W A Dunkley Posted October 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Where would you "ground" existence? On identity? Existence IS identity! READ OPAR, man! You separate the axioms and that's wrong. You can't have existence without identity and there's no possibility of identity if nothing exists. Existence is not grounded on identity like you or I are grounded on the earth. Identity is the fundamental ground of everything else that exists. The primacy of Identity does not "separate the axioms"; it holds that axioms are monistic, that they all assert the same thing. They declare the existence of identity (i.e., self-sameness) Existence is everything;identity is self-sameness. Your last statement was flawed but paying on the edge of being profoundly correct! Read The Primacy of Identity, man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Dunkley, Identity is not something apart from "everything else that exists". The primacy of identity puts identity - ie, something other than existence - as primary to existence. The primary fact is that things are. It is impossible to maintain that things are what they are, before recognizing that they are. By asserting the existence of identity as the primary, you are asserting that everything has identity, without recognizing first and more critically that they exist. Moreover, by holding identity to be self-sameness, you are invoking consciousness as primary even to identity. Everything is the same as everything? - by what standard of comparison? Don't you think double-sized type is a bit overmuch? I'd suggest merely using boldface type for the word or two that you want to emphasize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Do you think the statement "Existence exists" is a logical consequence of the statement "A is A" ? The statements "existence exists" and "A is A" are both fundamental examples of assertions of self-sameness. Logical truths are more complex assertions of identity (e.g., all dogs go to heaven and rover went to hell so rover is not a dog.) The only truth that can be found in this example. Is the same truth asserted by "existence exist" or "A is A," the existence of self-sameness. There is a difference between what the axiom proves, as such, and what we know to be self evident. There is a difference between the self-evident truth of the statement "a pain in the chest is a pain in the chest" and the self evidence, of a pain in ones chest. The first proves the existence of self-sameness; the second proves, to the one in pain, the existence of pain. Even perception, nonetheless, hinges on the axiom. Knowledge begins when the axiom is acknowledged as incontrovertible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Dunkley, Identity is not something apart from "everything else that exists". The primacy of identity puts identity - ie, something other than existence - as primary to existence. The primary fact is that things are. It is impossible to maintain that things are what they are, before recognizing that they are. By asserting the existence of identity as the primary, you are asserting that everything has identity, without recognizing first and more critically that they exist. Moreover, by holding identity to be self-sameness, you are invoking consciousness as primary even to identity. Everything is the same as everything? - by what standard of comparison? Don't you think double-sized type is a bit overmuch? I'd suggest merely using boldface type for the word or two that you want to emphasize. "Things are" is an assertion of self-sameness. To interpret it otherwise would make it no longer be an axiom at all. (which, by the way, is what mystics love to do with "A is A") A standard of comparison? Are you now, like the mystic, demanding extrinsic proof of the axiom! Should I wait and see of scientist can unravel the theoretical mess that is quantum mechanics, and if logician's can decide if "this statement is a lie" is an actual contradiction so I can compare it to "everything is the same as everything?" NO! "everything is the same as everything" is the standard of comparison! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Dunkley, Identity is not something apart from "everything else that exists". I agree! Identity is something that is a part of everything else. Self-sameness is incomprehensible as anything but a part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Dunkley, Neither is it a part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Neither is it a part. This claim is fundamentally absurd, It throws away the foundation that your enemy's, first and foremost, wish to steal from you! but it would be good news for the ones facing punishment for denieing Aristotle's first principle. For all that stands between then and being burned is not being burned (i.e.,non-self-sameness,) is a "reified" concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Dunkley, OPAR. Read it, because you want to have some idea, when you speak of foundations, which is the proper kind. Identity is the sum of an entity's attributes. It is not a part of the entity; it is the entity. A thing's identity is not separable from the thing itself. Look up the word "reify". Self-sameness is not the proper concept to use in metaphysics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 The statements "existence exists" and "A is A" are both fundamental examples of assertions of self-sameness. "Things are" is an assertion of self-sameness. Would "Dunkley doesn't make sense" qualify as an assertion of self-sameness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
source Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 "Things are" is an assertion of self-sameness. To interpret it otherwise would make it no longer be an axiom at all. (which, by the way, is what mystics love to do with "A is A") "Things are" is not an assertion of self-sameness yet. It is a mere recognition of their existence. It's like saying "A is". Not an identity yet. Then you ask what are things and you realize, by the axiom of identity, that they are themselves. A good sentence which explains the axioms is the one Peikoff gives in OPAR: "There is something I am aware of." Where: There is - existence something - identity I am aware of - consciousness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorthyLoverOfExistence Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. The primacy of identity is just a different perspective on the primacy of existence. They both name the same fact in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 "Things are" is not an assertion of self-sameness yet. It is a mere recognition of their existence. It's like saying "A is". Not an identity yet. Then you ask what are things and you realize, by the axiom of identity, that they are themselves. A good sentence which explains the axioms is the one Peikoff gives in OPAR: "There is something I am aware of." Where: There is - existence something - identity I am aware of - consciousness Must we be so dogmatic as to refuse to see what right before us: ”Things are” by your interpretation, falls short of being an assertion of self-sameness, because it falls short of being an axiom. “A is” is not an axiom unless it is interpreted to mean “a thing is a thing” “God is” is not an axiom; i It is not even true. “God is God” is an axiom and the only truth it asserts is identity! “Something is” is just a more brief way of saying “something is something.” By an other interpretation IT IS NOT AN AXIOM! As I state in The Primacy of Identity, epistemologically speaking existence comes before self-sameness. The notion of a “thing” comes before the immutable truth is formulated, “a thing is itself.” This, nonetheless is not relevant to the metaphysical issue of primacy. Epistemologically, existence may be regarded as a basic fact. Metaphysically speaking however, existence is not a base, it is everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 The primacy of identity is just a different perspective on the primacy of existence. They both name the same fact in reality. The primacy of identity may be regarded as a correction of the primacy of existence, an idea that is profound and meaningful, but flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Would "Dunkley doesn't make sense" qualify as an assertion of self-sameness? No! It is (loosely speaking) an assertion of evasion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorthyLoverOfExistence Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 The primacy of identity may be regarded as a correction of the primacy of existence, an idea that is profound and meaningful, but flawed. Neither is flawed. They are both true. Existence is identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Neither is flawed. They are both true. Existence is identity. Existence is everything. Identity as it is defined by Objectivism, refers to the logical truth that specific things exist. It is a logical truth that emerges when the axiom, the fact of self-sameness, is weighed agents the self-evidence, derived from perception, that existence is multifaceted (i.e., A is A and therefore a dog is not a cat, etc.) This however is not the fundamental truth that is asserted by the axiom, the existence of self-sameness. Existence is everything. self-sameness is the fundamental ground of everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Dunkley, Perhaps you need to read something that Ayn Rand wrote on existence and identity, instead of attributing things to her that she never said and in fact are so far from what she did say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Dunkley, Perhaps you need to read something that Ayn Rand wrote on existence and identity, instead of attributing things to her that she never said and in fact are so far from what she did say. This may be an my interpretation, not what she said. However, until you can show me where Ayn Rand said “a thing is not the same as itself,” your complaint rings shallow. (And if you could show me, my towering respect for her would be devastated.) Can’t let you of the hook on that one, can I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Dunkley, You put up a very good argument. By the same argument, if I mentioned in passing that "four is not five; neither is five six; neither is six seven", you could easily come along and contend that I never denied the identity of seven and eight! Ayn Rand did not rebut the infinite list of ways to deny the primacy of existence. She rebutted a few of the prominent ones, and your way happens not to have been one of them. You still need to read something that Ayn Rand wrote on existence and identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 y_feldblum Ayn Rand did not rebut the primacy of identity, because it had not yet been formulated. (And you cannot convince me that she would be quick to cast it aside.) At the risk of sounding like I an evading, I sincerely can't follow what your getting at in this first paragraph. If you can explain to me what I am missing, I will try to respond. I will grant you, I am more of an ideas man that a scholar. Nonetheless, I have read what Rand said about the primacy of existence and I was profoundly influenced. I do not present this thesis to rebut the primacy of existence. I present it as an idea that is inspired by the primacy of existence, but better states the truth that Ayn Rand was playing of the edge of. Metaphorically stated, the primacy of identity is on the tip of the tongue of the primacy of existence. The primacy of identity accepts the theme of the primacy of existence: that the axiom resolves the issue of primacy. It is a clarification of what the axiom asserts and of what it is asserting as primary. As to the compliment, let me say that (other than one slip) I can say no less of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 What I have understood from all this is that WA Dunkley is saying that the Law of Existence is not a primary, only the Law of Identity is. In other words, the Law of Existence can be derived from the Law of Identity. This means that A is A is a primary and the fact that A exists can be derived from the former assertion. But how can A be A when we do not assume that A exists? Isn't the Law of Existence a primary? Isn't the Law of Identity presupposing the Law of Existence to be true? How can the Law of Identity be primary then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 tommyedison, Dunkely is not proposing a primacy of identity, not as Ayn Rand understood identity; he is proposing a primacy of self-sameness, a fundamentally different thing. But even if he's doing what you think he's doing, that involves a massive inversion of hierarchy. The most basic, most readily graspable fact of things is that they are, and nothing further can be known of them if one has not understood this fact. Only after grasping that something is, can one grasp what it is. Dunkley proposes the reverse, and a colossal contradiction: somehow being aware of certain aspects of a thing, without being aware of its existence at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 What I have understood from all this is that WA Dunkley is saying that the Law of Existence is not a primary, only the Law of Identity is. In other words, the Law of Existence can be derived from the Law of Identity. This means that A is A is a primary and the fact that A exists can be derived from the former assertion. But how can A be A when we do not assume that A exists? Isn't the Law of Existence a primary? Isn't the Law of Identity presupposing the Law of Existence to be true? How can the Law of Identity be primary then? "A be A" sounds like the Ebonics assertion of identity. Just kidding. I was about to get angry and say read The Primacy of Identity again and don't make me explain it again. However, I looked at your profile and according to it, you are only 13. If this is so, then I am truly impressed. That is an incredibly young age to be grappling with such deep issues. What I am saying is that the law of identity is the supreme law if existence. We do assume that A exists before we formulate the axiom, "A is A." One my assume that God exists and then formulate the axiom "God is God," but all that one has asserted and proved is the existence of identity. Nonetheless, this provides the ground for all else that can be proved. The incontrovertible truth that something exists is grounded in the axiom. Asserting that nothing exist would violate this first principle. I would suggest reading TPOI and my response to other comments again, and you may have to struggle with it for some time. I struggled with this issue for 30+ years and the primacy of identity is the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W A Dunkley Posted October 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 tommyedison, Dunkely is not proposing a primacy of identity, not as Ayn Rand understood identity; he is proposing a primacy of self-sameness, a fundamentally different thing. But even if he's doing what you think he's doing, that involves a massive inversion of hierarchy. The most basic, most readily graspable fact of things is that they are, and nothing further can be known of them if one has not understood this fact. Only after grasping that something is, can one grasp what it is. Dunkley proposes the reverse, and a colossal contradiction: somehow being aware of certain aspects of a thing, without being aware of its existence at all. y_fieldblum y_feldblum y_feldblum Again, in the words of Reagan, "there you go again." "The most basic, most readily graspable fact of things is that they are" The primacy of identity is not at swords point with this statement!!! The only "certain aspect" of a thing, without being aware of its existence at all" that I claim to be incontravertably known is that it posesses identity. I don't know what is on the planet to which Mr Speicher would have me banished, but I know what ever is there, it is what it is; it posesses self-sameness. If we do not acknowledge this, any clain to knowledge crumbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 No! It is (loosely speaking) an assertion of evasion! How can I evade that which I don't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts