Discussing Metaphysical Priority

[Plasmatic]

The “primacy of existence”, when used to mean that man’s consciousness serves to understand/identify etc. existence and does not serve to create or give rise to existence (this is not a statement about man’s ability to will his physical appendages to act… which is a separate issue)   I would take to designate a fact of reality.

 

Just to make double sure, you mean _metaphysically given _fact, as opposed to a man made fact, right?

 

Edit:

 

SL said:

 

Q2: Ordering presupposes an “orderer”.  Relationships exist amongst existents but “ordering” is over and above mere existence.  Predators eat prey.  Prey feed predators.  These facts do not form a hierarchy or an ordering but there are relationships and causality. 

 

By hierarchy I assume what is meant is something akin to importance or primacy as a qualification of the state of existence itself … i.e. the claim would be that A exists MORE than B or A’s existence is metaphysically more important than B’s existence or Metaphysically more primary than B’s existence.

 

A and B exist.  There are relationships between A and B. That’s it.

 

 

 

I have something important to add to this but will wait for your clarification… 

[Plasmatic]

Louie said:

 

 

What would “simply” designating an epistemological fact mean? By epistemological fact, do you mean man-made as opposed to metaphysical?

 

Yes

[Eiuol]

Yes

No one ever even suggested primacy of existence is “simply” man-made. You may use “epistemological” and “man-made” interchangeably, but no one else is. They’re not the same. “Epistemological fact” doesn’t even make sense, that sounds like you’re saying that some knowledge exists “outside” minds. Any fact is metaphysically true, even if man-made. But I’ve never seen such a distinction between metaphysical facts and CREATING facts except for Kant and Logical Positivists, although they just said “analytic” and “synthetic” instead. Rand only ever distinguished facts in terms of the referents, not really a fact itself.

[Devil_s_Advocate]

Q1:  The concept “individual” does not only mean i.e. is not limited to, as referents which are valid, concrete existing individuals… i.e. people alive now.  The concept “individual” includes all people who ever lived, all people who will or may ever live, even fictitious people (as long as they comply with the definition of individual), hypothetical people, etc.  The concept is not limited to specific concretes, the way “people in this room” (were there a specific word for that) would be limited. 

…

 

I’m primarily interested in your description of the relationship between “first level” concepts and existents.  Aren’t all existents necessarily valid concretes, e.g., real forms of matter known to have existed or that currently exist?  And if this is the case, aren’t all “first level” concepts that refer to existents, necessarily limited to these same real forms of matter (concrete)??

 

… 

 

Q2: Ordering presupposes an “orderer”.  Relationships exist amongst existents but “ordering” is over and above mere existence.  Predators eat prey.  Prey feed predators.  These facts do not form a hierarchy or an ordering but there are relationships and causality. 

 

By hierarchy I assume what is meant is something akin to importance or primacy as a qualification of the state of existence itself … i.e. the claim would be that A exists MORE than B or A’s existence is metaphysically more important than B’s existence or Metaphysically more primary than B’s existence.

 

A and B exist.  There are relationships between A and B. That’s it.

 

At this point I’m thinking more of a food chain, which appears to be ordered according to the nature of the participants, i.e., intrinsically.  In such an example a “metaphysically primary” would be found at the lowest end of the chain, and a “metaphysical hierarchy” would refer to the upper links.  All the participants exist and there are identifyible patterns of relationships between them.

 

Are you saying that the perception of order in relationships, resulting from the nature of the participants, doesn’t posit intrinsic ordering in reality itself?

[CriticalThinker2000]

Aren’t all existents necessarily valid concretes, e.g., real forms of matter known to have existed or that currently exist?  And if this is the case, aren’t all “first level” concepts that refer to existents, necessarily limited to these same real forms of matter (concrete)??

 

The concept ‘table’ does not only refer to tables that exist but every table that ever existed and any table that will ever exist. It’s universal…

 

Aaaaand this was my sneaky way of subscribing to the thread. :fool:

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

Who in this thread thinks that the primacy of existence is simply designating an epistemological fact?

I don’t think anyone genuinely thinks that the PoE is simply a matter of personal preference (which seems to be the gist of your question); even the most devout mystic will not attempt to wish away an oncoming bus.

Sure, tons of people say that you can get stuff done through prayer/meditation/witchcraft, but I don’t think it can be said honestly.

 

Are you saying that the perception of order in relationships, resulting from the nature of the participants, doesn’t posit intrinsic ordering in reality itself?

Nobody’s talking about the Matrix here, either.  Observed relationships do, in fact, imply actual relationships.  You’re right.

I think (?) that what SL means by an “intrinsic ordering in reality” is something like the analytic-synthetic dichotomy; the humorous assertion that certain knowledge is a different, and more important type of thing than other knowledge- regardless of the knower.

---

 

I do think that axioms, and things like the PoE, are more important than other sorts of knowledge (and a different type of knowledge), but specifically because of my mind and the nature of my knowledge.

Outside of the context of my mind, your mind or somebody else’s mind, there’s no such thing as a “primacy,” existential or otherwise.  There are only existents.

[Plasmatic]

No one ever even suggested primacy of existence is “simply” man-made. You may use “epistemological” and “man-made” interchangeably, but no one else is. They’re not the same.

 

First, I asked  a question, if I knew what others thought I wouldn’t ask!  Second, I have not claimed anywhere that "“epistemological” and “man-made” are interchangeable as though there is no difference. All epistemological facts are man-made but not all man-made facts are epistemological. However, all man-made facts are a consequence of volition. Both Rand and Searle understand the difference between ontologically objective and epistemologically objective how how they relate to the observer relative. 

 

EDIT:

For example, from ch. 6 of ITOE:

 

This gives us a lead to another special aspect of axiomatic concepts: although they designate a fundamental metaphysical fact, axiomatic concepts are the products of an epistemological need—the need of a volitional, conceptual consciousness which is capable of error and doubt.

 

 

Louie said:

“Epistemological fact” doesn’t even make sense, that sounds like you’re saying that some knowledge exists “outside” minds. Any fact is metaphysically true, even if man-made. But I’ve never seen such a distinction between metaphysical facts and CREATING facts except for Kant and Logical Positivists, although they just said “analytic” and “synthetic” instead. Rand only ever distinguished facts in terms of the referents, not really a fact itself.

 

Since we all know you claimed to have read ITOE, I suggest you throw away your copy and buy one that contains the section in the appendix labeled “Fact”, wherein you will find Ms. Rand saying that " _ “Fact” is merely an epistemological convenience _". And then go and read where she goes on to agree with Prof B about how the concept “fact” relates to the Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made section of PWNI.

 

In _fact, _here it is for you to read someone else besides Kant and the Positivist saying this

 

Prof. B: Is “fact” a concept like “necessity” in the following respect? The referent of “necessity” is the same in a sense as the referent of “identity”; but “necessity” is a concept which comes much later in the hierarchy and derives from our particular form of consciousness [i.e., from its volitional nature—see “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” in Philosophy: Who Needs It]. It is a concept we need to distinguish things outside our control from things in our control.

AR: Correct.

ITOE appendix

 

You are equivocating “fact” with “concrete”…If Ms. Rand didn’t recognize epistemological facts why would it be necessary even to qualify “metaphysical fact” in so many places in Oist literature instead of just saying “fact”?

 

 

Oh, and lets deal with this “quote bombing” issue. 

 

Louie said:

 

Stop quote bombing with ITOE! How is that supposed to be an argument?

 

First. let me explain something to you, “read carefully”. Unless you are acting as a moderator and I am breaking a rule, don’t ever tell me what to do. You’ll just be wasting your breath… I have asked another moderator if I have broken a rule by quoting and they said they did not see how that would be the case here. IF you are acting as a moderator you should make that clear when you are.

 

Second, I specifically said that the quote was “For others” and not you, so you could not be being “bombed”.

 

Third, in any issue that involves an " argument" about whether or not Ms. Rand held a certain premise there is only one way to resolve it and that is to quote her saying it!  Otherwise, it is just a “yes, she did” and “no, she didn’t” circle that doesn’t get resolved. I always quote only enough to not be accused of dropping context-selective quoting  and I always cite the source.

 

 

It is necessary that before one can become a good teacher they must be a good student…Maybe try looking up what you are claiming about Oism before posting.

 

 

I am working on a post that will address the issue of metaphysical primacy and why it is absolutely related to the thread this one was split from.

[Eiuol]

 

First, I asked  a question, if I knew what others thought I wouldn’t ask!  Second, I have not claimed anywhere that "“epistemological” and “man-made” are interchangeable as though there is no difference. All epistemological facts are man-made but not all man-made facts are epistemological. However, all man-made facts are a consequence of volition. Both Rand and Searle understand the difference between ontologically objective and epistemologically objective how how they relate to the observer relative. 

You said an epistemological fact IS the same as a man-made fact by answering yes to my question… Now you’re saying it ISN’T the same. So I ask again: What is an epistemological fact? What does ontologically objective mean? What does Searle have to do with this? All this to say: I don’t understand your post.

[Plasmatic]

You said an epistemological fact IS the same as a man-made fact by answering yes to my question… Now you’re saying it ISN’T the same. So I ask again: What is an epistemological fact? What does ontologically objective mean? What does Searle have to do with this? All this to say: I don’t understand your post.

 

No, I didn’t say they were the “same” and you just quoted me explaining that they aren’t identical, as in,  I never said there is “no difference”. Epistemological facts are a species of man made facts, but not all man made facts are epistemological. A sky scraper is a fact “created” by man, that is, a man-made fact…

 

Ontologically objective means not subject to or dependent on consciousness. Epistemological fact means dependent on a conceptual consciousness, that is, if there where no conceptual consciousness’ left there would be no more epistemological facts left. While skyscrapers would not exist if man didn’t have a conceptual consciousness, they would remain if all conceptual consciousness’ ceased to be. Ms. Rand differentiates between the species “physical” and “psychological” facts within the genus of “man-made”.

 

 

 

 

[StrictlyLogical]

Just to make double sure, you mean _metaphysically given _fact, as opposed to a man made fact, right?

 

Edit:

 

SL said:

 

 

 

I have something important to add to this but will wait for your clarification… 

 

The specific thing I said about consciousness not creating reality etc. is a metaphysically given fact. 

[StrictlyLogical]

Plasmatic:

 

For background and for consistent definition/understanding what do we take facts as such to be?

 

 

Premises:  A “statement of fact” has as a referent something in reality.  We can have knowledge of/about statements and about reality.

 

 

What is the referent of the concept “fact” (as such) according to Objectivism?

 

I.e. If I simply and baldly say “A fact according to Objectivism IS x”  (here there are no modifiers as to “type” or species or particular fact, what is meant is the broadest concept subsuming anything which validly should be considered “a fact”)  Can you expand x?

 

 

Eiuol, if you can answer this according to your understanding of Objectivism that would also be appreciated.

[Eiuol]

No, I didn’t say they were the “same” and you just quoted me explaining that they aren’t identical, as in,  I never said there is “no difference”. Epistemological facts are a species of man made facts, but not all man made facts are epistemological. A sky scraper is a fact “created” by man, that is, a man-made fact…

Then the answer was “no”, not “yes”. You didn’t say same, but saying yes to “do you mean man-made fact” means it is the same… Serious question, is English your second language? Often it seems like disagreement with you are only differences of language use. Also I see you get where/were their/they’re your/you’re wrong - consistently, not just as typos.

Anyway, why say “ontologically” objective instead of objective? Ontological usually implies a specific hierarchy and is more specific than metaphysical. It makes more sense to simply say metaphysical. No fact is independent of consciousness, in terms of recognition at least - an epistemological convenience. What is independent is the truth of the fact, even man-made facts are true independent of consciousness, that’s why Rand made a distinction in terms of volitional control instead of truth type (there are not types of truth). Even more, the distinction of epistemological fact is not needed, since any fact is necessarily the case. A skyscraper existing is a man-made fact, but it is necessarily the case that it exists, has a height, has a width, etc. The only way I can get epistemological fact to make sense is as a synthetic truth precisely because it seems to me that you’re evaluating truth type.

To be clear, I am agreeing completely with the Objectivist view. Usually I am clear when I’m disagreeing with the Oist view, and if I don’t mention disagreement, I am in agreement. My overall point here is the same as SL’s post #19. Nothing exists “more” than something else. A metaphysical priority only really makes sense in terms of relationships among entities, but there is no absolute Order to concepts; and entities in an order is a question of epistemology. An atom for instance isn’t more or less real than a basketball, but we can identify how these entities relate in metaphysical terms, such as basketballs are made of atoms, or both entities exist no matter what I say, i.e. primacy of existence. Priority applies here in the sense primacy of existence is needed to determine anything as true or real.

[StrictlyLogical]

I’m primarily interested in your description of the relationship between “first level” concepts and existents.  Aren’t all existents necessarily valid concretes, e.g., real forms of matter known to have existed or that currently exist?  And if this is the case, aren’t all “first level” concepts that refer to existents, necessarily limited to these same real forms of matter (concrete)??

 

 

At this point I’m thinking more of a food chain, which appears to be ordered according to the nature of the participants, i.e., intrinsically.  In such an example a “metaphysically primary” would be found at the lowest end of the chain, and a “metaphysical hierarchy” would refer to the upper links.  All the participants exist and there are identifyible patterns of relationships between them.

 

Are you saying that the perception of order in relationships, resulting from the nature of the participants, doesn’t posit intrinsic ordering in reality itself?

 

DA

 

CriticalThinker2000 answered your first question, and Eiuol answered your second but I have more to add on your second.

 

Entities exist, and yes there are patterns of relationships between them.  But nothing has more ISness simply by virtue of those relationships.  One thing is larger than another, one is to the left of another, one thing is hotter than another, these are facts.  There is no metaphysical ordinal or primacy  or hierarchy, nothing has more BEING than another thing.  They are as they are, when they are. 

 

Again, a food chain is a fact of reality with causal spatio-temporal links amongst its parts.  But why bother with such an example?  Take a look at a pyramid of gold (just spatial relationships).  We can identify bits near the top and bits near the bottom.  Is the reality (as such) of the bits at the top more important to reality?  Do they possess more ISness than the bits at the bottom?

 

By what possible standard of reality itself (i.e. from the view of a non-mystical reality, i.e. metaphysically) could anything be more important in reality or exist more in reality?  No such standard exists, and to attribute one to reality IS an example of intrinsicism/mysticism. 

 

NOTE:  The discussion is about ordering in the sense of hierarchy, ranking, importance, primacy etc.  This is to be distinguished from “order” that exists in reality.  A row of billiard balls metaphysically is ordered in the sense that the locations are orderly, i.e. fall within a straight line, and have a sequence.  This kind of order which exists (in the sense that the balls all have their positions and in reality the relationships of “closeness” vary and exist) is not the kind of order being discussed, better described as metaphysical primacy or metaphysical ranking, which does not exist.

[StrictlyLogical]

PS - The same can be said for causation and constituency.  Metaphysical entities A may cause B or Metaphysical entity B may consist of entities A but that only means A cause B, or A make B possible, or A form B. But A do not outrank or have primacy over B.

[New_Buddha]

Historically, especially in Scholasticism, ontological concerns were aimed at understanding the nature of being:  Mineral, Vegetative, Animal, Man, Angels, Christ, Holy Ghost… these were seen as distinct, qualitatively different forms of being.   Great arguments were had over “where” Christ was in the hierarchy (above or below Angles?) or was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost one thing, or three?  Did sacramental wine truly turn into the blood of Christ?  Your life often depended on how you answered these questions.  Darwin, and later geneticist, upset the apple cart by saying that speciation was driven not by God but rather, non-supernatural means, and that all life forms share a common ancestor.  This was a major "ontological’ shake up.

 

Rand’s Razor is that concepts ought not be multiplied beyond necessity.  She rarely discussed ontology - and her use of the term metaphysics was very limited and also very distinct from that of other philosophies.

 

Objectivism is not concerned with Truth! and Ultimate Reality!

 

Objectivist epistemology says that an individual, based on evidence provided by his senses, and through the application of reason, non-contradiction and non-evasion, is capable of obtaining objectively knowledge.  That’s pretty much it.  It doesn’t’ say that you will at some point be omniscient or infallible or will reach a point where there is nothing more to learned or no new light can be shed on an old subject.

 

There is no qualitative difference between an objective thought held by a six year old and an objective thought held by a 50 year old - so long as they are both objectively integrated into the sum of knowledge available to each individual at the time.  The sum of one’s knowledge is roughly the equivalent of a scholastic’s divine ontological order.   

[Devil_s_Advocate]

StrictlyLogical,

 

Would it be correct to say that existents are metaphysical givens, and that 1st level concepts are only valid (true) when they refer to existents?

 

And that metaphysical primacy and metaphysical ranking contradicts A=A in the sense that metaphysical givens simply are what they are, independent of evaluation??

[Plasmatic]

SL said:
 

By what possible standard of reality itself (i.e. from the view of a non-mystical reality, i.e. metaphysically) could anything be more important in reality or exist more in reality?  No such standard exists, and to attribute one to reality IS an example of intrinsicism/mysticism. 
 
NOTE:  The discussion is about ordering in the sense of hierarchy, ranking, importance, primacy etc.  This is to be distinguished from “order” that exists in reality.  A row of billiard balls metaphysically is ordered in the sense that the locations are orderly, i.e. fall within a straight line, and have a sequence.  This kind of order which exists (in the sense that the balls all have their positions and in reality the relationships of “closeness” vary and exist) is not the kind of order being discussed, better described as metaphysical primacy or metaphysical ranking, which does not exist.

 
This is exactly what my distinction is in fact about. Notice, I have repeatedly rejected the notion that the sense of primacy-priority is about “importance”. The ontological distinction Oism makes about the Primacy Of Existence is about causal chains not about levels of existence or importance. When Ms. Rand says that an entity has characteristics that are more fundamental or that consciousness is a " _dependen_t"  She is answering the question " What had to come first?", not “what exists more or less?”, or “what is more important?”.
 
Notice, that when the axiom of the Primacy of Existence is introduced it is stated as synonymous with “existence exist” and then immediately a discussion of causal chains begins.   
 

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the <arl_178> notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness)…To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition

from Philosophy: Who Needs It?
 
In metaphysics the answer to the question, “What comes first, existence or non existence?” is “Existence exist. Existence cannot come from non-existence”.
 
To the question, “what comes first entities or attributes?” is “entities are their attributes, therefore there never was a time when redness existed before the entity which is red”  So, the answer to the question, “which comes first entities or consciousness?” is “Entities are the only primary existents and while there may have been a time when consciousness didn’t exist and there may be a time when there are no more conscious entities there never was or will be a time when there are no entities.”
 
In the sense of fundamentality of characteristics, the answer to the question. “which comes first walking or legs” is “function follows form”. 
 
In ethics, the answer to the question, “What comes first, self or others?” is “Self, because groups are groups of individuals and life comes first, or, is the cause of value.”
 
Notice, right after the above section in PWNI Ms. Rand starts talking about what is " impossible" without that " by means of which" something else comes to be the case.
 

 

For example, two hundred years ago, men would have said that it is impossible to hear a human voice at a distance of 238,000 miles. It is as impossible today as it was then. But if we are able to hear an astronaut’s voice coming from the moon, it is by means of the science of electronics, which discovered certain natural phenomena and enabled men to build the kind of equipment that picks up the vibrations of that voice, transmits them, and reproduces them on earth. Without this knowledge and this <arl_179> equipment, centuries of wishing, praying, screaming and foot-stamping would not make a man’s voice heard at the distance of ten miles

 

 

Consciousness exists by means of the entity which has the form, by means of which, consciousness is caused. Mind is not over matter because mind is caused by matter.

 

Only concrete entities have independent existence, that is,  entities are causal primaries.

 

Nothing about this has anything to do with imputing a teleological concept of method like “evaluation” to mind independent existence…

 

I will relate this to the thread this discussion was taken from in a bit.

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

What is the referent of the concept “fact” (as such) according to Objectivism?

A “fact” is a certain relation between any two existents (entities, attributes, etc.) in reality.

It is a “fact” that red is not blue.*  My own statement, that “red is not blue”, demonstrates my knowledge of that fact.

 

*Every observation necessitates an observer of a certain nature, and objectivity requires that we consider all “facts” within this context.  For example, “red is not blue” should automatically be appended “red is not blue to my own eyes”;** within that context this fact is always and absolutely true.

 

**Questions about whether anything is ever truly universal within that context, are not strictly fallacious; only utterly pointless.  One should not pursue “truth” in order to make the world agree with oneself; one should pursue “truth” to inform one’s choices and actions, for the furtherance of one’s own life.  Whether “red is not blue” to anyone else’s eyes in the world is simply irrelevant.

[Plasmatic]

Harrison said:

 

 

**Questions about whether anything is ever truly universal within that context, are not strictly fallacious; only utterly pointless. 

 

This is exactly the antithesis of the Oist tenet that the axioms are the foundation and precondition to any context and the reason for the original Rand’s Razor..

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

Harrison said:

 

 

This is exactly the antithesis of the Oist tenet that the axioms are the foundation and precondition to any context and the reason for the original Rand’s Razor..

 

I’m sorry; I wasn’t aware that the existence of colorblind people on Earth would pose some significant challenge to Oist epistemology.

 

—Edit:

 

“Whether anything is ever truly universal” implies that the sum of everything is fair game.  Should read “whether any particular thing is truly universal.”

 

And if it’s still the “antithesis” of Objectivist epistemology, given that caveat, then I would truly appreciate it if you would explain why.