Concept of "existence" excluding consciousness?

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

I have noticed something about Ayn Rand’s use of the term “existence” in certain contexts that confuses me.

For example, in Galt’s Speech, she writes:

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness.

I do not know that the position of the idealists (or spiritualists) is such that they believe in consciousness without existence, at least as I understand it. They would likely argue that consciousness exists and that it exhausts existence, but they would not deny that existence exists. And so, it seems that either this description of the idealist position is mistaken or the concept of “existence” here excludes consciousness.

Also, in Ayn Rand’s writings she uses the term “existential” (which is related to “existence”) to mean “external to consciousness” such as in this quote from Philosophy: Who Needs It:

There are, fundamentally, only two causes of the progress of the nineteenth century—the same two causes which you will find at the root of any happy, benevolent, progressive era in human history. One cause is psychological, the other existential—or: one pertains to man’s consciousness, the other to the physical conditions of his existence.

Notice how existential is contrasted with the psychological. In my experience, and according to every dictionary I have checked including the Oxford English Dictionary, “existential” means “relating to existence.” And so, again, it seems that the concept of “existence” is excluding consciousness.

A professor once asked me, “Why do Objectivists always use that phrase ‘existence exists’? Nobody denies that, and it does not seem to add anything to the conversation.” I responded, “I think the point is that existence exists independent of consciousness.” To which he responded, “Well, why not say that then?” Well, I am not sure. Is “existence exists” supposed to be a sort of shorthand for “existence exists independent of consciousness”? Or why does it seem that the Objectivist concept of “existence” frequently excludes consciousness or is used in contrast to it?

Thank you.

2

A professor once asked me, “Why do Objectivists always use that phrase ‘existence exists’? Nobody denies that, and it does not seem to add anything to the conversation.”

Your professor is apparently more interested in packaging, rather than logical substance. “Existence exists” is the most logically fundamental statement that can be made. I assume that he hasn’t read Galt’s Speech.

I do not know that the position of the idealists (or spiritualists) is such that they believe in consciousness without existence

I think the clearest exposition of this position is Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. Moving westward, Pyrrho was apparently serious about that view; nihilism ~ deconstructionism are modern avatars of that view. Of course one can temper consciousness-only beliefs with the cold, hard fact that existence exists, and claim that consciousness is all except in rare cases.

“existential” means “relating to existence.” And so, again, it seems that the concept of “existence” is excluding consciousness

No, actually it includes the psychological. The psychological excludes the existential, but the converse is not true. Rand does not advocate ignoring psychological facts. Facts of consciousness are merely one aspect of that which exists.

3

Whether or not one is going to include consciousness under the axiom existence depends on the context. If you look at the entry under “existence” in the Ayn Rand Lexicon, you will see that in general, the concept of existence includes everything that exists (including consciousness):

“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.”

However, it is often necessary to talk about existence as that which exists independent to consciousness (or being aware of existence); the reason for doing this is to affirm the idea that one’s consciousness does not control existence, that consciousness is there to be aware of existence rather than to create it.

The fundamental axioms are existence, identity, and consciousness: There is something there that I am aware of. But it is important to realize that without consciousness (without anyone being aware of existence) existence still exists, since there have been philosophers who have denied that throughout history. It is also necessary to re-affirm that one is aware of existence via the senses and that the senses are not mechanisms of distortion – that we observe that which exists.

In an age of philosophical corruption, it is very necessary to re-affirm via axioms what it is that one is talking about, and to be aware that neither the senses nor one’s consciousness can distort the nature of existence. In other words, regardless of what is going on in one’s mind, existence is a primary.

4

Your professor is apparently more interested in packaging, rather than logical substance. “Existence exists” is the most logically fundamental statement that can be made. I assume that he hasn’t read Galt’s Speech.

I do not think that is a fair statement to make about my professor. He does not deny that existence exists, that it is a philosophic fundamental, nor that it can have significance in conversation. His point is that Objectivists mention “existence exists” in discussions where it appears to add nothing to those conversations specifically. If Objectivists said, “Existence exists independent of consciousness,” as they seem to mean if you ask them, then he would have no problem. The issue is that he does not regard these statements as synonymous, and that is the basis of my question: Are they synonymous? And if so, why? Again, the reason for my confusion is that idealists (or spiritualists) would most likely grant the first statement but not the latter.

I think the clearest exposition of this position is Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. Moving westward, Pyrrho was apparently serious about that view; nihilism ~ deconstructionism are modern avatars of that view. Of course one can temper consciousness-only beliefs with the cold, hard fact that existence exists, and claim that consciousness is all except in rare cases.

It was my impression that Ayn Rand’s statement was referring to all forms of idealism, all variants of the belief that only consciousness exists. Is this not the case? Is she only referring to certain kinds of idealism (or spiritualism, as she says) such as those you mention? If not, then it seems that my argument still applies: either this description of the idealist position is mistaken [because forms of idealism grant that there is consciousness and existence] or the concept of “existence” here excludes consciousness.

No, actually it includes the psychological. The psychological excludes the existential, but the converse is not true. Rand does not advocate ignoring psychological facts. Facts of consciousness are merely one aspect of that which exists.

You say that “existential” does not exclude the psychological, but it seems that Rand uses the term to the exclusion of or in contrast to consciousness such as in the quote I offered. I know Objectivism maintains that consciousness exists and is therefore subsumed by “existence,” but that is precisely why I am confused as to why at times Rand seems to use “existence” and “existential” in contrast to consciousness.

Whether or not one is going to include consciousness under the axiom existence depends on the context . . . it is often necessary to talk about existence as that which exists independent to consciousness (or being aware of existence); the reason for doing this is to affirm the idea that one’s consciousness does not control existence, that consciousness is there to be aware of existence rather than to create it.

This idea that consciousness may not be subsumed under existence in certain contexts seems to be the issue. Would it be accurate therefore to say that in some contexts “existence exists” is shorthand for “existence exists independent of consciousness”? If so, then this would resolve the issue because the problem would simply be a context taken for granted which is not mutually understood.

5

This idea that consciousness may not be subsumed under existence in certain contexts seems to be the issue. Would it be accurate therefore to say that in some contexts “existence exists” is shorthand for “existence exists independent of consciousness”? If so, then there would be no issue; the problem would have been that a context is taken for granted which is not mutually understood.

The most general conception of existence includes everything that exists, past, present and future. It is only when one is talking about the nature of existence excluding consciousness that one is talking about existence excluding consciousness. You professor, like so many other moderns, just doesn’t seem to grasp the necessity of affirming that existence exists, because if you ask a Kantian, he will tell you that existence probably exists or that there are indications that it might exist, but that we can’t know that because all we know is based on sensory evidence (which tells us nothing about existence). So, existence, in Objectivism, is a very important fundamental concept; and to exclude it or to wonder why we need it by a philosophy professor is to deny the fact that many philosophies do indeed say that existence does not exist, or if it does we can’t know that, or that existence is dependent on consciousness. It is very necessary to state one’s starting points in philosophy, otherwise one leaves everything open to anyone saying anything – which is what Kant wanted anyhow. It is also important to realize that God cannot exist, since being infinite in all respects violates the law of identity, which is a fundamental after realizing existence exists. The term “existence” in Objectivism contains a vast amount of knowledge and other fundamentals; it is not as if one can say, this rock exists, so what? since this would be a denial of the primacy of existence. So maybe your professor is more interested in the phrase “the primacy of existence” rather than the statement of it in axiomatic form “existence exists”.

Added on edit: To put the issue another way, it is very necessary to state the obvious in philosophy, since the obvious – that which is available to everyone – is the starting point of all knowledge. Most philosophers or philosophy teachers thinks that philosophy is about the obscure, but by thinking that way, they tend to overlook the obvious, which is why existence exists is there as a reminder that it does exist, no matter how confusing their thoughts are on any issue.

6

The most general conception of existence includes everything that exists, past, present and future. It is only when one is talking about the nature of existence excluding consciousness that one is talking about existence excluding consciousness.

Absolutely. My question is whether “existence” can ever be supposed to be synonymous with “existence excluding consciousness” such as in the phrase “existence exists.” It is my understanding, according to your previous response, that it can be if we make clear the context that we are assuming. And so, I think the problem is that my professor did not share this context.

You professor, like so many other moderns, just doesn’t seem to grasp the necessity of affirming that existence exists, because if you ask a Kantian, he will tell you that existence probably exists or that there are indications that it might exist, but that we can’t know that because all we know is based on sensory evidence (which tells us nothing about existence). So, existence, in Objectivism, is a very important fundamental concept; and to exclude it or to wonder why we need it by a philosophy professor is to deny the fact that many philosophies do indeed say that existence does not exist, or if it does we can’t know that, or that existence is dependent on consciousness.

In my last post I tried to make clear what I understand to be my professor’s position on the matter, and it is not that. I said, “He does not deny that existence exists, that it is a philosophic fundamental, nor [does he deny] that it can have significance in conversation.” I know that many modern philosophers share the views that you describe, but that is just another reason why it is so important to give credit to those who do not.

So maybe your professor is more interested in the phrase “the primacy of existence” rather than the statement of it in axiomatic form “existence exists”.

I do think that using the term “primacy of existence” would be more effective in communicating what I mean. Though it would be a great workaround, I would like to make sure that I am clear on the original problem. Please let me know whether this post indicates that I am. Thank you.

7

His point is that Objectivists mention “existence exists” in discussions where it appears to add nothing to those conversations specifically.

I see. In other word, he’s saying that he has had Objectivists come up to him and say something like “But existence exists, dude. Don’t you get that?” Maybe it happens: I hope not. Out of the blue, it would be pretty meaningless.

If Objectivists said, “Existence exists independent of consciousness,” as they seem to mean if you ask them, then he would have no problem. The issue is that he does not regard these statements as synonymous,

Because they are not. The first axiom is that existence exists. You can’t start talking about consciousnesses or independence without presupposing existence. So don’t start talking about consciousness and its relationship to reality without first getting the point there there is reality, that existence exists. As we know, the universe could exist even if there were no consciousness to grasp that fact (and I’m certain that that describes a real state of afairs that existed in the past). So you start with the first thing, not the second. “Existence exists” strips the one logically prior fundamental fact down to two words.

Are they synonymous?

No.

It was my impression that Ayn Rand’s statement was referring to all forms of idealism, all variants of the belief that only consciousness exists. Is this not the case?

I don’t believe that in AS she was trying to provide a historical summary of various manifestations of primacy of consciousness.

You say that “existential” does not exclude the psychological, but it seems that Rand uses the term to the exclusion of or in contrast to consciousness such as in the quote I offered.

Well, I don’t see what justifies that conclusion based on that passsage. But to be a bit more specific, self generated misery may be a fact, but it is a man-made optional fact. Psychological facts should, for a rational man, arise by the mind working on facts of existence (external reality).

8

I see. In other word, he’s saying that he has had Objectivists come up to him and say something like “But existence exists, dude. Don’t you get that?” Maybe it happens: I hope not. Out of the blue, it would be pretty meaningless.

I will ask him, but even in a context such as the following I can see his point.

Because they are not. The first axiom is that existence exists. You can’t start talking about consciousnesses or independence without presupposing existence. So don’t start talking about consciousness and its relationship to reality without first getting the point there there is reality, that existence exists. As we know, the universe could exist even if there were no consciousness to grasp that fact (and I’m certain that that describes a real state of afairs that existed in the past). So you start with the first thing, not the second. “Existence exists” strips the one logically prior fundamental fact down to two words.

Right. One should not talk about consciousness and its relationships to reality without first getting the point that there is a reality, that existence exists. However, I think my professor would argue that in a discussion of consciousness and its relationship to reality, as you say, we are already presupposing that existence exists, and since nobody is denying that existence exists, what is the point in asserting that fact as some sort of argument? It seems that there would be no point unless the statement “existence exists” can mean “existence exists independent of consciousness,” but it appears that you do not think this is the case, even in certain contexts presumably.

In case this is not clear, I can imagine the following dialogue between an idealist (I) and an Objectivist (O):

I: I believe that all that exists is consciousness.

O: Well, that contradicts the self-evident truth that existence exists.

I: How, in saying that only one thing exists, am I denying the fact that existence exists?

O: Because I mean that existence exists independent of consciousness.

I: Why don’t you say what you mean then?

Similarly, in response to Ayn Rand’s characterization of the idealist position as the belief in consciousness without existence, an idealist might say, “Certainly I do not deny that existence exists. I am merely saying that existence is exhaustively consciousness. Your characterization is therefore wrong unless by ‘existence exists’ you mean ‘existence exists independent of consciousness.’” Again, however, you deny that “existence exists” has this meaning.

Well, I don’t see what justifies that conclusion based on that passsage. But to be a bit more specific, self generated misery may be a fact, but it is a man-made optional fact. Psychological facts should, for a rational man, arise by the mind working on facts of existence (external reality).

If one searches the Ayn Rand Lexicon for “existential,” I think it is pretty clear that Ayn Rand frequently uses the term “existential” in contrast to “psychological.” For example, the very first quote on the resultant list is “The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential.” (Italics mine.)

9

Separate from your inclusion v. exclusion discussion, here is Rand on the brevity and redundancy of “existence exists” in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:

"The concept “existence” does not indicate what existents it subsumes: it merely underscores the primary fact that they exist. The concept “identity” does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes: it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are. The concept “consciousness” does not indicate what existents one is conscious of: it merely underscores the primary fact that one is conscious.

This underscoring of primary facts is one of the crucial epistemological functions of axiomatic concepts. It is also the reason why they can be translated into a statement only in the form of a repetition (as a base and a reminder): Existence exists—Consciousness is conscious—A is A. (This converts axiomatic concepts into formal axioms.)" [Paperback p.59 see also: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html]

10

I think to simplify all that has been said above, we are not Platonists nor Kantians..we simply hold that there is “outside of our consciousness” a real detectable universe that will continue to be there when my sentient consciousness expires. Yes, that tree does make a noise when it falls whether anyone is there to hear it or not. I think the more you belabor the point :confused: the more you weaken your case.

I think to simplify all that has been said above, we are not Platonists nor Kantians..we simply hold that there is “outside of our consciousness” a real detectable universe that will continue to be there when my sentient consciousness expires. Yes, that tree does make a noise when it falls whether anyone is there to hear it or not. I think the more you belabor the point :dough: the more you weaken your case.

11

I don’t have a case that I am trying to make. I acknowledged the point you’re making when I said, “I know Objectivism maintains that consciousness exists and is therefore subsumed by “existence,” but that is precisely why I am confused as to why at times Rand seems to use ‘existence’ and ‘existential’ in contrast to consciousness.” I suppose that the title of thread may be interpreted otherwise, but my question is about the use in cases such as those that I mentioned; and I believe that I have made that clear in my posts.

12

However, I think my professor would argue that in a discussion of consciousness and its relationship to reality, as you say, we are already presupposing that existence exists, and since nobody is denying that existence exists, what is the point in asserting that fact as some sort of argument?

In a discussion such as this there are usually only two positions, either existence exists independent of consciousness or existence is dependent upon consciousness, the second is a denial of the first. So in a discussion such as this one must never presuppose anything, most especially not that someone accepts that existence exists since this is precisely what the primacy of consciousness view is trying to deny.

It seems that there would be no point unless the statement “existence exists” can mean “existence exists independent of consciousness,” but it appears that you do not think this is the case, even in certain contexts presumably.

I hope David will correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think he is denying that “existence exists” can imply “existence exists independent of consciousness,” he is just saying that “existence exists” names an even more primary fact. Additionally the implications of “existence exists” are not exhausted by your statement either. For instance it implies that “only existence exists” in the context of discussing existence and non-existence. Also as a matter of the form that an axiom takes “existence exists” is essential.

In case this is not clear, I can imagine the following dialogue between an idealist (I) and an Objectivist (O):

I: I believe that all that exists is consciousness.

[…]

“Certainly I do not deny that existence exists. I am merely saying that existence is exhaustively consciousness…”

No, it is not clear. In a discussion of this kind you are going to have to be much more explicit since these statements do appear to be denials that existence exists. They are saying that everything we see, all of existence, reality is a figment of our or someone’s imagination.

For example, the very first quote on the resultant list is "The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental _ or _ physical, psychological _ or _ existential." (Italics mine.) [bold added]

In the bolded portion Ayn Rand is distinguishing between two different types of action: mental or psychological on the one hand and physical or existential on the other hand. She is saying that thinking is an action, in fact, for man, it is the most important action. Actually it is a prerequisite to physical action for man. She covered her bases just in case someone wanted to question her usage as some sort of Marxist view that physical action is all that exists.

13

I think the problem here is simply that the term “existence” can have very subtly different meanings in different contexts, and Enixyle likes to have everything absolutely laid out in order without these tricky subtleties (a very good trait for an intellectual type :smiley: ).

Characterizing the Idealist position as “consciousness without existence” simply means that they think that consciousness is the root of everything–but that consciousness would have nothing to be conscious OF. This ties in with Ayn Rand’s statement that a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms–in order to identify itself as consciousness, it would have to be conscious of some THING. Consciousness presupposes an *external* existence, so if you posit consciousness as the root of existence you have created an ouroboros metaphysics that eats its own tail and collapses under its own weight.

So, if you want to dispense with the subtlety of using “existence” to mean “stuff external to consciousness” and thus perhaps unintentionally imply that consciousness is not part of existence, you could more properly say that Idealist metaphysics is consciousness without content–because where would it get that content? The content of a consciousness is acquired, it is not an inherent attribute OF consciousness. It has to be acquired from somewhere, and the only place to acquire it is an existence that is independent of (in the sense of “not created by”) that consciousness.

14

That cleared things up for me. Thank you. :smiley: