Existence exists subsidiary thread

[Ilya Startsev]

*****Moderator note: Merged from Neo-Objectivism*****

 

Here is a simpler question: Is existence a man?

Edited August 7, 2014 by dream_weaver

[Ilya Startsev]

I think we all agree that an orange and a man are existents. From ITOE, Ch. 6, we know that "[e]xistence and identity . . . are the existents." So, existence is existent(s), and identity is existent(s). What's the right answer to the questions I posted?

[Ilya Startsev]

An orange is an existent. Is an existent an orange?

[Ilya Startsev]

An orange is identified as an existent. An orange is a meaningful IDENTITY.

Does the existent exist as an orange? The existent is a factual EXISTENCE.

 

If you answered "no" to my questions, then existence is not meaningful because it is not some specific existent that can be any existent (i.e., an orange). In Objectivism, then, logic (identity) is meaningless and so are all your pseudo-definitions of existence. It's all a bunch of anti-Aristotelian handwaving. Aristotle created logic for meaningful communications, and one cannot get those with Objectivists.

[Eiuol]

Is existence an orange? Please answer yes or no.

Huh? This makes little sense. Is existence in its entirety an orange? No. Is an orange exhaustive of existence? No. Is an orange a part of existence? Yes. The problem seems to be English language, not philosophy.

[Ilya Startsev]

Huh? This makes little sense. Is existence in its entirety an orange? No. Is an orange exhaustive of existence? No. Is an orange a part of existence? Yes. The problem seems to be English language, not philosophy.

Indeed there are many problems with the English language. Definitions for some words are ambiguous. I agree with you that an existent (an orange) is a part of existence. Existent is a part, existence is a whole. This does not bring up the composition fallacy.

[aleph_1]

An orange is identified as an existent. An orange is a meaningful IDENTITY.

Does the existent exist as an orange? The existent is a factual EXISTENCE.

If you answered "no" to my questions, then existence is not meaningful because it is not some specific existent that can be any existent (i.e., an orange). In Objectivism, then, logic (identity) is meaningless and so are all your pseudo-definitions of existence. It's all a bunch of anti-Aristotelian handwaving. Aristotle created logic formeaningful communications, and one cannot get those with Objectivists.

Nonsequitur. Please!!! Study some logic.

[Ilya Startsev]

Nonsequitur. Please!!! Study some logic.

I had. But Objectivism is not logic.

[New Buddha]

Ilya,

I don't think anyone on this forum has the slightest clue what it is you are trying to prove or disprove -- or what it is that you get out of continuing to post.  Being generous, some probably chalk it up to a sever language barrier.  You cannot learn Objectivism (or any philosophy) one post at a time.  A forum such as this is a place to discuss they gray areas of Objectivism in greater detail.  There is no short cut to sitting down and reading and thinking on your own.

[Ilya Startsev]

Ilya,

I don't think anyone on this forum has the slightest clue what it is you are trying to prove or disprove -- or what it is that you get out of continuing to post.  Being generous, some probably chalk it up to a sever language barrier.  You cannot learn Objectivism (or any philosophy) one post at a time.  A forum such as this is a place to discuss they gray areas of Objectivism in greater detail.  There is no short cut to sitting down and reading and thinking on your own.

I know, I know. There is nothing to prove or disprove in Objectivism. It's impossible to refute. For me, it's just an addiction now, sitting here with all of you guys, since I have no other life anymore. Well, not until the fall semester starts.

[New Buddha]

I know, I know. There is nothing to prove or disprove in Objectivism. It's impossible to refute. For me, it's just an addiction now, sitting here with all of you guys, since I have no other life anymore. Well, not until the fall semester starts.

lol

 

+1

[Eiuol]

Indeed there are many problems with the English language.

No, I meant you personally. Your English is good for communicating, but I don't think it's good enough to discuss philosophy in your own words.

[Ilya Startsev]

No, I meant you personally. Your English is good for communicating, but I don't think it's good enough to discuss philosophy in your own words.

Perhaps. After all, I am not a professional philosopher.

[Eiuol]

Me neither - I admit, people fail to understand me at all sometimes, too!

[dream_weaver]

Perhaps. After all, I am not a professional philosopher.

There are few here, that I am aware of, that are considered "professional" philosophers. I'm a draftsman by trade and profession. Even within the craft of draftsman, I specialize in applying measurement theory (consider it a form of measurement inclusion, rather than of measurement omission.)

 

I do not specialize in automobile repair. I hire specialist to work on my automobile. If I required legal counsel, I would hire an attorney. A unique aspect about philosophy is that I cannot hire a professional philosopher to do my philosophical thinking for me. I have to adopt my own abstract principles (a tough science to master) in order to apply them to the particular concrete situations that I encounter.

 

It is by philosophic principles I evaluate a potential mechanic, attorney, dentist, etc., as being qualified to defer the requirement of learning how to do a particular task for myself to a specialist.

 

Philosophy, on the other hand, does not work this way. Each individual has to learn to evaluate what Is true or false for themselves. Epistemology is the science which deals with such a task, and no epistemologist can perform this task for you. To let someone else decide what is true or false for you is to default on the responsibility of determining such an important issue for yourself.  Essentially, it would amount to taking somebody else's word for granted, or on faith.

[Ilya Startsev]

There are few here, that I am aware of, that are considered "professional" philosophers. I'm a draftsman by trade and profession. Even within the craft of draftsman, I specialize in applying measurement theory (consider it a form of measurement inclusion, rather than of measurement omission.)

 

I do not specialize in automobile repair. I hire specialist to work on my automobile. If I required legal counsel, I would hire an attorney. A unique aspect about philosophy is that I cannot hire a professional philosopher to do my philosophical thinking for me. I have to adopt my own abstract principles (a tough science to master) in order to apply them to the particular concrete situations that I encounter.

 

It is by philosophic principles I evaluate a potential mechanic, attorney, dentist, etc., as being qualified to defer the requirement of learning how to do a particular task for myself to a specialist.

 

Philosophy, on the other hand, does not work this way. Each individual has to learn to evaluate what Is true or false for themselves. Epistemology is the science which deals with such a task, and no epistemologist can perform this task for you. To let someone else decide what is true or false for you is to default on the responsibility of determining such an important issue for yourself.  Essentially, it would amount to taking somebody else's word for granted, or on faith.

I agree, Gred, and you made an excellent point overall. I am interested in your measurement inclusion now. How do you do it?

 

Guys, I get it now. I apologize--that was dumb of me to ask you those questions. The mistake that I made was that I conflated my concept of "object" with your concept of "existent," completely ignoring that your definition subsumes my objects, or concretes. I probably ignored your full definition because my main principle is Object--Context, where Object is equivalent to Existence. I asked it from the point of view of my model. An orange is a collection of tissues (lev.6), and a man is a body (lev.8). But this is only the left side of the model. What about the contexts?

So, when I swipe with my hand, all of this that I see I call an environment, not existence.

An environment can only be considered an entity as a noun. However, from ITOE:

"“concrete” versus “entity,” the units are the same, but the concept “entity” distinguishes entities from attributes, while the concept “concrete” distinguishes entities from abstractions"

And Rand agreed.

Now, an environment, whilst an existing context, is neither a concrete, nor an entity, nor an attribute, nor an aspect, nor a consciousness, nor an action, nor an event, nor a phenomenon. An environment is the physical content of my field of awareness. Now, an environment may be considered a unit or a relationship. What do you think? Is an environment an existent or existence for you?

[dream_weaver]

I agree, Gred, and you made an excellent point overall. I am interested in your measurement inclusion now. How do you do it?

Here's an overview of the dimensioning and tolerancing philosophy used.

[Ilya Startsev]

Here's an overview of the dimensioning and tolerancing philosophy used.

I don't understand why it's called a philosophy. It's only geometric rules used for engineering.

[dream_weaver]

GD & T, is a set of abstract general principles (geometric rules) used to guide the application of dimensions interrelating features in accordance with part/assembly functionality.

 

Philosophy is a set of abstract general principles that are used to guide the mind when assessing or addressing particular concrete situations.

[Ilya Startsev]

GD & T, is a set of abstract general principles (geometric rules) used to guide the application of dimensions interrelating features in accordance with part/assembly functionality.

 

Philosophy is a set of abstract general principles that are used to guide the mind when assessing or addressing particular concrete situations.

If that's the way you see it, then OK. Peculiar, nonetheless.

[dream_weaver]

If that's the way you see it, then OK. Peculiar, nonetheless.

It pays the bills. 

[Ilya Startsev]

You are being awfully guiet. Have you blanked out on my questions?

 

Here is an exemplar of logic:

Premise 1: All men are mortal.

Premise 2: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

 

We know that existence is existent, or existent is existence. There can be one or many existents, so quantity does not matter. Then we have:

Premise 1: All existents are existence.

Premise 2: An orange is an existent.

Conclusion: Therefore, an orange is existence.

 

Am I being illogical as before?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Premise 1: All existents are existence.

Premise 2: An orange is an existent.

Conclusion: Therefore, an orange is existence.

 

Fact:  all dads are boys.

 

Premise 1: all boys are dads

Premise 2: my three-year-old son is a boy

Conclusion: my three-year-old son is a dad.

 

---edit:  I was recently explaining to my son what's wrong with your logic and it did not take him this long to understand.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Ilya Startsev]

Fact:  all dads are boys.

 

Premise 1: all boys are dads

Premise 2: my three-year-old son is a boy

Conclusion: my three-year-old son is a dad.

 

---edit:  I was recently explaining to my son what's wrong with your logic and it did not take him this long to understand.

So, maybe you can teach me some, as well. Existent, then, is not existence, but existence is existent. Can you explain to me what's the extra in existence that is not existent?

[dream_weaver]

You're equivocating on the relationship between existents and existence.

 

While all oranges are existents, only some existents are oranges. The units of existence are all existents, including the existents that are not oranges.

 

Do not take this as denying the existence of an orange. The existence of an orange only demonstrates that an orange is one existent of existence.

 

If you are really interested in learning about ontologically based logic, I would recommend Peikoff's "Introduction to Logic". At 35¢ per minute, it's cheaper than a new automobile buys you at ~50¢ per mile (based on amount of time to walk a mile vs. drive one at 60 m.p.h. or a mile a minute [calculated around 1985]).