A question about axioms

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

Ayn Rand wrote: “The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence”, “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness”… It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced," (ITOE pg 55)

Yet: "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction " (The Romantic Manifesto, 17)

So, if existence is a concept and concepts are abstractions how concept of existence could be directly perceived? Should we differentiate between existence and concept of existence? Moreover if " The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." (ITOE 56), how they could be directly perceived?

2

We differentiate between existence and the concept of existence. If you want to directly perceive existence, simply look around you. If you want to grasp the concept of existence you break down, or reduce the concept to identify what has been mentally integrated. You break down what units were isolated by the process of abstraction. You break down what the abstraction was isolated from.

If you check out this piece, one of the characteristics or properties of every entity mentioned, is that it exists. You can further identify that if a rock was thrown, it moves through the air. The motion exists. When you weigh the rock, it’s specific weight exists, and so on.

Existence exists integrates all these facts together. The rock exists, Its weight exits. Its mass exists. A blade of grass exists. Its length, width and breadth exist. Existence exists integrates these into a single propositional principle. It, as well as the law of identity and consciousness, are axioms, because they are implicitly contained in every possible identification.

3

If you check out this piece, one of the characteristics or properties of every entity mentioned, is that it exists. You can further identify that if a rock was thrown, it moves through the air. The motion exists. When you weigh the rock, it’s specific weight exists, and so on.

[my bold]

In his podcast, Episode 10 — March 10, 2008, Dr. Peikoff responded to the question:

05:14 : [A metaphysical question.] “‘What is existence? Existence is an attribute possessed by existence, and we directly perceive existence.’ (…) ‘The fact that I can’t define “existence” bothers me. Is “existence” then kind of a misleading concept?’”

His response to the first part is especially relevant to what you have said, that existence is a characteristic or property [an attribute] of everything that exists.

You can listen to his reply to that question on his website directly here.

4

His response to the first part is especially relevant to what you have said, that existence is a characteristic or property [an attribute] of everything that exists.

Thanks Trebor. That underscores what I am trying to express. I should have stated that it is a fact about the rock, it exists. A thrown rock moves. The fact of motion exists. The fact that the rock has a weight, mass, etc. exist.

5

Dream_weaver: “We differentiate between existence and the concept of existence”

Rand specified that existence is implied in any perception, but in the definition quoted above she referred to the axiom of existence, that is-concept. Here is full quote:

_ "An axomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest. _"

“Axiomatic Concepts,”

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 55

So, here we are dealing with concept which is "a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction " and which is directly perceived. However mental integration could be perceived only by introspection, not to mention the fact that axiom of existence includes " every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." which cannot be directly perceived.

I think that, although it is true that existence is implied in any perception, the concept or axiom of existence couldn’t be directly perceived, Rand 's position notwithstanding. It is rather an integration of the concept of “existent.”

" The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action" (“Cognition and Measurement,” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 5–6)

One perceives that A exists, B exists C exists etc… and mentally integrates their directly observable existence into concept of “existent”. Furthermore one can integrate concepts of “existent” of different units into axiomatic concept of existence.

6

One perceives that A exists, B exists C exists etc… and mentally integrates their directly observable existence into concept of “existent”. Furthermore one can integrate concepts of “existent” of different units into axiomatic concept of existence.

I see a problem here.

7

One perceives that A exists, B exists C exists etc… and mentally integrates their directly observable existence into concept of “existent”. Furthermore one can integrate concepts of “existent” of different units into axiomatic concept of existence.

I see a problem here.

. . . and mentally integrates A is an existent, B is an existent, C is an existent, etc, into the concept “existent”, an existent being something that exists, are the units of existence.. The existents ("every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.") are existence.

In a very real sense, existence is what we perceive.

From childhood we begin by identifying the existents individually (dividing them out from the implicit existence we perceive). When we integrate the tables, chairs, dogs, cats, furniture, animals, weight, length, etc, which exist into existents, being the entities, attributes, actions, etc., which exist, we can then integrate the existents into the concept of existence.

8

I see a problem here.

No, here is not a problem. You yourself said that we should distinguish observable existence from the axiomatic concept of existence.

9

No, here is not a problem. You yourself said that we should distinguish observable existence from the axiomatic concept of existence.

If existence is observable, then there is need to go through the middle term of existent before conceptualizing existence.

10

. . . and mentally integrates A is an existent, B is an existent, C is an existent, etc, into the concept “existent”, an existent being something that exists, are the units of existence.. The existents ("every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.") are existence.

In a very real sense, existence is what we perceive.

From childhood we begin by identifying the existents individually (dividing them out from the implicit existence we perceive). When we integrate the tables, chairs, dogs, cats, furniture, animals, weight, length, etc, which exist into existents, being the entities, attributes, actions, etc., which exist, we can then integrate the existents into the concept of existence.

This is more or less what I said. However integration of entities into concept of existent requires different process of omission and different common denominator.

11

If existence is observable, then there is need to go through the middle term of existent before conceptualizing existence.

The need is because a concept of existence also includes unobservable existents-like consciousness, capitalism, freedom etc…and also those which existed in the past and will exist in the future.

12

If existence is observable, then there is need to go through the middle term of existent before conceptualizing existence.

This is more or less what I said. However integration of entities into concept of existent requires different process of omission and different common denominator.

When we perceive, we perceive what is around us, as given, unfiltered by our minds into: this, that or the other thing. As we isolate the different existents to identify, we are isolating it from the unfiltered whole of perception which is ultimately to be identified as existence when we reach the stage in our development to ask ourselves, “what is the word I should use to refer to this entirety as”. This is this need that requires passing through the middle terms in order to formulate the concept. I would suggest that to identify it as axiomatic would require something more.

The concept of existence omits everything save the fact that it exists. There is nothing to distinguish or differentiate it from. Knowing it is axiomatic is understanding that in order to be axiomatic is that it is to be implicit in every identification, once again, making it necessary to go through the middle terms.

13

I unintentionally omitted the word ‘no’ in my previous statement, which should have been written If existence is observable, then there is NO need to go through the middle term of existent before conceptualizing existence. I think you figured that out.

Is the following restatement of your reasoning accurate?

Existents are observable. Existence is observable only because each existent is observable, in the same fashion as a flock of geese is observable only because each goose is observable. There must be a concept of goose before there can be a concept for a flock. In this reasoning ‘existence’ is a collective noun not a particular.

14

Prof. B: “Existence” is a collective noun almost.

AR: That’s right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists.

It sure comes across that way. But it is the “mentally unfiltered given”. We mentally divy up the various aspects we observe, starting with what our minds automatically integrate into percepts, starting with what we identify as entities. We make it almost collective by the process of identification, and then, “existence” integrates it back into the “whole”.

15

Grames :“Existents are observable. Existence is observable only because each existent is observable”

Not according to Rand.

“The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage.” (ITOE 5-6)

As a concept it cannot be observable by senses. Such a concept is an integration of percepts and omission all their other features except one-they exist. The concept of existence is an abstraction of abstractions, that is -two or more units of existents.

16

Prof. B: “Existence” is a collective noun almost.

AR: That’s right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists.

<snip>

What I see is existence

Is the following restatement of your reasoning accurate?

Prof. B: “Existence” is a collective noun almost.

AR: That’s right. An existent is, then, a particular which exists.

<snip>

What I perceive is existence. Existents are perceivable. In the same fashion, a flock of geese is perceivable and each goose is perceivable. Most people would form the concept of goose before they form the concept of a flock. In the case of a shepherd, the shepherd may have already formed the concept of “flock”. Indicating that “flock” is the correct, collective term for geese should be all that is necessary at that point. Validation of the concept existence would be the integration of the units into a single new mental entity and completing the process by giving it the visual/audio percept of “existence” to retain it, and to summon it as need be.

17

Sensation-existent-undifferentiated chaos

Perception-entity- integrated sensation allowing differentiation

Conception-unit- epistemic method required by limit consciousness

Rand is discussing the chronological development of IMPLICIT concepts in the congnitive development of normal humans. (by looking backwards)

18

Grames :“Existents are observable. Existence is observable only because each existent is observable”

Not according to Rand.

“The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage.” (ITOE 5-6)

As a concept it cannot be observable by senses. Such a concept is an integration of percepts and omission all their other features except one-they exist. The concept of existence is an abstraction of abstractions, that is -two or more units of existents.

The meaning of a concept is the referent, in the case of ‘existent’ that would refer to every entity, action, or relationship having the quality or state of existing.

The suffix -ence is used to form words that are nouns referring to “having the quality of, or state of” the root word. Several men may confer, their conferring is a conference. Existing is observable. Several existents may exist, their quality or state of existing is referred to as their existence. It is not incorrect to refer to the existence of a single particular existent. Used as a collective noun “existence” refers collectively to every thing that has the quality or state of existing.

The concepts denoted by the words existent and existence can be formed in parallel tracks by referring to the same referents, and so neither is technically prior to the other in hierarchy. The distinction between them is that one is

Aside:

Wikipedia says " Existence has been variously defined by sources. In common usage, it is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. Others define it as every thing that is." Objectivism/Rand falls among the others using existence to refer to everything that is. Peikoff has used the word reality to refer to the world we are aware of through our senses.

Some else really bothers me about this:

As a concept it cannot be observable by senses. Such a concept is an integration of percepts and omission all their other features except one-they exist. The concept of existence is an abstraction of abstractions, that is -two or more units of existents.

There are concepts for dogs and ducks. Are dogs and ducks not observable by the senses? Obviously they are observable. Existent is a first level concept just as dog and duck are, and existence is also first level.

Existence refers directly to many things that exist whereas existent refers to a single thing that exists. Both refer directly without the need for a prior concept. One can observe a pack of dogs and a flock of ducks and existence directly without discriminating the parts conceptually. It is an error to grant special significance to the fact that one cannot write or speak of a pack of dogs without first having a concept of dog because perceiving and conceiving at the first level do not use words. Smoke and wind are collective nouns that are first level in which it is impossible for the unassisted eye to perceive the particles that comprise them, proving that concepts for the parts need not be possessed before the concept that refers to the whole.

19

Grames, one can use a term of " observable reality or universe". However in Objectivism Existence means something else:

"Existence and identity are _ not attributes _ of existents, they _ are _ the existents. . . . The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." (ITOE 56)

"The building-block of man’s knowledge is the concept of an “existent”—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage. But it is implicit in every percept (to perceive a thing is to perceive that it exists) and man grasps it implicitly on the perceptual level"

(ITOE 5-6)

So I think Objectivist position is quite clear-to grasp a concept " existent" one needs to operate on conceptual, not perceptual level, but it implied in perception as any other concept, including " cat" and " dog". All knowledge starts with perception, but we mainly operate on conceptual level. So you can see that or this dog, but when you say " I see dog" you use a word which designates not a particular dog you saw, but a concept of it, a mental content which refers to all dogs in the world which exist, existed or ever will exist and describes the essential properties which differentiate dogs from all other entities. Such a concept you cannot perceive, unless you include introspection in the genus of perception ( which i think would be wrong).

20

Leonid,

Doesn’t the conceptual level operate from the perceptual level? We can divide them in thought and consider each separately, but in order for the conceptual level to be valid, the relationship of the concept to the percepts which gave rise to them, have to be maintained consciously. To introduce a breach between them, gives rise to floating abstractions and invalid concepts. To understand the role perception lends to the conceptual level should only add to the conviction of the synergistic relationship between them.

As to existence, understanding the role the suffix -ence and -ant play, to understand them is simply to grasp that something exists. Later grasping that attributes, actions, events, etc., too exist, and properly belong to, that is, should be integrated into our ever expanding grasp of existence. In this way, our conceptual grasp of existence is continually augmented by our perception(s).