Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Primacy of existence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

First of all I find the term "primacy of existence" to be a bit dubious because if consciousness exists then it's obviously a part of existence. But it's clear to me that by primacy of existence Ayn Rand means that everything, excluding our consciousness, exists independently of our consciousness. How would one respond to someone who holds the three axioms of existence, identity and consciousness to be true but denies the primacy of existence?

Edited by Laissez-Faire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would say: "Good, that's exaxctly what the primacy of existence means, and obviously consciousness is indeed part of existence. It's just that it's not independent of itself, hence the exclusion of consciousness from the category something independent of consciousness".

Then I would ask him to tell me what those three axioms are. Then, we'd take it from there. ;)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I find the term "primacy of existence" to be a bit dubious because if consciousness exists then it's obviously a part of existence.

This is really not the point. "Primacy" sets up an epistemological order necessary for establishing the O'ist epistemology, thus empowering the O'ist ethics, and the rest, i.e., it makes explicit introspection possible, makes objectivity possible, makes reason possible.

The primacy of existence establishes the first hierarchy in O'ist epistemology, i.e., first, existence, then consciousness. Since, Descartes, Modern philosophy starts with consciousness first, they are never able to escape consciousness.

It advises that to be cognitively efficacious one needs to subordinate ones consciousness to existence.

Rand makes the point in Galt's speech as,

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness." (AS, 933)

Also, the idea will remain "dubious" in our mind as long as it is not held in the context of its contrast, i.e., the "primacy of consciousness," which is why when she formulates the point, Rand always does so in contrast to the "primacy of consciousness," such as:

"...the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute." (“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24.)

Ayn Rand Lexicon

The most important point in this context is:

"This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned."

In other words, its not "obvious."

In ITOE, she makes the distinction even more clearly, stating that it is only possible to explicitly experience, grasp, define, or communicate one's inner awareness of consciousness, in relation to the content of the external world, stating,

"Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one's awareness of the external world. Some object, i.e., some content, is involved in every state of awareness. Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward—a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward—a process of apprehending one's own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated. Awareness is awareness of something. A content-less state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms." (ITOE, 29)
Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but isn't that essentially begging the question? It doesn't follow from the fact that a consciousness is conscious of something that it existed before the consciousness was conscious of it.
It is possible for something to exist without consciousness existing -- that was the case some 13 billion years right after the Big Bang, where there was no consciousness anywhere. Thus "existence" is not logically dependent on "consciousness". However, if a consciousness exists, then something exist -- "consciousness" is logically dependent on "existence". One concept presupposes the other, and not vice versa.

The expression does not mean that all existents that a consciousness is aware of had to exist before the consciousness that created it became aware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible for something to exist without consciousness existing -- that was the case some 13 billion years right after the Big Bang, where there was no consciousness anywhere. Thus "existence" is not logically dependent on "consciousness". However, if a consciousness exists, then something exist -- "consciousness" is logically dependent on "existence". One concept presupposes the other, and not vice versa.

If I understand you correctly you are asserting that being conscious means being conscious of something, i.e. that something (concrete or abstract) exists.

The expression does not mean that all existents that a consciousness is aware of had to exist before the consciousness that created it became aware of it. This I agree with.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I believe you are saying that consciousness can be conscious of something existent, such as awareness of a lion, or something created, such as desire for a teleportation device. But how does one show that the lion existed before the consciousness was conscious of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand you correctly you are asserting that being conscious means being conscious of something, i.e. that something (concrete or abstract) exists.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I believe you are saying that consciousness can be conscious of something existent, such as awareness of a lion, or something created, such as desire for a teleportation device. But how does one show that the lion existed before the consciousness was conscious of it?

I think the point David is making, and I apologize if I've misinterpreted, is that the concept "existence" precedes the concept "consciousness." This is different from saying that everything which currently exists had to exist prior to your consciousness existing. For instance, a musical composition did not exist before the composer who composed it created it. But existence still comes before consciousness conceptually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but isn't that essentially begging the question? It doesn't follow from the fact that a consciousness is conscious of something that it existed before the consciousness was conscious of it.

I am having trouble following your use of the pronoun "it". Is this what you intended to write?

It doesn't follow from the fact that a consciousness is conscious of something that [consciousness] existed before the consciousness was conscious of [some object].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having trouble following your use of the pronoun "it". Is this what you intended to write?

It doesn't follow from the fact that a consciousness is conscious of something that [consciousness] existed before the consciousness was conscious of [some object].

My mistake, what I intended to write was: It doesn't follow from the fact that a consciousness is conscious of something that the object (not necessarily physical) existed before the consciousness was conscious of the object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake, what I intended to write was: It doesn't follow from the fact that a consciousness is conscious of something that the object (not necessarily physical) existed before the consciousness was conscious of the object.

How did you identify the consciousness as a consciousness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand you correctly you are asserting that being conscious means being conscious of something, i.e. that something (concrete or abstract) exists.
My point was actually ever more basic, that it is logically possible for there to be a universe with "stuff" but without any consciousness anywhere. Concretely, in the first million years of so after the Big Bang, there was stuff, and no consciousness. What is "consciousness"? It's a property of...... however you finish the sentence, you will have named some existent. If there exists an existent (of any kind), then existence exists.

When you have two things that are related, A and B, where A is possible only when B is true, but B can be true without A being true, then B is primary. The "primacy of existence" means that "existence" is primary, relative to consciousness (and everything else), because in order for consciousness to exist, you must have existence -- but it's not the case that in order for there to be existence, you have to have consciousness (see, in particular, the nature of the universe right after the Big Bang).

But how does one show that the lion existed before the consciousness was conscious of it?
This is exactly how the whole "Cogito" primacy of consciousness problem comes about. Your question now presupposes the primacy of consciousness by asking not about what exists, but how to show that it exists. Obviously, "showing" logically depends on consciousness.

So we're all happy to discuss epistemology and matters of proof, but we have to first understand the foundation; that existence is primary. After the logic of that is fully grasped, we can move to whether you grasp that statement. If you do, we can see what the consequence is of you grasping the fact of existence.

The problem is that if you want to leap to understanding vastly higher-order questions such as imagining a flying car and then making it exist, you will have to establish the foundation (existence exists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was actually ever more basic, that it is logically possible for there to be a universe with "stuff" but without any consciousness anywhere. Concretely, in the first million years of so after the Big Bang, there was stuff, and no consciousness. What is "consciousness"? It's a property of...... however you finish the sentence, you will have named some existent. If there exists an existent (of any kind), then existence exists. When you have two things that are related, A and B, where A is possible only when B is true, but B can be true without A being true, then B is primary. The "primacy of existence" means that "existence" is primary, relative to consciousness (and everything else), because in order for consciousness to exist, you must have existence -- but it's not the case that in order for there to be existence, you have to have consciousness (see, in particular, the nature of the universe right after the Big Bang).

But isn't consciousness itself an existent? If so, couldn't just a consciousness (which creates more existents) exist?

This is exactly how the whole "Cogito" primacy of consciousness problem comes about. Your question now presupposes the primacy of consciousness by asking not about what exists, but how to show that it exists. Obviously, "showing" logically depends on consciousness.

So we're all happy to discuss epistemology and matters of proof, but we have to first understand the foundation; that existence is primary. After the logic of that is fully grasped, we can move to whether you grasp that statement. If you do, we can see what the consequence is of you grasping the fact of existence.

The problem is that if you want to leap to understanding vastly higher-order questions such as imagining a flying car and then making it exist, you will have to establish the foundation (existence exists).

That's true, it's obviously impossible to prove existence without consciousness. So how do we reason to the primacy of existence over the primacy of consciousness without assuming the conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't consciousness itself an existent? If so, couldn't just a consciousness (which creates more existents) exist?
Can you rephrase the question without "exists" or "existent", or anything else that presupposes existence?

(The answer is "no").

So how do we reason to the primacy of existence over the primacy of consciousness without assuming the conclusion?
By realizing that the logical relationship between "existence" and "consciousness" is asymmetrical, as we have been doing here. "Reasoning" is dependent on both existence and consciousness. "Consciousness" clearly can exist without "reasoning", since reasoning is an aspect of consciousness. Reasoning cannot exist without consciousness. Thus reasoning is logically dependent on consciousness, and consciousness is logically dependent on existence.

Are you comfortable with the expression "primacy"? It's not exactly an ordinary term; it refers to a logical relationship between things, where the existence of A implies the existence of B but the existence of B does not imply the existence of A. If you're okay with the terminology, then do you see that the existence of consciousness implies the existence of existence; but the existence of existence does not imply the existence of consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't follow from the fact that a consciousness is conscious of something that the object existed before the consciousness was conscious of the object.

Does it follow that when a consciousness is conscious of some object, the object springs into existence the instant the photo receptors of one's eyes begin receiving light reflected from that object?

(Note: there would be no object to reflect the light, there would be no light, no eye and no receptors)

Does it follow that when a consciousness is conscious of some object, the object springs into existence the instant when:

  • vibrations in the air move our ear drum?
  • chemicals interact with our taste buds?
  • chemicals are inhaled into our nose?

Our sense organs have no power to create existence. They function mechanically and deterministically. Sense-perception is our primary form of consciousness.

In OPAR, Leonard Peikoff puts the point,

"Sensory experience is a form of awareness produced by physical entities (the external stimuli) acting on physical instrumentalities (the sense organs), which respond automatically,as a link in a causally determined chain. Obeying inexorable natural laws, the organs transmit a message to the nervous system and the brain. Such organs have no power of choice, no power to invent, distort, or deceive. They do not respond to a zero, only to a something, something real, some existential object which acts on them." (OPAR, 39)

A consciousness conscious of no object, is a contradiction in terms.

Again, Ayn Rand puts the point this way,

"It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated. Awareness is awareness of something. A content-less state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms." (ITOE, 29)

Here is how Peikoff describes the process by which we become aware of awareness, i.e., the process across time which later provides each individual with incentive to coin a concept so we may become conceptually aware of awareness/consciousness.

"After a child has observed a number of causal sequences, and thereby come to view existence (implicitly) as an orderly, predictable realm, he has advanced enough to gain his first inkling of his own faculty of cognition. This occurs when he discovers causal sequences involving his own senses. For example, he discovers that when he closes his eyes the (visual) world disappears, and that it reappears when he opens them. This kind of experience is the child's first grasp of his own means of perception, and thus of the inner world as against the outer, or the subject of cognition as against the object. It is his implicit grasp of the last of the three basic axiomatic concepts, the concept of "consciousness."

From the outset, consciousness presents itself as something specific—as a faculty of perceiving an object, not of creating or changing it. For instance, a child may hate the food set in front of him and refuse even to look at it. But his inner state does not erase his dinner. Leaving aside physical action, the food is impervious; it is unaffected by a process of consciousness as such. It is unaffected by anyone's perception or nonperception, memory or fantasy, desire or fury—just as a book refuses to roll despite anyone's tantrums, or a pillow to rattle, or a block to float.

The basic fact implicit in such observations is that consciousness, like every other kind of entity, acts in a certain way and only in that way. In adult, philosophic terms, we refer to this fact as the "primacy of existence," a principle that is fundamental to the metaphysics of Objectivism.

Existence, this principle declares, comes first. Things are what they are independent of consciousness—of anyone's perceptions, images, ideas, feelings. Consciousness, by contrast, is a dependent. Its function is not to create or control existence, but to be a spectator: to look out, to perceive, to grasp that which is." (OPAR, 17)

It is not until we as children have many, many instances of being aware of objects, that we are able to mentally step back & abstract and form an explicit concept of awareness itself.

For example my one year old son is not yet even able to speak, nor is able to understand what we mean when we point to a ball and say, "there it is go get it... get it!"; has only this week learned he can put a finger in each ear and stop the "awareness" of the sounds coming in. This experience and many others will become the data he uses to mentally isolate "awareness" itself.

The act of awareness, i.e., the act of being conscious, is implicit in every sensory-perceptual experience of objects, and becomes the data we then use to form the concept "awareness," or the concept "consciousness," thus allowing us more sophisticated identifications about the nature of consciousness as such.

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you rephrase the question without "exists" or "existent", or anything else that presupposes existence?

(The answer is "no").

I'm not sure if we're talking past each other but if a consciousness exists then something exists but that doesn't mean that there is an existence apart from the consciousness.

By realizing that the logical relationship between "existence" and "consciousness" is asymmetrical, as we have been doing here. "Reasoning" is dependent on both existence and consciousness. "Consciousness" clearly can exist without "reasoning", since reasoning is an aspect of consciousness. Reasoning cannot exist without consciousness. Thus reasoning is logically dependent on consciousness, and consciousness is logically dependent on existence.

Are you comfortable with the expression "primacy"? It's not exactly an ordinary term; it refers to a logical relationship between things, where the existence of A implies the existence of B but the existence of B does not imply the existence of A. If you're okay with the terminology, then do you see that the existence of consciousness implies the existence of existence; but the existence of existence does not imply the existence of consciousness.

Yes, existence can exist without consciousness and if consciousness exists then it would be a part of existence. If that's what you mean we're in agreement but is this really what Ayn Rand meant by primacy of existence? I thought it was a premise used to conclude that a consciousness can't alter existence, i.e. wishing won't make it so. This is a notion that I strongly agree with but having recently read the Maverick Philosopher's criticisms the argument doesn't seem to hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if we're talking past each other...

The apparent problem from my vantage point is that your concept of "consciousness" does not mean a faculty of awareness of things.

Do you remember being a child, and your sensory perceptual experiences, and the order in which you became aware of things?

Do you not believe sensory-perceptual experience is a form of awareness, i.e., a form of consciousness?

What evidence do you have that your faculty of awareness is creating or able to create things?

Are you trying to argue that it is possible that we are "brains in a vat"; that some scientist, using some advanced science is using electrodes to create the objects we are aware of? I.e., that it is possible that we are in some kind of Matrix like machine "creating" existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless one is proposing a "non-existent consciousness", then existence is primary. Consciousness itself is an existent indeed. We cannot talk of anything without existence as a presupposition. A non-existent existent is a contradiction! Oism points out following Aristotle that no metaphysical contradictions exist!

Edit: Therefore "existence exist" is the primary Axiom

This is a notion that I strongly agree with but having recently read the Maverick Philosopher's criticisms the argument doesn't seem to hold.

Could you post a link please.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's what you mean we're in agreement but is this really what Ayn Rand meant by primacy of existence?
Yes.
I thought it was a premise used to conclude that a consciousness can't alter existence, i.e. wishing won't make it so.
Used only in the sense that all arguments have the primacy of existence at the root. The conclusion that consciousness alone cannot change existence is a complex conclusion, involving man's nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me the actual question seems to be, "how do we arrive at the objectivity of existents apart from consciousness using the axioms without affirming the consequent" Is this what you mean to ask?

Yep.

Yeah, that's what I was referring too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Used only in the sense that all arguments have the primacy of existence at the root. The conclusion that consciousness alone cannot change existence is a complex conclusion, involving man's nature.
So then how do we get from

["existence" is not logically dependent on "consciousness"… "consciousness" is logically dependent on "existence".]

to [consciousness alone cannot change existence]?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would one respond to someone who holds the three axioms of existence, identity and consciousness to be true but denies the primacy of existence?

First of all the three axioms are NOT "existence, identity and consciousness."

Axioms are propositions, and they are:

  • Existence exists
  • Consciousness is conscious
  • A is A.

Secondly, the person mentioned does NOT hold the three axioms, they are either lying or the person has been misjudged as holding them, because:

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists.

I.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.

Edited by phibetakappa
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...