Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What does "existence is identity" mean?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You can not even say "things without identity" because that is giving it an identity.

Not really, its giving it a description. A linguistic description isn't a metaphysical 'identity'

It is an epistemological IDENTIFICATION. A description states what something's metaphysical identity IS.

however, since I can describe objects that have no identity (eg in my last post "something which exhibits random behavior")

That has identity. You are saying that the metaphysical nature of the object is such that, when viewed by someone, he cannot determine what causes it to behave as it does. ("Random" is a valid epistemological term, although it has no valid metaphysical meaning.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A: Something may exist without identity.

B: What thing?

A: Well, something that acts acausally, for instance.

B: What acts?

A: Something without identity.

B: A non-thing?

A: No, something.

B: What?

A: I can't identify it; it has no identity. But I could give it a name. I'll call it a widget.

B: What does that mean? What does "widget" refer to?

A: Nothing.

B: So widgets don't exist?

A: No.

B: I rest my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...exhibits "genuinely random behavior"...

What is a "genuinely random behavior" anyway? Does that mean that our formulas can't predict its behavior (let this be case A), or does it mean that there are no rules that govern its behavior (let this be case :D?

I think that the misunderstanding here evolves around the fact that Spearmint mentioned describing an object that exhibits this genuinely random behavior. Because of the way he's written the post, I cannot quite determine whether he referred to an object as in case A, or as in B. Whether we are talking about case A or case B would clear up much of this discussion that's been going on. If it's A, then clearly object itself has identity - we just don't know it. And to assume that it hasn't the identity because we don't know it, is to assume the primacy of consciousness and deny primacy of existence. If it's B we're talking about, then all I can say is "God save us!" God, in fact, is considered by many to be such an object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a "genuinely random behavior" anyway? Does that mean that our formulas can't predict its behavior (let this be case A), or does it mean that there are no rules that govern its behavior (let this be case :D?

I clearly stated the sense in which I took the term to mean. I said:

"If an entity is what is, then under the same given set of circumstances there is only one possible action that entity may perform; it cannot exhibit "genuinely random behavior" since that means that the entity will act differently under the same set of circumstances."

I think that the misunderstanding here evolves around the fact that Spearmint mentioned describing an object that exhibits this genuinely random behavior. Because of the way he's written the post, I cannot quite determine whether he referred to an object as in case A, or as in B.

If you are confused as to his meaning, then why don't you ask him instead of responding to my post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is quite relevant. The claim that an entity exhibits "genuinely random behavior" implies that such an entity is not governed by the law of causality, which itself implies a contradiction to the law of identity. If an entity is what is, then under the same given set of circumstances there is only one possible action that entity may perform; it cannot exhibit "genuinely random behavior" since that means that the entity will act differently under the same set of circumstances.

As far as Spearmint's claims are concerned: His very mention that an "object exists" is dependent on the law of identity, for identity is what we mean by existence. They are not two separable things.

True. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that even if such a thing could exist (which it can't) he would still be indentifying it simply by observing the fact that it is what it is. So there's two strikes against him right there.

The problem spearmint is having is that he's trying to say that something can exist without having identity yet the only way he can make his point is by using in his argument a thing that does not and cannot exist (except as an idea). Let alone the fact that even if it did exist, his description and the name "thing without identity" is an identification.

In order for something to exist, it MUST have identity. Identity means that it is what it is- the only way for this not to be true is if the thing is what it is not.

Think very hard about those words spearmint. "It is what it is not". It is not possible.

Even with your idea of the "thing which exhibits genuinely random behavior".

What is it? an idea of a thing that exhibits genuinely random behavior.

It's identified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are confused as to his meaning, then why don't you ask him instead of responding to my post?

Sorry, my mistake. I just used the post nearest to my mouse pointer to extract the words "genuinely random behavior" from it. :D My question was not meant for you in particular, but for anyone who reads it. Although I would like Spearmint to clarify what he meant.

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...