The primacy of existence over identity.

[TuringAI]

I've been thinking about the fact that, even though existence HAS an identity, identity lies within existence. Yet the axiom of existence and the axiom of identity are not interchangeable. In considering this, here is what I'd say about the subject:

I've been considering, don't we need a state of comparison for things that simply are, before we can judge elements as either true or false? Like, "Existence exists" can be restated as "Existence is that for which there is no logical reversal". An entity has a logical reversal, but existence does not. Does that make sense?

Here's another one: To give something universal form is to give it identity. Identity is dependent upon laws for entities. So while existence is not prohibited from not having entities, it is prohibited from having a lack of entities as a universal form. So entities exist.

A strong identity principle (IE one with noncontradiction) requires entities, since these are precicely those things IN existence that have a logical reversal. Yet the weak identity principle simply relates existence with universal form. (And I don't mean that in a platonic sense.) Furthermore, a universal identity (ie one with an excluded middle) requires an exhastion of entities, else to not be something isn't to be anything else.

So, A is A (the law of identity without a 'not' predicate) depends upon some fact of existence, but that fact itself is taken in relation to existence itself. Noncontradiction is taken in relation to the logical reversability of entities, and how no entity both exists and doesn't exist, although there is an option for entities. The excluded middle is simply saying that there is an exhastion method for entities, so that to not be something is to be something else, ANYTHING else, including possibly the conjunction of all other things, as long as this conjunction doesn't include the thing that it is not.

Does this make sense?

[Benpercent]

I've been thinking about the fact that, even though existence HAS an identity [...] Yet the axiom of existence and the axiom of identity are not interchangeable.

This is a contradiction and is incorrect. Existence doesn't have an identity, it IS identity, which is why the two concepts (not facts) are not interchangeable. Think of them as fused.

But really, *all* the axioms, including the axiomatic concepts, are not interchangeable within the axiom hierarchy. There is a specific logical order they go in, otherwise you will run into an absurd contradictions.

[TuringAI]

This is a contradiction and is incorrect. Existence doesn't have an identity, it IS identity, which is why the two concepts (not facts) are not interchangeable. Think of them as fused.

But really, *all* the axioms, including the axiomatic concepts, are not interchangeable within the axiom hierarchy. There is a specific logical order they go in, otherwise you will run into an absurd contradictions.

Right, but which one comes first? Conceptually, if the go in a certain order within the axiom hierarchy, then don't we first have to recognize existence before we recognize that it is identity?

[Benpercent]

Right, but which one comes first? Conceptually, if the go in a certain order within the axiom hierarchy, then don't we first have to recognize existence before we recognize that it is identity?

Yes, that is right.

[TuringAI]

Yes, that is right.

Okay, and is the concept of the law of identity the same as the concept of identity itself? It would seem to me that the law of identity is something stating that everything in existence has identity, and thus is more complex.

[trivas7]

Okay, and is the concept of the law of identity the same as the concept of identity itself? It would seem to me that the law of identity is something stating that everything in existence has identity, and thus is more complex.

IMO the law of identity underscores the fact that identity is an corollary of existence. I.e., it is implied in the concept of existence. In IOE Miss Rand makes mention of the fact that the distinction bt the two concepts is one of perspective: " 'Existence' is the wider concept, b/c even at an infant's stage of sensory chaos, he can grasp that something exists. When he gets the concept 'identity', it is further step -- a clearer, more specific perspective on the concept 'existence'. He grasps that if it exists, it is something. Therefore, the referents of the concept 'identity' are specific concretes or specific existents."

Edited November 17, 2008 by trivas7

[Grames]

Okay, and is the concept of the law of identity the same as the concept of identity itself? It would seem to me that the law of identity is something stating that everything in existence has identity, and thus is more complex.

Try answering this question:

What special meaning, if any, does adding the phrase "the law" bring to the concept of identity?

[TuringAI]

Try answering this question:

What special meaning, if any, does adding the phrase "the law" bring to the concept of identity?

Adding the phrase "the law" means it's universal, and not some fluke that only occurs for entities to which we can point. This means that the concept existence depends on the LAW of identity to argue anything about existence. Existence is evident even if we don't understand the idea of something being specifically that something. So a base concept existence must be formed before a base concept identity is formed, even though existence itself doesn't really MEAN anything without identity.

I'm arguing from a child-development POV here, where the only philosophy I'm doing is in having empathy with the child in development.

[Grames]

Adding the phrase "the law" means it's universal, and not some fluke that only occurs for entities to which we can point. This means that the concept existence depends on the LAW of identity to argue anything about existence. Existence is evident even if we don't understand the idea of something being specifically that something. So a base concept existence must be formed before a base concept identity is formed, even though existence itself doesn't really MEAN anything without identity.

I'm arguing from a child-development POV here, where the only philosophy I'm doing is in having empathy with the child in development.

I agree. I would just add the following:

To say that existence is identity is a metaphysical statement, meaning it applies universally. From this perspective, saying that existence is identity is a law would be redundant because there is no exception to existence, no possibility of the law being broken.

When we refer to the law of identity we refer to the same idea as above, "existence is identity", but from an epistemological perspective. Epistemology is necessary guidance for a finite, fallible and volitional conciousness. A law in epistemology has no exceptions, a property that mirrors the universality of the metaphysical statement it came from. We can break this law, but only by accepting a contradiction somewhere.

So you were correct, the law of identity is more complex than "existence is identity". The added element is the context of consciousness.

[Eddie]

IMO the law of identity underscores the fact that identity is an corollary of existence. I.e., it is implied in the concept of existence. In IOE Miss Rand makes mention of the fact that the distinction bt the two concepts is one of perspective: " 'Existence' is the wider concept, b/c even at an infant's stage of sensory chaos, he can grasp that something exists. When he gets the concept 'identity', it is further step -- a clearer, more specific perspective on the concept 'existence'. He grasps that if it exists, it is something. Therefore, the referents of the concept 'identity' are specific concretes or specific existents."

This is not clear to me. If, at the stage of sensory chaos, if such exists, the infant grasps that “something exists”, he would seem to be grasping the concept of identity, since everything that exists, exists as something. It does not seem possible that the infant could experience existence without experiencing specific existents.

My understanding would seem to be confirmed by:

1. Existence is identity; that is existence is identical to identity;

2. The referents of existence are the same as the referents of identity: all existing things.

3. A concept means all its referents.

In that case, the concepts existence and identity are in fact the same concept, and the only difference is the labelling. It is not therefore clear that existence has primacy over identity.

In addition, since existence subsumes all existing things, including consciousness, it’s also not clear that existence has primacy over consciousness.

[trivas7]

This is not clear to me. If, at the stage of sensory chaos, if such exists, the infant grasps that “something exists”, he would seem to be grasping the concept of identity, since everything that exists, exists as something. It does not seem possible that the infant could experience existence without experiencing specific existents.

Implicit in the stage of sensory chaos is the concept of existence, insofar as this rises to the level of perception. Identity is the product of the conscious process of the identification of an existent, i.e. the epistemological narrowing of the concept of an existent. Something exists, it is this.

In a sense it is misleading to speak of the primacy of existence over identity, b/c as you correctly note the referents of both terms are the same.

[TuringAI]

Implicit in the stage of sensory chaos is the concept of existence, insofar as this rises to the level of perception. Identity is the product of the conscious process of the identification of an existent, i.e. the epistemological narrowing of the concept of an existent. Something exists, it is this.

In a sense it is misleading to speak of the primacy of existence over identity, b/c as you correctly note the referents of both terms are the same.

I suppose you are right. Semantically and syntactically, they are the same. But don't both carry different connotations? Existence is general and Identity is specific. The connotations provided determine which word we use, and the distinction in connotations is what is observed when we observe the two different terms being used in different ways. So it's a matter of synonym usage, which really has nothing to do with reality except for how our consciousness observes that reality.

[trivas7]

But don't both carry different connotations? Existence is general and Identity is specific. The connotations provided determine which word we use, and the distinction in connotations is what is observed when we observe the two different terms being used in different ways. So it's a matter of synonym usage, which really has nothing to do with reality except for how our consciousness observes that reality.

In regards to the connotation of the concept "existence" for Miss Rand, I find this revealing in IOE:

Prof. B: What is the relationship between the concepts "existence" and "existent"? Is it that the concept "existent" is a term which applies a concept to a particular or designates the particular as a unit under the concept?

AR: That's right. Because the concept "existence," at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept of "universe" -- all that which exists.

Prof B: "Existence" is collective noun almost.

AR: That's right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists.

[Eddie]

Identity is the product of the conscious process of the identification of an existent...

Depending on what you mean by “conscious process”, the infant’s “sensory chaos” surely qualifies as an existent, or series of existents. Let’s take the sense of sound. When the infant hears a sound, the sound will be a specific sound from a specific source, at a certain pitch and loudness. That is, it will have identity.

Regardless of whether the infant undergoes a conscious process of identifying the sound or its source, it will experience the sound as something existing, ie as an existent. Otherwise, you would have to argue that it is possible to have an experience that lacks sensory content.

You have agreed that it is misleading to speak of the primacy of existence over identity. I contend that in the context of the Objectivist primary axioms it is also misleading to speak of the primacy of existence over consciousness. If existence includes consciousness, it is not obvious that existence could have primacy over itself.

In this regard, it’s interesting that there is no primary axiom for the material world. If “existence” were equivalent to “the material world”, one could claim that existence has primacy over consciousness, since the material world would be existence less consciousness. Rand does seem to use the term existence in this way when she speaks of the “primacy of existence”. But the primary axiom means “all existing things”, not “the material world”.

In other words, in the case of existence in relation to identity, Rand uses two terms for the same concept. However, in the case of existence in relation to consciousness, she uses the one term, “existence”, for two concepts: “all existing things” and “the material world”.

[trivas7]

In other words, in the case of existence in relation to identity, Rand uses two terms for the same concept. However, in the case of existence in relation to consciousness, she uses the one term, “existence”, for two concepts: “all existing things” and “the material world”.

For Miss Rand the primacy of existence is the metaphysical base of her philosophy. Existence exists independent of conscious, i.e., the world exists whether or not anyone perceives it. Consciousness, OTOH, is an attribute of some (all?) living entities. She rejects the reverse: the primacy of consciousness -- the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is it the product of a consciousness.

[DavidOdden]

Identity is the product of the conscious process of the identification of an existent, i.e. the epistemological narrowing of the concept of an existent.

That's wrong. Where in the world did you get the idea that an existent's identity depends on a conceptual consciousness acting on it first?

[trivas7]

That's wrong. Where in the world did you get the idea that an existent's identity depends on a conceptual consciousness acting on it first?

From the idea that identification is an epistemological process dependent on the subject, not the object.

Edited November 20, 2008 by trivas7

[DavidOdden]

From the idea that identification is an epistemological process dependent on the subject, not the object.

"Identification" and "identity" are not the same.

[Plasmatic]

From the idea that identification is an epistemological process dependent on the subject, not the object.

"I am therfore Ill think" youve got it backwards. Consciousness [identification] is the third axiom for a reason. Primacy of existence.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Plasmatic

[DavidOdden]

"I am therfore Ill think" youve got it backwards. Consciousness [identification] is the third axiom for a reason. Primacy of existence.

How do your words relate to anything I've ever said?

[Plasmatic]

How do your words relate to anything I've ever said?

Sorry Dave I had the wrong quote in there!

[trivas7]

"Identification" and "identity" are not the same.

What's your point?

Edited November 20, 2008 by trivas7

[TuringAI]

What's your point?

That's a pointless question.

(In other words, the text you are responding to IS the point.)

[Eddie]

Existence exists independent of conscious, i.e., the world exists whether or not anyone perceives it.

Agreed. But your comments imply that “existence” is equivalent to “the world”. The world in this instance is the material world, since you have contrasted it with perception, ie consciousness.

And consciousness is also an existent, so is therefore included under the concept of existence. As a concept, “existence” is undifferentiated and makes no claim about the types of things that exist, in which case it cannot claim primacy for one type of thing over another.

[Grames]

Identity is the product of the conscious process of the identification of an existent, i.e. the epistemological narrowing of the concept of an existent. Something exists, it is this.

In a sense it is misleading to speak of the primacy of existence over identity, b/c as you correctly note the referents of both terms are the same.

Identity inheres in the object of consciousness and all of its relations to all else that exists. Only your identification is the product of consciousness. Existence is independent of consciousness, and so is identity.