Entities, Attributes, and Relationships

[Jake]

I've read through OPAR and ITOE twice, and I don't remember this being covered...

I understand that entities have metaphysical primacy, in that the existence of an attribute is dependent on the existence of the entity having said attribute (and likewise that a relationship's existence is dependent on the existence of two or more related entities). What I was just thinking is that attributes have metaphysical primacy over relationships, or that the existence of a relationship is dependent on the related entities having the attribute(s) giving the potential to exhibit the given relationship.

For example:

Two electrons in proximity will exhibit the relationship of a repulsive force.

Each electron has the attribute of charge -1, which means they each have the potential of exhibiting the repulsive force relationship in the right context (in proximity to another electron).

As I said, the relationship is dependent on BOTH entities. I am NOT saying that the relationship is in an entity independent of another entity. I am saying that the potential or ability to exhibit a relationship with another entity is an attribute of the entity.

Does this make sense?

Can anyone think of a counter-example?

[JMeganSnow]

Entities don't have metaphysical primacy over attributes--an entity cannot exist without attributes. This is an application of the law of Identity: everything that exists (is an entity) is a *particular* entity. Existence IS Identity. In Objectivism, asking this question is utterly beside the point and fouls up a very important metaphysical consideration.

[phibetakappa]

I understand that entities have metaphysical primacy, in that the existence of an attribute is dependent on the existence of the entity having said attribute.

There is no such “primacy,” in metaphysics. The concept of “primacy” indicates an ordering or an arrangement, i.e., that one thing comes before another. In metaphysics all there are, are entities. There is no ordering, or arrangement, no primary or secondary aspects in metaphysics.

There is no “order” in terms of “arrangement” of one object coming before another, until we get to epistemology, which studies how a man knows reality, i.e., how a man comes to know and understand aspects of the entities he perceives. It studies concepts and how to use them. Concepts are a man’s means of determining if there is some important order to be discovered in reality.

But, in metaphysics, there is no such ordering.

The existence of an attribute is not dependent on the existence of the entity having said attribute.

There is no such entity underneath the attributes, which one can find when one peals away, removes or abstracts the attributes. The entity and the attributes are the same thing. An entity can be thought of as the sum of its attributes.

The idea that there is an entity somewhere under the attributes is known as “Naïve Realism” or the “Hamburger” theory of concepts by Harry Binswanger. This is the basic theory of concepts given by John Lock, and in part by Aristotle. It is not the theory of concepts held by Objectivism.

Note: There is an O’ist idea of the “primacy of existence” vs. the “primacy of consciousness.” This states that existence, has primacy over consciousness, meaning that consciousness is & can only be conscious of some object; and that a consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms.

Regards,

Michael

Edited April 13, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

What I was just thinking is that attributes have metaphysical primacy over relationships, or that the existence of a relationship is dependent on the related entities having the attribute(s) giving the potential to exhibit the given relationship.

An entity is everything that it is, including it attributes. As other have pointed out, it is not as if there is a really real thing underneath those attributes, making the attributes only a type of appearance. I think one thing leading to your confusion is that you are starting off at the level of an electron, instead of starting off at the level of perception. When you observe a Coke can in front of you, what is the coke can in reality? Well, it is everything you observe it to be: cylindrical, silvery, red, heavy, solid, makes a noise when struck, etc. That is what a coke can is. There is not a really real entity underneath those attributes that somehow radiates out the attributes that we detect with our senses. We observe reality directly with our senses.

Metaphysically, it is not as if the entity comes prior to its attributes or that a relationship comes after the existence of the entity. Metaphysically, existence exists, including everything that exists, which includes their attributes and their relationships. Mentally, one can isolate out attributes and relationships, but this does not mean that these can exist apart from entities. It also doesn't mean that the entity can exist apart from its attributes and its relationships.

[Plasmatic]

I understand that entities have metaphysical primacy, in that the existence of an attribute is dependent on the existence of the entity having said attribute (and likewise that a relationship's existence is dependent on the existence of two or more related entities). What I was just thinking is that attributes have metaphysical primacy over relationships, or that the existence of a relationship is dependent on the related entities having the attribute(s) giving the potential to exhibit the given relationship.

For example:

Two electrons in proximity will exhibit the relationship of a repulsive force.

Each electron has the attribute of charge -1, which means they each have the potential of exhibiting the repulsive force relationship in the right context (in proximity to another electron).

As I said, the relationship is dependent on BOTH entities. I am NOT saying that the relationship is in an entity independent of another entity. I am saying that the potential or ability to exhibit a relationship with another entity is an attribute of the entity.

Does this make sense?

Can anyone think of a counter-example?

O.K. folks I think everyone is misunderstanding Jakes post.

As I understand him he is simply restating this:

The first concepts man forms are concepts of entities—since entities are the only primary existents. (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships among entities.)

That is to say that entities are causal "primaries"

Main Entry: pri·ma·cy

Pronunciation: \ˈprī-mə-sē\

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 : the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank) : preeminence <the primacy of intellectual and esthetic over materialistic values — T. R. McConnell>

2 : the office, rank, or preeminence of an ecclesiastical primate

Main Entry: 1pri·ma·ry

Pronunciation: \ˈprī-ˌmer-ē, ˈprī-mə-rē, ˈprīm-rē\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin primarius basic, primary, from Latin, principal, from primus

Date: 15th century

1: first in order of time or development : primitive <the primary stage of civilization> <the primary lesion of a disease>

2 a: of first rank, importance, or value : principal <the primary purpose> b: basic , fundamental <security is a primary need> c: of, relating to, or constituting the principal quills of a bird's wing d: of or relating to agriculture, forestry, and the extractive industries or their products e: expressive of present or future time <primary tense> f: of, relating to, or constituting the strongest of the three or four degrees of stress recognized by most linguists <the first syllable of basketball carries primary stress>

3 a: direct , firsthand <primary sources of information> b: not derivable from other colors, odors, or tastes c: preparatory to something else in a continuing process <primary instruction> d: of or relating to a primary school <primary education> e: of or relating to a primary election <a primary candidate> f: belonging to the first group or order in successive divisions, combinations, or ramifications <primary nerves> g: directly derived from ores <primary metals> h: of, relating to, or being the amino acid sequence in proteins <primary protein structure>

4: resulting from the substitution of one of two or more atoms or groups in a molecule <a primary amine> ; especially : being or characterized by a carbon atom having a bond to only one other carbon atom

5: of, relating to, involving, or derived from primary meristem <primary tissue> <primary growth>

6: of, relating to, or involved in the production of organic substances by green plants <primary productivity>

7: providing primary care <a primary physician>

And then as a result defining "charge" and "force" as resulting directly from the nature of entities interacting as primaries.

No "force" without entities interacting dynamically. No "charge" without entities possessing them etc.

Jake i think the confusion may be over whether or not its epistemological.

Jake Have you read Stolyyrov?

Edited April 13, 2009 by Plasmatic

[agrippa1]

For example:

Two electrons in proximity will exhibit the relationship of a repulsive force.

Each electron has the attribute of charge -1, which means they each have the potential of exhibiting the repulsive force relationship in the right context (in proximity to another electron).

I think you're misusing the concept "relationship" when applying it to the repulsive force of two electrons. The concept force is derived from the observation of several relationships of two entities, including time, distance, and mass. The behavior [of the relationships] of two electrons provides insight into the concept of "charge" which, related to force, conceptually explains why two electrons tend to fly away from each other.

If you use the concept "relationship" properly, then you could say that it is secondary to attribute, since a relationship is determined by the similarity of the attributes of two entities. For instance, the distance between two electrons is determined by their distance as compared to (i.e., measured by) the distance of a given standard that serves as a unit of measure. Relationships exist in reality, but the relationships we perceive are limited by our sensory capabilities, and chosen by us in the concept-formation process of differentiation and integration.

But then again, it is the relationship of an attribute of an entity to a given standard of that attribute that provides the conceptual identification of the attribute, so there's no real way of asserting primacy of one over the other. I believe that Megan's comment wrt to entities and attributes is equally as valid wrt to attributes and relationships. They are inseparable.

[Plasmatic]

Do attributes have primacy over relationships

I completely missed this in the subtitle..... Metaphysically this is an invalid question.

[aristotlejones]

I completely missed this in the subtitle..... Metaphysically this is an invalid question.

Does a leakiness of a carburator have primacy over Boyles law? (pressure vs volume)

Does the darkness of an object have primacy over how the angle and intensity of light varies as the angle of incidence through a refracting medium?

Just asking...that's all.

<Φ>aj

[phibetakappa]

Does a leakiness of a carburator have primacy over Boyles law? (pressure vs volume)

Does the darkness of an object have primacy over how the angle and intensity of light varies as the angle of incidence through a refracting medium?

"Primacy" in what sense of the word?

Metaphysically, there is no "primacy." There is no "order" in existence. Order is a contribution made by consciousness, i.e., order, qua 'ordering,' is a mental product, it is reality as conceived by man, using his particular kind of volitional conceptual consciousness.

Order, is an epistemological phenomenon.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Does a leakiness of a carburetor have primacy over Boyle's law? (pressure vs volume)

Does the darkness of an object have primacy over how the angle and intensity of light varies as the angle of incidence through a refracting medium?

Natural laws do not exist out there in reality making things obey that law and acting a certain way, rather existence exists and we can identify and organize various aspects of existence and what is happening via concept formation. In other words, Boyle's law does not make the carburetor work, the carburetor works because man has realized there is a certain relationship between volume of a gas and its pressure. That relationship actually exists out there, but not in the form of a law apart from human intelligence; natural laws are conceptualizations of what we observe and organize using measurement omission. Likewise with reflection of surfaces; the reflections exist and obey the law of identity -- in being what they are and how they reflect light -- but it not as if there is a law of reflection controlling how reflections are reflected; rather surfaces reflect a certain way and we organize those observations into measurement omitted conceptualizations.

[Plasmatic]

Natural laws do not exist out there in reality making things obey that law and acting a certain way, rather existence exists and we can identify and organize various aspects of existence and what is happening via concept formation. In other words, Boyle's law does not make the carburetor work, the carburetor works because man has realized there is a certain relationship between volume of a gas and its pressure. That relationship actually exists out there, but not in the form of a law apart from human intelligence; natural laws are conceptualizations of what we observe and organize using measurement omission. Likewise with reflection of surfaces; the reflections exist and obey the law of identity -- in being what they are and how they reflect light -- but it not as if there is a law of reflection controlling how reflections are reflected; rather surfaces reflect a certain way and we organize those observations into measurement omitted conceptualizations.

I just thought of something if:

Axiomatic concepts are the constants of man's consciousness, the cognitive integrators that identify and thus protect its continuity. They identify explicitly the omission of psychological <ioe2_57> time measurements, which is implicit in all other concepts.

Primacy in regards to relationships pertain to time measurements [epistemology]. The issue of what context of dynamic interaction [relationship]causes what attributes requires the identification time measurementshmmm ....Goes off to ponder this more.

edit changed last sentence for intelligability..

Edited April 14, 2009 by Plasmatic

[phibetakappa]

The issue of what context of dynamic interaction [relationship] causes what attributes requires the identification time measurements

I'll try to rephrase your question:

--"What context of dynamic interactions cause attributes?"

Metaphysically there is no such thing as a "context" of dynamic interacting causes."

"Context" is an epistemological concept, which identifies/integrates some set of causal factors into a single unitary sum, so we can designate all the factors in some given effect as a single unit. E.g., a combustion engine requires an interaction of: fuel, air, and spark.

We could say these objects are part of the required context for understanding a combustion engine, and now we can mentally hold the factors, and if need be, we can come back again and again to our specific designation of factors, and check them. E.g., using the concept of context, we can say things like, "Is there any other necessary context for understanding a combustion engine besides: fuel, air spark."

Also, we can think of a dynamic interaction of certain causes to produce a certain effect. E.g., again, a combustion engine requires an interaction of: fuel, air, and spark.

To follow your statement, I suppose we could then say that combustion is an "attribute" of an engine.

Now, do we need "implicit or explicit" time measurements to understand, which causal factors produce a certain effect?

I would say, yes.

In order to discern, isolated cause and effect, we have to be able to discern the fact that the "cause," comes "before" the effect, which is a necessary condition of the basic Mill's methods of Agreement and Difference.

But, I'm not exactly sure what your statement is trying to get at, and/or what you think the implications of Ayn Rand's statement about Axioms are?

Please elaborate.

[Plasmatic]

I'll try to rephrase your question:

--"What context of dynamic interactions cause attributes?"

Metaphysically there is no such thing as a "context" of dynamic interacting causes."

"Context" is an epistemological concept, which identifies/integrates some set of causal factors into a single unitary sum, so we can designate all the factors in some given effect as a single unit. E.g., a combustion engine requires an interaction of: fuel, air, and spark.

We could say these objects are part of the required context for understanding a combustion engine, and now we can mentally hold the factors, and if need be, we can come back again and again to our specific designation of factors, and check them. E.g., using the concept of context, we can say things like, "Is there any other necessary context for understanding a combustion engine besides: fuel, air spark."

Also, we can think of a dynamic interaction of certain causes to produce a certain effect. E.g., again, a combustion engine requires an interaction of: fuel, air, and spark.

To follow your statement, I suppose we could then say that combustion is an "attribute" of an engine.

Now, do we need "implicit or explicit" time measurements to understand, which causal factors produce a certain effect?

I would say, yes.

In order to discern, isolated cause and effect, we have to be able to discern the fact that the "cause," comes "before" the effect, which is a necessary condition of the basic Mill's methods of Agreement and Difference.

But, I'm not exactly sure what your statement is trying to get at, and/or what you think the implications of Ayn Rand's statement about Axioms are?

Please elaborate.

It wasnt a question. I was kinda thinking out loud. Im in the process of identifying those "implications". Ill get back to you.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Let me rephrase things another way following Plato and Aristotle. Plato held that there were intelligent principles out there (that he called the Forms or the Ideas) -- outside our minds -- and that matter was a poor reflection of those intelligent principles that were evident in our observations of matter. Aristotle tried to correct this view, but didn't quite accomplish that. Aristotle claimed that there was an intelligent principle in matter making it be what it was and making it do what it did. Objectivism rejects this as having no evidentiary grounds in observation. In other words, we do not observe that there are any intelligent principles out there operating on matter. Entities exist, they are what they are, and they do what the do because they are what they are.

Regarding the time element that Miss Rand was referring to, I don't think she was implying that time exists out there, what she was saying is that certain basic observations conceptualized are timeless in the sense that they are true for all time. That is, existence exists and other axioms are not dependent upon when the observations are made -- whether it be one million BC or one million AD (or any other random date time consideration). The fundamental aspects of existence have always been true -- that it exists and that it is something specific and that it acts the way it does because it exists.

[phibetakappa]

Oh, I know your statement was not a direct question, but I re-phrased it as a question because it was easier for me to understand it.

You started your statement with, "The issue of what...such and such is." Well, the issue of what something is, can be expressed as a question. What is it?

Anyway...

FYI, I looked up Axiomatic Concepts on line and found the following from ITOE, which adds some more context to your ITOE quote. I thought it was helpful. The idea of "psychological time measurements" on its face is a pretty strange one. But, I think this quote goes a long way to making Ayn Rand's meaning clear.

It is only conceptual awareness that can grasp and hold the total of its experience—extrospectively, the continuity of existence; introspectively, the continuity of consciousness—and thus enable its possessor to project his course long-range. It is by means of axiomatic concepts that man grasps and holds this continuity, bringing it into his conscious awareness and knowledge. It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.

"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 75" Edited April 14, 2009 by phibetakappa

[phibetakappa]

I thought this part of Ayn Rand's quote I posted is particularly interesting.

It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.

"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 75"

The implication is that the omission of psychological time measurements, provides a certain kind of continuity which is necessary for a person to epistemologically distinguish subject from object.

I'd appreciate your take on this.

Edited April 14, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Plasmatic]

I thought this part of Ayn Rand's quote I posted is particularly interesting.

I'd appreciate your take on this.

I have every time the phrase was used in front of me and I am examining it . Ill get back soon

[Grames]

Here is a point to ponder.

All knowledge is contextual. What is the context of knowledge in which an axiom is valid?

[aristotlejones]

Order, is an epistemological phenomenon.

That, is precisely why I posted the two concrete examples illustrating the absurdity of treating attributes or relationships as metaphysical.

BTW, I like the idea that relationships are hierarchically subordinate to attributes.

I'm going to try to be socratic more often... I might learn more...

"Primacy" in what sense of the word?

In the same sense that it was used (confused) in the original post.

>...entities have metaphysical primacy, in that the existence of an attribute is dependent on the existence of the entity having said attribute (and likewise that a relationship's existence is dependent on the existence of two or more related entities). What I was just thinking is that attributes have metaphysical primacy over relationships, or that the existence of a relationship is dependent on the related entities having the attribute(s) giving the potential to exhibit the given relationship.

<Φ>aj

Edited April 14, 2009 by aristotlejones

[phibetakappa]

I didn't realize your examples where supposed to be absurd, because I've seen many people state similar examples as yours, but with the intent of showing there is such a thing as metaphysical primacy.

Regards,

Edited April 14, 2009 by phibetakappa

[aristotlejones]

I didn't realize your examples where supposed to be absurd, because I've seen many people state similar examples as yours, but with the intent of showing there is such a thing as metaphysical primacy.

Regards,

It was just an exercise to see if I could wrap my little brain around the questioner's proposal. I did it because at first glance, at least for me, understanding the issue was not, as we say in the patent world, obvious. Or to put it another way, I knew it was wrong, but not why. At least in a tangible, non-multisyllabic sort of way...

BTW, I work for inventors, so I like asking dumb questions. (argumentum ad absurdum)

And a good time was had by all...

<Φ>aj

Everyone else, please put your pistols back in your holsters.

Edited April 14, 2009 by aristotlejones

[Grames]

Here is a point to ponder.

All knowledge is contextual. What is the context of knowledge in which an axiom is valid?

And the answer is: Every context. An axiom is eternal in the sense of being timeless. Consciousness, being axiomatic, has an element of timelessness to it. The continuity of the sense of self is based on that.

Thus the immortality of the soul is a doctrine which easily arises from the mistake of equivocating eternity of consciousness in the sense of timelessness, with eternity of consciousness in the sense of an infinitely large amount of time.