically and neurologically, etc etc.  I would assume keeping an eagle on the ground with its wings tied to its sides would not be conducive to the eagle flourishing qua eagle.  Restricting an earthworm to the ground, however, would lead to its flourishing just as well as enclosing it in a 500 foot tall enclosure with cliffs for it to crawl up to... which it never would.

I'll respond to the OP, for the sake of the original poster:
 
First, the idea that something "pops into" and "out of existence" are stolen concepts.  Mass and energy as well as a myriad of various other quantities, charge, momentum, lepton number etc. are conserved and/or in some cases converted one to another (e.g. mass <---> energy) but strictly speaking no physicist has actually observed anything actually going "out of existence" or "coming into existence".  Particles can annihilate top create energy and excess energy of particle interactions can lead to particle antiparticle pair production  but this is not "something from nothing" nor "something into nothing"... it is a change in the forms of existents - the sum total of the universe does not change: the universe cannot become "the universe minus one" or the "universe plus one" so to speak. 
 
As for randomness, nothing philosophically speaking can strictly and logically rule it out nor strictly and logically rule it in.  Causality, for subatomic particles and for conscious beings, as a corollary of the law of identity, requires only that a thing act in accordance with its nature, i.e. it cannot act not in accordance with its nature.  So for some things, being identically as they were, and in the exact same context, "could have done otherwise than they did".  This is what some people mean by the property of "free will" which is exhibited by complex existents like human beings.  This also is claimed to be exhibited by things such as electrons or photons changing states on interaction: the claim being they could have changed to another state (spin up instead of down or polarization orientation etc.) according to some probability (which we use to describe them).  In this way the possible outcomes and the probabilities are determined by their nature/identity but the particular outcome is not determined by their identity (determinism of course holds the opposite view).
 
Einstein would deny this "it could have done something different" as evidenced by his statement "God does not play dice..." to subatomic particles, and materialists who deny free (adhering to determinism) will deny the same "it could have done something different" as exhibited by more complex conscious systems: humans.
 
As long as the range of possibilities and probabilities are dictated by the nature of the electron, photon, or human, i.e. as long as the actions are in accordance with identity, then some randomness within those constraints is possible within the Objectivist philosophical framework.
 
In fact, Objectivism's validation of "free will" as a fact of reality strictly and logically speaking presupposes that a material (non supernatural) entity (which happens to be complex system) can act (all actions are caused, none are uncaused) in such a way that it "could have done otherwise".  As such the universe is not deterministic.

Let's concretize the situation:
 
The concept of an Axiom, involves the idea that they are necessary but not sufficient for one to claim any and all knowledge.
 
Validation of the Axiom involves observation that the Axiom applies (is necessary) to each and every part of the totality of your knowledge, and in fact upon integration of all that knowledge, observation that it applies to any possible knowledge.
 
The Arbitrary is a claim to something for which no evidence has been observed.  Claims to the existence of an omnipotent spaghetti monster or the Devil fall into this category. Arbitrary claims fall short of the meaning of "possible" for which at least SOME evidence must exist tending to show the thing claimed to be a possibility.  I.e. unless some probability backed by evidence can be shown something has the status of Arbitrary, meaningless, and not possible.  When all of your knowledge contradicts an Arbitrary claim, I would say the Arbitrary claim should in fact be deemed "impossible". 
 
It is BOTH
 
1. an arbitrary claim; AND
2. a claim to the impossible
 
to claim that it is possible that some special scientific knowledge will be "discovered" which invalidates an Axiom (an axiom which has already been independently validated as necessary for the totality of all of your knowledge) thereby invalidating all knowledge we have heretofore possessed... and incidentally thereby invalidating the special scientific knowledge...(transforming it into mystic intuition or revelation?? after all knowledge no longer is valid...)
 
The claim that the discovery of such special scientific knowledge is possible is of on the same epistemological level as claiming the possibility of God, or that the Universe will end tomorrow, or that existence, identity, and consciousness are illusions... (nonexistent illusions of what non-consciousness neither of which are what they are?)
 
 
Keeping context: The analysis is not an empty rationalisation regarding some unknown unspoken Axioms of arbitrary origin.  We already have a set of Axioms we are confronted with and must take into account when speaking of Axioms. 
 
 
The Axioms discovered to be necessary for the claim to any and all knowledge include:
 
Existence
Consciousness
Identity
 
 
Keeping it concrete:
 
What possible nature and or type of special scientific discovery, i.e. what special knowledge could be "observed" for which we would suddenly exclaim knowledge is impossible?  Do not doubt this would be the logical result you would have to accept.  Think about it.  Without looking to any specific type of scientific discovery, which one of these Axioms is it "possible" could be controverted by "special knowledge" without actually invalidating all knowledge?
 
Some of you will see the black empty zero forming in your mind... a conceptual black hole or perhaps some amorphous undefined conceptual fog... and while staring into this void you will still have some sense or a FEELING that there is something there...     In the end these things do not amount to it but you will be still tempted to sheepishly say:
 
"It's possible..."

Then I think the only disagreement you have is over word choice. The other people asking you questions seem to think you're denying philosophy is important to science. You're not doing that, though. I think science and philosophy are inseparable for the most part making all scientific claims to some extent philosophical. But it's important to remember that Objectivism approaches all knowledge, even philosophy, in a scientific way, i.e. with observation, induction, and logic as all valid methods. Think of it this way. To call a scientist a bad philosopher is to just say the scientist undermines his or her ability to do science in the first place. That's why it is considered a philosophical error rather than strictly a scientific one.

I agree with almost all of what you said except for ... "restoring reason in a world..."
 
In some sense it may partly be true .. politically and economically compare now to the founding of America, but in the entire scope of mysticism, ethics, etc. this is not so much about "restoring" it as popularizing its recent profound consistent discovery and application... Rand's work.

"being" as in "being the beneficiary" of other's action, is not itself an action on your part.  It is inaction, coupled with dependence upon the action of others.  Dependence leaves you open to the same risks of disvalue as any other kind of inaction if and when the actions of others cease to be to your benefit.
 
Also, your ability to sustain yourself through action is a skill which can atrophy if you get in the habit of dependence and inaction.  Such atrophy puts you at risk because if and when your benefactors become your detractors, you will be ill equipped to fend for yourself.  Its much better in the long run to always act for your own benefit, to be as independent and self reliant as you can. 
 
Do not confuse self-reliance with a tendency to avoid society, social interaction, or trade of value for value.  Specialization can be the BEST way you can become self-reliant: you make more money being a surgeon, you are not "dependent" upon your plumber, you pay him: and it costs you the equivalent of 10 minutes of your time at work for his 2 hours while saving you 5 hours of fumbling around and botching up the pipes.

I agree with almost all of what you said except for ... "restoring reason in a world..."
 
In some sense it may partly be true .. politically and economically compare now to the founding of America, but in the entire scope of mysticism, ethics, etc. this is not so much about "restoring" it as popularizing its recent profound consistent discovery and application... Rand's work.

Your words are thoughtful.
 
I have read every kind of discourse in these forums, from insipid, dogmatic, evasive, rationalistic, parroting, to thoughtful, heartfelt, brilliant, awe-inspiring, lucid, enlightening... we get people in here from all walks of life, every level of education, every leaning in politics, philosophy, religion, we have some incredibly intelligent people and a few crackpots posting here...
 
I think an open forum will get all of the above and it can be a good thing... certainly it is good sometimes.

The analysis here may have been turned on its head.
 
Instead of asking about whether any sex act as such is depraved, ask whether any act's depravity can suddenly be dispelled by being associated with a sex act.
 
 
Sex per se, or as such, is just that, sex.  Naked individuals touching each other and themselves in various places in various ways to stimulate each other into feeling sexual sensations.  That is core sex.
 
Now for something completely different:
 
Imagine a person who, due to some psychological defect, subconsciously feels he is disgusting, and specifically, for some odd reason the disgust is imagined in a very specific way, in the form of fish guts, his self image is a bucket of it.  By some quirk of his lack of self esteem, he fantasizes about putting fish guts on a woman's head and face, which will simultaneously bring her down to a level of disgust he has for himself, while marking her as his, by virtue of covering her literally with what he thinks of himself.  This is a fantasy of self debasement while at the same time allowing him to direct his self-hatred outward.
 
Now suppose he acts on this complex psychological inner world (due to hatred and a lack of self-esteem) by finding a woman with the same psychological problems... they engage in placing fish guts on each others heads and yelling at each other with revulsion.  They revel in the depravity, hatred, and self loathing.
 
 
Now suppose, because of the intensity of sex, they get the idea and agree to smear, eat, and insert fish guts during the act of sex to "amp up", if you will, the "fish guts ritual" pay back.  Of course if anyone asks them what they think of each other they would likely not tell the truth (they would likely even lie about their own self image). " I value myself [i really hate myself, I am like fish guts]. and I value my partner [she's as disgusting as me]" Truth here is [in brackets]
 
 
The question now is:
 
Has the association of a Sexual act with the clearly depraved psychologically "flawed and damaged" fish guts ritual, suddenly absolved the ritual and the actors of the depravity upon which the ritual is based?  Is sex, because it is so "spiritual" "glorious" "intimate" "noble" "profound" "joyous" etc. like a mystical absolution by the Pope... possessing magic able to dispel any psychological or spiritual taint to the affair?  "With my blessing this depraved fish guts ritual shall become primarily merely "Sex"".
 
 
Sex as such is not depraved, associating it with depraved activity does not change the nature of the depraved activity, it only ADDS sex to it. 

Prior to reaching his pedagogical technique, he had presented the primacy of existence as the first philosophic axiom (rather than the axiomatic concepts of existence, identity and consciousness) in the section dealing with why does man need a method of validating his conclusions. Having argued this point on many occasions, I often found myself on the defensive.
 
He covers the primacy of consciousness in OPAR, but the approach he outlined here turns the tables. By declaring that existence is has primacy over consciousness, expect to be countered with “How do you know this?”, “Can you prove it?”
 
The answer here is no. Proof presupposes the primacy of existence. In requesting proof, the challenge itself has cloaked within it the notion that your belief in the primacy of existence is not sufficient. If proof is requested, question “Why is the belief in the primacy of existence not sufficient?”
 
If an answer could be come up with, it would have to run along the lines that “One has to have some method of validating one’s beliefs. After all, facts are facts, independent of what anyone might think of them.” This satisfies the test of being an axiom. You have to rely on the primacy of existence even to try to deny it.

An artichoke's being delicious to person X is a fact.
 
It is true. PERIOD.
 
 
An artichoke's being somehow intrinsically "delicious" absent a taster is simply not possible.
 
 
Deliciousness is not an intrinsic property of an artichoke it is more of a designation of a state of a relationship between the artichoke and any individual.
 
Conflating the invalid concept of intrinsic deliciousness and the actual relational nature of deliciousness is what may be confusing some people.
 
The existence of the relationship is factual, how the artichoke reacts with the perceptual, and "preferential taste" apparatus of an individual is a fact.  Inherent/intrinsic "deliciousness" is not.
 
 
To make a statement "implying" that "deliciousness" IS an inherent quality of things is an error.

Is the fact that "PD likes artichokes." true or false to you Robert? The fact that PD likes them, is not dependent on whether others like them or not.
 
Edited to add:
 
When PD states: "Artichokes are delicious." - tacitly, whether explicitly stated or not, is when PD experiences the flavor of artichoke, he enjoys them to such degree that he identifies them as delicious..

Nice try, although I do find it flattering that you are so interested in my "principles."

There is no justification either for rules mandating clothing or rules forcing private property owners not to contract with "entrants" how they are to dress on private property..
 
Places defined as "public" per se may not even be justified... 
 
 
In a proper society there would be private property and unowned property... no "public property". 
 
In "unowned property" something like "rules about clothes" would be unenforceable, no initiation of force, while on private property there may be conditions voluntarily agreed to between the property owner and the person passing through but those are all voluntary and contractual.

Yes, 'great idea to scare children out of reading!

I gather you did not quite "get" the character "Ragnar Danneskjöld" of Atlas Shrugged... or at least you would disagree with him.
 
You use the word "steal".  That is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding in the context of what "initiation" of force is.
 
Redistribution generally results from producers paying more into a system than what they get out (a lot more) and others getting a lot more from the system than what they pay in.  Carving out things Rand did not want to "get" or "fund", you actually believe over her lifetime she falls below the threshold of provider to dependent? 
 
You claim Rand lived as a parasite?