Entities do not have causes

[MichaelH]

I'm trying to solidify my understanding of Objectivism's view of the universe.

From OPAR, I recall the set-up going like this:

1. Existence exists. Specifically, entities exist.

2. Actions are performed by entities. Motion, for example, does not exist in a vacuum. Something must move.

3. Actions have causes. The causes may be volitional or non-volitional, but there is a reason for the action.

4. Entities do not have causes. A lot of bad philosophy comes from ascribing causes to entities.

What bothers me is how Objectivism handles the question of "why do things exist?". My current understanding sees this as a big blind spot. The question is simply defined away. See #4 and #1. Things exist. End of story.

How close am I to properly summarizing the Objectivist view? What am I missing?

[Juxtys]

"why do things exist?"

Why do they? Simple. You choose a reason for their existence. Why would you care for the existence of something you can't find any use of anyway? Why things exist? To be used by a rational entity that has a value judgement and can act accordingly to it.

[khaight]

What bothers me is how Objectivism handles the question of "why do things exist?". My current understanding sees this as a big blind spot. The question is simply defined away. See #4 and #1. Things exist. End of story.

Are you asking why some particular entity -- like, say, the computer on which I am typing this post -- exists? In that sense, particular entities do have causes, in that you can identify the manner in which they came to exist as entities. But that isn't a philosophical issue, it's a scientific one.

If you're asking why entities exist in aggregate, i.e. why existence as such exists, then your point (4) applies. Existence as such has no cause, it simply is. To look for a cause for existence as such would be to ascribe causal powers to something outside of existence, i.e. to something which did not exist. Heidegger started his philosophy by asking "why is there something rather than nothing?" Objectivists view the question as ill-formed. It implicitly rips the concept of 'cause' out of the context in which it is formed and in which it applies.

I assume this is what you are referring to as a 'blind spot' and 'defining the question away'. What you would view as an acceptable answer?

[DavidOdden]

1. Existence exists. Specifically, entities exist.

More specifically, existents exist. Entities and existents are not the same: existent is the broadest category; entity is a narrow one.

What bothers me is how Objectivism handles the question of "why do things exist?".

That question can be reduced rather simply to "what caused the universe". Any question of the type "why" asks "what action, which is outside of X, caused X". Since the universe is the totality of existence, nothing exists that is outside that totality, and the question "why" applied to the universe carries a contradictory presupposition.

[MichaelH]

Thanks for the help! This clarifies why existence is axiomatic, and why axioms must be accepted whole.

For other stated facts, it is appropriate to ask "why". Why is the sky blue? Why do dropped objects fall to earth? etc.

For existence, "why" makes no sense. It is a special case, which is why it is an axiom. Other questions can be satisfied with causal answers. The universe has no cause for the reasons already stated.

[altonhare]

What bothers me is how Objectivism handles the question of "why do things exist?". My current understanding sees this as a big blind spot. The question is simply defined away. See #4 and #1. Things exist. End of story.

How close am I to properly summarizing the Objectivist view? What am I missing?

"Why" questions are leading questions. "Why" presupposes purpose, i.e. the result of a conscious act toward a goal. So the question "why do entities exist?" presupposes that a conscious entity had a reason to make entities exist. To avoid "what made the original conscious entity exist" question we might declare the original conscious entity to be "eternal". Then we are stuck asking why other entities need to be brought into existence whereas the original conscious entity does not. We realize that this is an arbitrary distinction, there is no reason to think that entities were suddenly brought into existence by the act of a conscious will. Not only is it an arbitrary assertion, but it asserts that something can be created from 'nothing', an explicit contradiction.

So we avoid the arbitrary and the contradictory by stating that entities exist.

In general, we should avoid "why" questions except in the context of consciousness. Why did she go to the store? Because she wanted milk.

Why did the rock fall down the hill? Because it wanted to get to the bottom? In the context of inanimate objects we generally (not always) replace "why" with "how". HOW did the rock fall down the hill? A gust of wind came along and pushed it. Why did the rock fall down the hill? Because Jim decided to kick it down the hill.

Why is the sky blue? I donno, because the sky wants to be blue? Because God wants the sky to be blue?

The better question is, HOW does air interact with light in such a way as to make the sky appear blue?

Why do objects fall to earth? Again, do they want to fall to earth? Does TFSM push them toward the earth?

Instead, HOW do objects fall to the earth? i.e. how does the mechanism called "gravity" work?

I realize that in most daily conversation "why" questions are used in the context of the inanimate, with no problems, because it is usually assumed that the person means "how". What I mean is, we usually don't assume the person thinks a rock, or other inanimate object, has a purpose (a why). However this doesn't always get across, and it is important to remember the underlying, implicit assumption in "why?"

Edited May 14, 2009 by altonhare

[khaight]

I realize that in most daily conversation "why" questions are used in the context of the inanimate, with no problems, because it is usually assumed that the person means "how". What I mean is, we usually don't assume the person thinks a rock, or other inanimate object, has a purpose (a why). However this doesn't always get across, and it is important to remember the underlying, implicit assumption in "why?"

I think the question "Why X?" should be implicitly translated as "What is the cause of X?" Causes may be, to use Aristotle's terminology, either efficient or teleological. Teleological causation, according to Objectivism, applies exclusively to living entities. (See Harry Binswanger's book The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts for a detailed explication of this thesis.) Efficient causation applies to both living and non-living entities. As long as we bear the underlying causal model in mind I see no problem with asking a question like "Why did the rock roll down the hill?" That's just asking "What is the cause of the rock rolling down the hill?" and since we know rocks are non-living we know that only efficient causes are valid candidates for the answer.

[DavidOdden]

Why is the sky blue? I donno, because the sky wants to be blue? Because God wants the sky to be blue?

The better question is, HOW does air interact with light in such a way as to make the sky appear blue?

Actually, that is what "why" means. "Why" is the word that you use when you are asking "In what way does air interact with light blah blah?".

[Hazmatac]

I think this is a question about causality as well, so I'll post it here. My qestion (maybe misbegotten) is "no-one caused the universe, because _______________" My question is what is the alternative. If it is not caused, is that to say that an infinity of time has passed so far in the universe? (Going back just one step more) My goal is to understand this concept of causality better, and this is one of the questions I am having difficulty with. Thanks

[Trebor]

"no-one caused the universe, because _______________"

...because "Existence exists."

Universe: "To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity." [Ayn Rand; “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 25.]

The universe, existence, is eternal -- not in time. How long has the universe existed is an invalid question.

Time is the measure of motion. Motion is motion of something that exists. There cannot be motion without something that is in motion, something that exists and moves. The universe is not in time. Time is in the universe.