Do you disagree with the Primacy of Existence?
This sounds like a great candidate for an “essay”.
It makes me wonder though; as Rand showed how one of the basic confusions people have is the adoption of “the primacy of consciousness”, instead of “the primacy of existence”, would a corrolary to “the primacy of consciousness” be something like “the primacy of identification” ?
That is, the attitude “I’ve identified health care as my right, godamit, so that’s what it is !”, as opposed to the attitude “a right is a right, and can’t demand the violation of someone else’s right”.
Do you disagree with the Primacy of Existence?
Whether it is expressed as “a right is a right” or “existence exists,” all axioms refer to the same thing, identity. The existence of self-sameness is all they prove and all that they can account for. Objectivism and the primacy of existence seems to maintain that the axiom “existence exists” accounts for more. This I reject!
The totality of existence cannot be derived from something else outside of this totality. This logical truth, however, does not mean that existence does not have a ground. Objectivism does not really resolve the issue of primacy. (But it almost gets it right in that it recognizes that the axiom is the key to a solution.) Existence as Objectivism acknowledges, is everything. Is this to mean that everything is primary? Consider this and examine the way Ojectivism deals with the notion of the primacy of consciousness.
Whether it is expressed as “a right is a right” or “existence exists,” all axioms refer to the same thing, identity. The existence of self-sameness is all they prove and all that they can account for. Objectivism and the primacy of existence seems to maintain that the axiom “existence exists” accounts for more. This I reject!
The totality of existence cannot be derived from something else outside of this totality. This logical truth, however, does not mean that existence does not have a ground. Objectivism does not really resolve the issue of primacy. (But it almost gets it right in that it recognizes that the axiom is the key to a solution.) Existence as Objectivism acknowledges, is everything. Is this to mean that everything is primary? Consider this and examine the way Ojectivism deals with the notion of the primacy of consciousness.
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.
Objectivism and the primacy of existence seems to maintain that the axiom “existence exists” accounts for more. This I reject!
Do you think the statement “Existence exists” is a logical consequence of the statement “A is A” ?
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
Dunkley,
Neither is it a part.
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.
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.
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?
“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
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.
“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.
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.
Would “Dunkley doesn’t make sense” qualify as an assertion of self-sameness?
No! It is (loosely speaking) an assertion of evasion!
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.