Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Existence exists subsidiary thread

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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?

If x is an element of the set of all men, then x is mortal.

Socrates is an element of the set of all men. Therefore, Socrates is a man.

Everything else you said is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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]).

I think you are saying that.all definitions are not interchangeable. So:

 

1) Existence is Identity, but NOT Identity is existence.

2) Existence is existent, but NOT existent is existence.

3) Existence is everything, but NOT everything is existence.

4) Everything is something, but NOT something is everything.

...

My interpretation:

Metaphysics is physics, but physics is NOT metaphysics.

 

Maybe I can connect it with what Rand said:

“Prof. F: So Objectivism holds that there are first-level concepts?

AR: Epistemologically, not metaphysically” (ITOE, 151). Physics is NOT metaphysics. OK.

“Prof. A: [...] First-level concepts don’t stand for your knowledge of the existents, they stand for the existents themselves.

AR: Right” (152). Metaphysics is physics. OK.

“AR: the concept “existence,” at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept “universe”—all that which exists” (167). Metaphysics is physics. OK.

“AR: When you say “existence exists,” you are not saying that the physical world exists, because the literal meaning of the term “physical world” involves a very sophisticated piece of scientific knowledge at which logically and chronologically you would have to arrive much later” (169). Physics is NOT metaphysics. OK.

"[AR:] But now what’s the difference between saying “existence exists” and “the physical world exists”? “Existence exists” does not specify what exists" (170). Metaphysics is physics. OK.

 

What I gather is that you indeed believe that definitions are not interchangeable, except when they are synonymous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three related logical operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table):
1) Logical identity (one value);
2) Logical implication (two values);
3) Logical equality (two values).

You definitions take (1) as if it were (2). Your axiomatic concepts are always true, but everything else is either true or false. You ignore, however, that by (3), if a non-axiomatic concept is true, such as an orange, it is equivalent to your axiomatic concept. If it is false, then the equivalence is false. But you do not like (3), since it can be false and can go in both directions (it's a double implication, not a single one, which is (2)). Of course, your definition of the axiomatic concepts as always true is a belief that fragments logic by selectively picking only one side. Any value can be either true or false, and if your identity is false, it's not a false identity, but merely an identity with a false value.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. So, the set of all existents is NOT existence.

No! An element of a set is not the entire set. You have conflated, in your original analogy, an element of a set with the entire set, you have trouble with quantifiers.

Edited by aleph_1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No! An element of a set is not the entire set. You have conflated, in your original analogy, an element of a set with the entire set, you have trouble with quantifiers.

Ah. Then this is not the fallacy of equivocation, rather it is the fallacy of composition.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No! An element of a set is not the entire set. You have conflated, in your original analogy, an element of a set with the entire set, you have trouble with quantifiers.

You missed the point that the conclusion was false only because premise 1 was incorrect. I flipped your definition, but otherwise the reasoning was correct. The problem was with my misunderstanding of the definition (specifically, it's monoconditional nature).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can it be a fallacy of composition when the set of all existents is also not existence? It makes no difference whether a part or a set of parts is not the whole of your axiomatic concept.

I would settle for the fallacy of division here. Logic is not my fortè.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would settle for the fallacy of division here. Logic is not my fortè.

Maybe so. It is peculiar, though, that a true statement will be: everything is not existence.

 

Would it be valid for me to equate my term everything to 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.

Congratulations to Harrison for answering and disproving the original premise that started this thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very problematic to work with "Existence is Identity" because there are no rules of logic for this statement, which is both a logical identity and an implication, it's both one value and two values. Very confusing. We know, from Peikoff, that existence is everything, and at the same time we know that existence is something. If it were a pure implication, then we could say that if existence, then everything, or not everything, therefore not existence. But existence is Identity, so we cannot use modus tollens here. We cannot say that something is Identity, even though we know that Identity is something. Do you see my confusion now? Or does this all pass you by without a tingling of fascination?

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existent, then, is not existence, but existence is existent. Can you explain to me what's the extra in existence that is not existent?

"Existent" is a singular, existing thing.  "Existence" is the sum of every existing thing, treated as if it were singular even though it really isn't.

 

Maybe so. It is peculiar, though, that a true statement will be: everything is not existence.

No; that's false.  The accurate statement is that "not every thing is existence". 

"Everything" can mean the sum of everything (which is "existence"), but sometimes means any thing.  If you exploit that ambiguity (and negate "existence" instead of the quantifier) then it essentially means that "nothing exists".

 

It's a cheap gag that hinges on deliberately brutalizing the English language.

 

So, maybe you can teach me some, as well.

 

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Existent" is a singular, existing thing.  "Existence" is the sum of every existing thing, treated as if it were singular even though it really isn't.

 

No; that's false.  The accurate statement is that "not every thing is existence". 

"Everything" can mean the sum of everything (which is "existence"), but sometimes means any thing.  If you exploit that ambiguity (and negate "existence" instead of the quantifier) then it essentially means that "nothing exists".

 

It's a cheap gag that hinges on deliberately brutalizing the English language.

 

 

No.

Peikoff wrote that everything is something, paraphrasing existence is existent. So we have implication that existence is everything, and existent is something, not the other way around.

 

However, now you are saying that "the sum of everything" is existence. If that's the case, how is that different from my Premise 1: All existents are existence?

 

P.S. And stop making your false conclusions about me. If you had read the thread on Integrating Objectivism and Science, you would have learned that I defined "everything" as not every (one) thing. This metaphysical stupidity of making everything into something is purely Objectivist, not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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]).

I will check out Peikoff's course. But before I do, would you please explain, in light of your two definitions, whether my definitions are wrong?

 

Your definitions:

1) All oranges are existents.

2) Some existents are oranges.

 

My definitions:

1) An orange is an existent.

2) All existents are existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, now you are saying that "the sum of everything" is existence. If that's the case, how is that different from my Premise 1: All existents are existence?

 

It removes the ambiguity which allows you to come to the conclusion that one orange is the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It removes the ambiguity which allows you to come to the conclusion that one orange is the universe.

OK. Then the sum cannot be broken down into specific existents to be called existence. And this is exactly the view of my philosophy, not yours, because in my philosophy spacetime plays a role that no existent can have.

 

You say that existence is the universe. Is the universe existence? Existence is the universe or any other existent, since existence is the sum of everything (in your definition) or something (in Peikoff's definition). But in reverse, the sum of everything is existence, but not something is existence. Does it make perfect sense to you that your "definitions" are not equal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By what you are telling me, Harrison, the following is an example of the necessary way you think:

 

Allow the fact that the following definition is exhaustive:

Rich (adj.) is "having wealth or great possessions."

 

Say a poor person works his whole life and finally is, by imitating the definition above as closely as he can, "having wealth or great possessions."

 

If you do not contradict yourself, you say that the person who began poor is NOT rich. Your implicit reasoning is that a definition cannot precede the percept it defines. Your logic: existence first, then definition; percept first, then definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will check out Peikoff's course. But before I do, would you please explain, in light of your two definitions, whether my definitions are wrong?

 

Your definitions:

1) All oranges are existents.

2) Some existents are oranges.

 

My definitions:

1) An orange is an existent.

2) All existents are existence.

I didn't provide any definitions. Those are propositions, or premises as you accurately identify in the previous quote following this one.

 

Peikoff wrote that everything is something, paraphrasing existence is existent. So we have implication that existence is everything, and existent is something, not the other way around.

 

However, now you are saying that "the sum of everything" is existence. If that's the case, how is that different from my Premise 1: All existents are existence?

 

P.S. And stop making your false conclusions about me. If you had read the thread on Integrating Objectivism and Science, you would have learned that I defined "everything" as not every (one) thing. This metaphysical stupidity of making everything into something is purely Objectivist, not mine. <-- and the irony increases. (added)

I do find a certain sense of irony in the postscript. 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By what you are telling me, Harrison, the following is an example of the necessary way you think:

 

Allow the fact that the following definition is exhaustive:

Rich (adj.) is "having wealth or great possessions."

 

Say a poor person works his whole life and finally is, by imitating the definition above as closely as he can, "having wealth or great possessions."

 

If you do not contradict yourself, you say that the person who began poor is NOT rich.

 

That's actually the opposite of what I would think (although if you'd like to try again, I don't mind being the subject of a dissection).

 

Your implicit reasoning is that a definition cannot precede the percept it defines. Your logic: existence first, then definition; percept first, then definition.

 

Yes.  I'll make that explicit right now, for you:  you can't define a damn thing that you've never seen or heard of before.

 

If you do not contradict yourself, you say that the person who began poor is NOT rich. Your implicit reasoning is that a definition cannot precede the percept it defines. Your logic: existence first, then definition; percept first, then definition.

 

So you believe that I believe that poor people can never become rich, regardless of how much they earn, because that would contradict the fact that perception is the basis of all knowledge. . .

 

You're wrong, though, because the answer is 42!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't provide any definitions. Those are propositions, or premises as you accurately identify in the previous quote following this one.

 

I do find a certain sense of irony in the postscript. 

OK, premises. If all existents are either a sum of existents or are some existent, as you imply in interpreting my Premise 1, then, by restricting "all" to a "sum," not "any," we can get Premise 2: An orange is an example of existent (as in "an orange is an example of something," but "something is not an orange"). Would conclusion then be: An orange is an example of existence? Bah, all of this is ridiculous, since you avoid any logic whatsoever with all of your neither-true-nor-false (but both) premises. Aristotle never intended his logic to become a (neo)religious faith, like in your case.

 

That's actually the opposite of what I would think (although if you'd like to try again, I don't mind being the subject of a dissection).

 

 

Yes.  I'll make that explicit right now, for you:  you can't define a damn thing that you've never seen or heard of before.

 

 

So you believe that I believe that poor people can never become rich, regardless of how much they earn, because that would contradict the fact that perception is the basis of all knowledge. . .

 

You're wrong, though, because the answer is 42!!!

Nah, Peikoff said that symbolic logic is corrupt and does not reflect reality, not realizing that by that statement he flouted Aristotelian logic as well. Your premises are not logical, they are arbitrary. Your position is to avoid logic, to retain the state of meaninglessness of your premises that you reify into something, which it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Peikoff's presentation on Logic:
Lecture 1: "If you hold a contradiction, you deny identity to the subject matter that you are discussing. A contradiction is the violation of identity."
What about the new identity that is created? If it has no identity, it is nothing. Why can't identities change from one thing to another (e.g., from tissues to organs, or bodies to groups)?
Law of contradiction: "nothing can be A and non-A."
How come everything can be (the sum of) everything and something "at the same time"?

You advocate the premise of existence, but at the same time you say you cannot know all of reality. What really happens in your logic is that you irrationally know the Truth and are somehow not omniscient. The entirety of the premises of Objectivism are self-contradictory. The only time when you may be consistent is when you do not deal with your premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You advocate the premise of existence, but at the same time you say you cannot know all of reality. What really happens in your logic is that you irrationally know the Truth and are somehow not omniscient. The entirety of the premises of Objectivism are self-contradictory. The only time when you may be consistent is when you do not deal with your premises.

Poor Ilya. Did you not read the titles of the books that comprise Atlas Shrugged and realize two of them were Aristotelian principles of logic and one was the Aristotelian principle of identity?

Now, you claim:

P1: All existents are existence.

P2: An orange is an existent.

Concl: An orange is existence.

Now, P1 may be read in at least two different ways. One is: If x is an existent, then x is existence itself. Clearly this proposition is false. However, this is the exact way you use this proposition to conclude that an orange is all of existence.

Another way of interpreting P1 is: If x is the class of all existents, then x is all of existence. This formulation is more plausible, but in no sense is an orange the class of all existents. Therefore, you did not apply this meaning.

Part of the problem is your loose use of terminology. This common loose use of words is part of the reason for the existence of Objectivism. We can't get very far if words do not have a specific meaning. Objectivism supposes that there is an objective reality and humans can develope objective concepts. Doing so is part of our means of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Ilya. Did you not read the titles of the books that comprise Atlas Shrugged and realize two of them were Aristotelian principles of logic and one was the Aristotelian principle of identity?

Now, you claim:

P1: All existents are existence.

P2: An orange is an existent.

Concl: An orange is existence.

Now, P1 may be read in at least two different ways. One is: If x is an existent, then x is existence itself. Clearly this proposition is false. However, this is the exact way you use this proposition to conclude that an orange is all of existence.

Another way of interpreting P1 is: If x is the class of all existents, then x is all of existence. This formulation is more plausible, but in no sense is an orange the class of all existents. Therefore, you did not apply this meaning.

Part of the problem is your loose use of terminology. This common loose use of words is part of the reason for the existence of Objectivism. We can't get very far if words do not have a specific meaning. Objectivism supposes that there is an objective reality and humans can develope objective concepts. Doing so is part of our means of survival.

Atlas Shrugged: Part 1: NON-CONTRADICTION; Part 2: EITHER-OR; Part 3: A is A. All three are the logical laws of Aristotle, but shuffled.

 

Thank you for your analysis and help with my problem, though.

 

Let the class of all existents be the universe. Here are the definitions of the universe from dictionary.com:

1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

2. the whole world, especially with reference to humanity: "a truth known throughout the universe."

3. a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails: "his private universe."

4. Also called universe of discourse. Logic. the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied in a given discussion.

5. Also called universal set. Mathematics. the set of all elements under discussion for a given problem.

6. Statistics. the entire population under study.

 

Here are some more from British Dictionary:

1. (astronomy) the aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space

2. human beings collectively

3. a province or sphere of thought or activity

4. (statistics) another word for population (sense 7)

Please pick one, so I can know the specific meaning of existence. Now, in my definition, the Universe (our universe) is Cosmos. Cosmos includes black holes, black matter and energy (which comprise 95% of the mass of the universe and are seen as vacuum), all stars and nebulae, etc. Today, astrophysicists do not know exactly the shape of the universe or how it looks exactly. All we know is the metagalaxy, also known as the observable universe. However, scientists know that before the Universe there was nothing, so this does not match with Objectivist assumtion that there was always something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...