Universe, Existence, Nature

[Hope]

Have no idea as to your meaning. "E"xistence begins a sentence, so it is capitalized. Existence is not a container. No stolen concepts please. A specific instance of existence? As opposed to non-existence? How do you qualify existence with "that" or "the"? What are you talking about here?

I can see how I've become confusing. Sorry. In many discussions about Existence I've read I see important distinctions glossed over and comingled in completely illegitimate ways.

The main comingled distinction is between Existence as "all that which exists" (or Nature or the Universe) vs Existence of individual entities.

A secondary comingling of a distinction is to treat abstracts and instances as interchangeable. For example, in the sentence, "The Keyboard is a means of entering text", the keyboard is in the abstract, no particular keyboard is indicated. In the sentence, "This keyboard is sticky" the keyboard is a concrete instance, and a single keyboard in particular is indicated. It is my habit to capitalize abstracts

If you want to distinguish Aristotle's meaning of the term from Objectivism's meaning, then perhaps you should start be stating what you see each means and what you see the difference to be. I don't see how you would expect your argument to be meaningful to the issues I'm addressing if you're using different meanings.

I simply did not realize my ambiguity. I only used Aristotle as an historic figure. Maybe I should have used "Carthage's existence", or "the Colossus' of Rhodes" existence.

All this clouds the issue, unfortunately. You asked, "The formulation 'existence is identity' does not in any way refute or conflict with existence is 'all that which exists' Why would you think so? "

My answer is that comingling "Existence as 'all that which exists'." with the "Existence of individual entities." is completely fallacious -- the Fallacy of Equivocation. They are two entirely different meanings of the word. It is essential to specify which is meant with every use, otherwise no meaningful discussion is possible.

[Dante]

It is my understanding that to say "existence is identity," in the context in which it is put forward in OPAR is to say that to exist is to have a definite thing. Thus, for any particular existent, a certain identity is implicit in the very fact that it exists. The third axiom applies to any and every piece of the universe (i.e. Existence as you would specify it). If we're saying that Existence is made up of only a number of existents, and that each of these has an identity, I see no equivocation.

[Hope]

It is my understanding that to say "existence is identity," in the context in which it is put forward in OPAR is to say that to exist is to have a definite thing. Thus, for any particular existent, a certain identity is implicit in the very fact that it exists. The third axiom applies to any and every piece of the universe (i.e. Existence as you would specify it). If we're saying that Existence is made up of only a number of existents, and that each of these has an identity, I see no equivocation.

Thanks Chris.

You have stated succinctly what the issue is, to the point where I thought I saw my mistake. Unfortunately, I'm still dissatisfied.

If I "stand back" to examine my own existence, and say to myself "Your existence IS identity", I see no reason to dispute it.

If I do the same and say to myself "Your existence is all that exists.", it smacks loudly of subjectivism, because it implies that the whole Universe ceases to exist the moment I do. Obviously, *for me* the Universe ceases to exist, but that's only because I lose all consciousness of it (not to mention consciousness of my own existence into the bargain). Existence remains objectively, "out there", whether I'm conscious of it or not.

This is my distinction, "existence IS identity", but "Existence isn't identity", rather "Existence is the sum of all identities".

This is why I see that two very distinct meanings are being comingled, incorrectly, into one.

[A is A]

I can see how I've become confusing. Sorry. In many discussions about Existence I've read I see important distinctions glossed over and comingled in completely illegitimate ways.

The main comingled distinction is between Existence as "all that which exists" (or Nature or the Universe) vs Existence of individual entities.

What is the difference? Is not "all that which exists" "individual entities" (and existents)? Are there individual entities that do not exist?

A secondary comingling of a distinction is to treat abstracts and instances as interchangeable. For example, in the sentence, "The Keyboard is a means of entering text", the keyboard is in the abstract, no particular keyboard is indicated. In the sentence, "This keyboard is sticky" the keyboard is a concrete instance, and a single keyboard in particular is indicated. It is my habit to capitalize abstracts

---------

I disagree. "The" is a definite article and indicates a specific object. If you want to indicate an indefinite object, you should used "a" or "an". You seem to be implying some dichotomy between characteristics that define an object and characteristics that are not in the definition. This is epistomelogically invalid method of distinguishing among objects and their characteristics. A sticky keyboard is still a means of entering text.

Edited May 23, 2010 by A is A

[A is A]

-----------

All this clouds the issue, unfortunately. You asked, "The formulation 'existence is identity' does not in any way refute or conflict with existence is 'all that which exists' Why would you think so? "

My answer is that comingling "Existence as 'all that which exists'." with the "Existence of individual entities." is completely fallacious -- the Fallacy of Equivocation. They are two entirely different meanings of the word. It is essential to specify which is meant with every use, otherwise no meaningful discussion is possible.

Let me see if I understand you. If I say "paint is colorful" and "paint is red," I am equivocating according to you? If I say "dogs are a species" and "dogs are Chihuahuas" I am equivocating?

Equivocation means changing the defintion or meaning of a concept in the middle of an argument without indicating the change. Since "existence" is ostensively defined, in what two senses is it being used? Can you cite an example of where the two uses are comingled?

Edited May 23, 2010 by A is A

[Hope]

Let me see if I understand you. If I say "paint is colorful" and "paint is red," I am equivocating according to you? If I say "dogs are a species" and "dogs are Chihuahuas" I am equivocating?

You can feed your dog, Rover. You can feed your cat, Fluffy. You cannot feed "Dog" or "Cat", they are taxonomic classifications.

The answer to the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is this:

Chicken and Egg are both concepts without any temporal or sequential relation between them. I can say nothing about the relation between a specific egg and a specific chicken because you haven't shown me any.

Equivocation means changing the defintion or meaning of a concept in the middle of an argument without indicating the change. Since "existence" is ostensively defined, in what two senses is it being used? Can you cite an example of where the two uses are comingled?

Yeah. In my prior post in reply to Dante.

[dream_weaver]

The answer to the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is this:

Obviously the e(xistence)gg, as the c(onsciousness)hicken would otherwise have no place to roost.

With all due respect, this conversation is intriguing in the sense that it appeared that - identity is to existence as: the properties are to any specific existent.

When Miss Rand stated that existence is identity, she also states that 'to be, is to be something'. One cannot be without the other. In pointing out that they are inseperable, this seems to suggest that the two are mutually intrinsic, almost as if it were two ways to describe the same thing. The state of being, and at the same time, because it is, it is necessarily something. It has been helpful to consider identity loosely as a property of existence, yet the discussion here suggests that this is not what is stated by an individual who was extraordinary at saying what she means, and meaning what she says.

[Hope]

Obviously the e(xistence)gg, as the c(onsciousness)hicken would otherwise have no place to roost.

With all due respect, this conversation is intriguing in the sense that it appeared that - identity is to existence as: the properties are to any specific existent.

When Miss Rand stated that existence is identity, she also states that 'to be, is to be something'. One cannot be without the other. In pointing out that they are inseperable, this seems to suggest that the two are mutually intrinsic, almost as if it were two ways to describe the same thing. The state of being, and at the same time, because it is, it is necessarily something. It has been helpful to consider identity loosely as a property of existence, yet the discussion here suggests that this is not what is stated by an individual who was extraordinary at saying what she means, and meaning what she says.

Could you please be more explicit. I don't see what your getting at with either of your remarks.

Perhaps I should point out that the problem of mistakenly discussing taxonomic categories *as though* they are the things themselves, was in fact a side-issue that began with post #24. (I mentioned it as an additional possible fallacy, without having any cases of it to point to.)

I tried to get off the side issue and back onto the main issue with post #28.

[Leonid]

My keyboard exists independantly from my curling iron. Is that a property of my keyboard? Independant existence of one thing from another is an extrinsic property of all things and hence says nothing about each thing itself.

So I don't think we can count that one.This is interesting!

The *term* "Existence exists" is axiomatic within a logical framework. Unless you want to argue that a thing can be an axiom, Existence itself, the thing out there in (or should I say -- as -- ?) objective reality, is not an axiom.

On the other hand, if you do want to argue that it's an axiom then you prove my point because *axioms have no properties*!

So I don't think we can count that one.All things that exist have identity, identity is not a real property since it provides no defining characteristic that sets one thing apart from another.

So I don't think we can count that one.My keyboard's hair cannot be curled! This again is an extrinsic property, since the list of things that cannot be done to things is infinite.

So I don't think we can count that one.Out of all the things that exist, can you name even one that acts *out* of accordance with its identity? Acting in accordance with one's identity is, again, a property shared by all things, so it is not a real property.

So I don't think we can count that one.Curly hair is not a property of my keyboard. Not being a property of something else is a shared property of everything else.

So I don't think we can count any of those, and I am back where I started. I know of no properties of Existence.

I described properties of existence as a whole. This is obvious that different existents have different properties. Axiomatic property of existence is epistemic, in the sense that existence doesn't require a proof, all proves depend on it. Identity of existence defines its bondaries which means that existence is not infinite and cannot be created like your keyboard. Existence is a widest concept which includes keyboards, curly hair, men, stars and whatever you want. If all these things have properties and identities, then by induction existence also has them. If existence has no identity, then it exists as nothing in particular, in other words it doesn't exists. That would be worse then contradiction in terms.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Leonid