Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Primacy of existence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

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.

I'm going to quote page 4 of Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand regarding the axiom of existence: "This axiom does not tell us anything about the nature of existents, it merely underscores the fact that they exist." I.e. the axiom does not tell us whether existents exist independent of consciousness.

These two statements are not equivalent:

#1. The primacy of existence is the axiom that existence exists.

#2. The universe exists independent of consciousness, that they are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.

While #2 implies #1, #1 does not imply #2.

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

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I'm going to quote page 4 of Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand regarding the axiom of existence: "This axiom does not tell us anything about the nature of existents, it merely underscores the fact that they exist." I.e. the axiom does not tell us whether existents exist independent of consciousness.

These two statements are not equivalent:

#1. The primacy of existence is the axiom that existence exists.

#2. The universe exists independent of consciousness, that they are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.

While #2 implies #1, #1 does not imply #2.

... Sure that's what you meant... If you did you wouldn't have asked the question because you would have known its a bogus question showing you don't know what the three axioms mean.

Secondly,

I am going to quote Ayn Rand herself, who discovered Objectivism:

"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.

The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: 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 Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 12 March 12, 1973, "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made", 177)

Peikoff even makes the point later on page 19,

"The primacy of existence is not an independent principle. It is an elaboration, a further corollary, of the basic axioms.

Existence precedes consciousness, because consciousness is consciousness of an object. Nor can consciousness create or suspend the laws governing its objects, because every entity is something and acts accordingly. Consciousness, therefore, is only a faculty of awareness. It is the power to grasp, to find out, to discover that which is. It is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects."

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that existence exists is not equivalent to existence exists independent of consciousness. If it's as you say, an axiom, then we need an argument explaining it's status as an axiom because it's clearly not a corollary of the axiom of existence.

No, clearly that you do not understand what the axiom of "Existence exists" means.

Nor do you understand what the concept "consciousness" means.

You are, in fact, stealing the concept consciousness.

Again,

"Existence exists" is the axiom.

'existence' is not an axiom.

'existence' is an axiomatic concept.

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, clearly that you do not understand what the axiom of "Existence exists" means.

Nor do you understand what the concept "consciousness" means.

You are, in fact, stealing the concept consciousness.

Again,

"Existence exists" is the axiom.

'existence' is not an axiom.

'existence' is an axiomatic concept.

I am fully aware of what those axioms and concepts mean although I'm not sure that you are aware of what you can and can not deduce from them.

I'll try to make this argument even clearer.

"Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. 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."

This is true but this does not mean that the existent that the consciousness is aware of existed before the consciousness became aware of it. I.e. it does not prove that there were existents apart from consciousness before consciousness existed. I'm interested in how to respond to an argument of the sort: "If you're conscious of a lion, how do you know that the lion existed before you were conscious of it?" without begging the question.

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

The problem is that existence exists is not equivalent to existence exists independent of consciousness. If it's as you say, an axiom, then we need an argument explaining it's status as an axiom because it's clearly not a corollary of the axiom of existence.

*Note: there is no such thing as an "argument" explaining the status of an axiom. The concept argument presupposes the axioms.

In the appendix of ITOE on page 250, Professor K asks a very similar question to Ayn Rand:

Prof. K: Locke is similar to Descartes in that he considers it a special problem to establish the independent existence of the world. In order to establish that existence exists independently of our consciousness we must show that one element of existence is something that our consciousness could not give to existence.

AR: Yes, that is the way they would approach it, but what it literally amounts to is: in order to validate the existence of an outside world, we have to introduce something mystical, something unknowable, something not of this world and not of our knowledge.

Locke and Descartes achieve the exact opposite of their intention. Whereas actually what Descartes, and all of them, should have done is ask themselves the origin of the concept "consciousness"—since they meant something by that concept and they referred to something, their inner mental state.

They never considered the fact that there can be no such thing as consciousness if it is not conscious of anything. They put consciousness first—as if that is the absolute, the given—and then we have to prove the existence of something outside of it.

Incidentally, in all such theories of the primacy of consciousness, whenever reality doesn't conform to what their consciousness decides is true, it is reality that then is dismissed.

Again, it is the absolute negation of "existence exists" as an axiom.

Claiming that it is a special problem to establish the independent existence of the world, i.e., that there is a need for a special argument in order to establish that existence exists independently of our consciousness is quote...

Again, it is the absolute negation of "existence exists" as an axiom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fully aware of what those axioms and concepts mean although I'm not sure that you are aware of what you can and can not deduce from them.

You can "deduce" NOTHING from them.

You can, and must begin by inducing by using them as a guide from where to start (reality), but you can not deduce anything from them.

They merely state:

  • Everything that exists exists.
  • Everyone that is conscious is conscious.
  • Everything that is something specific, is something specific.

Deduction requires a premise. S is P, and a middle term M.

These statements say,

E is E.

C is C.

A is A.

Existence exists.

Consciousness is conscious.

Identity is identity.

There is no premise here to deduce from.

Axioms are an explicit conceptual expression of the perceptually self-evident.

That is all, which is EVERYTHING.

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested in how to respond to an argument of the sort: "If you're conscious of a lion, how do you know that the lion existed before you were conscious of it?" without begging the question.

Let’s suppose for a moment the lion did not exist before we became aware of it.

There is no such thing as knowing the non-existence of an object. The words, “know” and “how”, “proof”, “thing” all presuppose the existence of something.

One cannot “detect” a ghost, a figment, a phantom, a god, a no-thing.

The term consciousness only has meaning if it is applied to detecting that which exists.

There is no such thing as being conscious of the non-existent.

You seem to want an argument to produce a “consciousness” that can detect a void, a nothing, a non-existent.

By what means would such a “consciousness” be conscious? The word would lose all meaning: a “consciousness” somehow conscious by no means what-so-ever, and able to be aware of no-thing.

And by what terms would the argument use? Since we can only know/detect/be aware of what exists, and all our concepts presuppose this, how would we formulate such an “argument?”

An argument in terms of non-existence, which makes us somehow “conscious” of the non-existent, a void, a no-thing, i.e., you want a non-argument using non-terms, to non-produced a non-consciousness, of a non-existent.

Good luck with that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true but this does not mean that the existent that the consciousness is aware of existed before the consciousness became aware of it. I.e. it does not prove that there were existents apart from consciousness before consciousness existed. I'm interested in how to respond to an argument of the sort: "If you're conscious of a lion, how do you know that the lion existed before you were conscious of it?" without begging the question.

It seems you have two questions then. I thought you were interested in the question of mind independent objects and their relationships to the axioms as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems you have two questions then. I thought you were interested in the question of mind independent objects and their relationships to the axioms as such.

Yes, both of those questions are of interest to me.

You can "deduce" NOTHING from them.

That was my first point, yet you claim that existence being independent of consciousness is a corollary of the axiom of existence (i.e. what exists exists). If existence being independent of consciousness is an axiom then it must abide to "An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." If you could show me how that applies to the primacy of existence then we have an agreement.

Good luck with that...

That was my second point.

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

It seems [Laissez-Faire has] two questions then. I thought you were interested in the question of mind independent objects and their relationships to the axioms as such.
They’re related. They both ask “is consciousness of an object necessary for that object to exist?” Primacy of existence defined as
"Existence" is not logically dependent on "consciousness". However, if a consciousness exists, then something exist -- "consciousness" is logically dependent on "existence".
does not answer that question.

Axioms are an explicit conceptual expression of the perceptually self-evident.
What self-evident perception makes you say that
the universe exists independent of any consciousness
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They’re related. They both ask “is consciousness of an object necessary for that object to exist?” Primacy of existence defined as

No they dont. The question of mind independent objects still presupposes existence. The question about something existing before consciousness observes it is "NOT EVEN WRONG" Its an invalid question.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They’re related. They both ask “is consciousness of an object necessary for that object to exist?”

What your really trying to ask is "“Does consciousness of an object necessarily mean that object exists OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS?” At root this question deals with abstract/mental objects vs "empirical"/objective objects. Another is "Is my consciousness all that exist ?".

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What your really trying to ask is "“Does consciousness of an object necessarily mean that object exists OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS?” At root this question deals with abstract/mental objects vs "empirical"/objective objects. Another is "Is my consciousness all that exist ?".

Yes, this also has relevance to the topic of god, i.e. a divine consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small contribution regarding "What self-evident perception makes you say that "the universe exists independent of any consciousness"?

The concept of "universe" is not self-evident, as most of it is not perceived and cannot be perceived. "Peek-a-boo" games with infants and animals how that "out of sight, out of mind" is the default operating principle of lesser consciousnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small contribution regarding "What self-evident perception makes you say that "the universe exists independent of any consciousness"?

The concept of "universe" is not self-evident, as most of it is not perceived and cannot be perceived. "Peek-a-boo" games with infants and animals how that "out of sight, out of mind" is the default operating principle of lesser consciousnesses.

I interpreted it as an assumption that "universe" was inteded to convey the content of ones perception.As if it was understood that what one is percieving is a part of the U.

"What self evident perception makes you say that their are mind independent objects." would be a better way to state it.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question about something existing before consciousness observes it is "NOT EVEN WRONG" Its an invalid question.
Why? Presupposing existence doesn't mean you presuppose a particular existent's existence.

"What self evident perception makes you say that their are mind independent objects." would be a better way to state it.
Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my first point, yet you claim that existence being independent of consciousness is a corollary of the axiom of existence

[/quo

NO I DID NOT.

The O'ist axiom "Existence Exists." affirms that consciousness is independent of consciousness; the two are the same thing; they are not two different premises, they are not even premises; they are special propositions. I wrote just that. Then you said it was not true.

Then I quoted Ayn Rand, who said exactly this, yet you STILL won't stop and read, and induce first hand. If you want a great example of someone who holds the primacy of consciousness, YOU ARE IT. You are a perfect example.

If you want to understand, you are going to have to re-form the concept "consciousness" from scratch, inducing it again, because you have forgotten how you formed it to begin with. This is your only hope.

Right now you are engaging in what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of the stolen concept, and the concept you continue to steal, again and again is the concept "consciousness" and/or awareness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If existence being independent of consciousness is an axiom then it must abide to "An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." If you could show me how that applies to the primacy of existence then we have an agreement.

Go back and read everything I have written an provided you. I've given you the answer. I've explained it. I've provided you with all of the relevant passages from both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. I've put everything you need in front of you.

If you truly understand that "Existence exists." is an axiom, then you have the answer. the "primacy of existence" is not a separate axiom from "Existence exists." The "primacy of existence," is an elaboration of the axiom; and I have elaborated it again, and again and again.

In order to form the concept "consciousness", one must first be aware of something, i.e., of some content, i.e., of existence. Consciousness conscious of nothing, of no content, is a contradiction in terms; the concept "consciousness" presupposes that something exists; the concepts consciousness and/or awareness, means awareness of an object, i.e., of something.

Existence is not dependent on consciousness, but consciousness is dependent on existence.

As I stated in my previous post, you will need to reform the concept of "consciousness" from scratch, because like Descartes and Lock you have stuck yourself inside your own consciousness, and are trying to prove something exists. You need to induce it first hand again, and figure out where it comes from before you are going to believe that consciousness depends on existence, and that existence does not depend on consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (phibetakappa @ Oct 1 2009, 06:30 AM)

the universe exists independent of any consciousness

I'm not sure why you re-quoted this with a question mark, but the statement is from this passage:

"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. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: 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 Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 12 March 12, 1973, "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made", 177)
Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Presupposing existence doesn't mean you presuppose a particular existent's existence.

Yes, but only particular things can exist. Consciousness is awareness of particulars, not of existence. Existence is an abstraction, and although self-evident, first level and axiomatic it is not the first abstraction grasped by any mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. What self-evident perception makes you say that the universe exists independent of any consciousness?

What I wrote was:

Axioms are an explicit conceptual expression of the perceptually self-evident.

(Note: "self-evident perception" is redundant. There is no such thing as a non-self-evident perception.)

Your question does not follow from what I wrote.

That statement is a summary of Ayn Rand writes in ITOE in her chapter on Axiomatic concepts:

"Existence, identity and consciousness are concepts in that they require identification in conceptual form. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that they are perceived or experienced directly, but grasped conceptually. They are implicit in every state of awareness, from the first sensation to the first percept to the sum of all concepts. After the first discriminated sensation (or percept), man's subsequent knowledge adds nothing to the basic facts designated by the terms "existence," "identity," "consciousness"—these facts are contained in any single state of awareness; but what is added by subsequent knowledge is the epistemological need to identify them consciously and self-consciously. The awareness of this need can be reached only at an advanced stage of conceptual development, when one has acquired a sufficient volume of knowledge—and the identification, the fully conscious grasp, can be achieved only by a process of abstraction." (ITOE, 55)

She continues,

Axiomatic concepts identify explicitly what is merely implicit in the consciousness of an infant or of an animal. (Implicit knowledge is passively held material which, to be grasped, requires a special focus and process of consciousness—a process which an infant learns to perform eventually, but which an animal's consciousness is unable to perform. )

The only knowledge that is self-evident are sense-perceptions. She afirms this belief in the first sentence of Chapter 6 of ITOE page 55

"Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But explicit propositions as such are not primaries: they are made of concepts. The base of man's knowledge—of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought—consists of axiomatic concepts."

In the appendix she goes into details as to the necessary conditions of forming axiomatic concepts which the propositionally stated axioms are composed:

"To reach axiomatic concepts consciously, you have to have a certain amount of knowledge about epistemology. You do not need knowledge of a full, philosophical theory of epistemology, but you have to have the self-consciousness to identify explicitly certain elements in your knowledge which have been implicit up to then. It requires a sufficient amount of knowledge and a very significant degree of introspection. The ability to introspect is necessary to begin to identify the implicit explicitly. And for that there has to be the material of introspection. So you have to have a sufficient knowledge both of the outside world and of the process of your own consciousness before you can begin to identify the widest abstractions." (ITEO, 262)
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...