I’ve wondered about this for a while now and some of the conversation in my other thread made me want to ask it. But I figured it would be better to start a different topic on it to avoid too much confusion.
What is meant (and NOT meant) by the axiom “existence exists”? I can see that as an answer to a skeptic who wants “proof” that “it’s not all just an illusion” or something like that. But what is the appropriateness and usage of it in regard to other questions or objections?? Surely when Newton began to wonder why the apple fell from the tree, and Objectivist would not have replied “Existence Exists. That’s the way reality is. Are you trying to subvert reality with your questions!?” I can see it as a foundation in showing THAT there is existence but I’m not sure how it relates to questions concerning “why’s” and “how’s” about existence. And does it apply to “all existents” in general (raw matter)? Or in particular (a ball)? Or does it simply refer to the fact that SOMETHING exists (regardless of it’s identity)?
I can see it as a foundation in showing THAT there is existence but I’m not sure how it relates to questions concerning “why’s” and “how’s” about existence.
Yes, you’re right, it is a very simple foundational response. It doesn’t immediately lead you to deducing that this particular bunny rabbit exists, it simply refutes any claim that “nothing exists”, “nothing is real”. Eventually we can get to the proof of the existence of the bunny, but you have to have a firm starting point from which to launch this philosophical investigation.
Rand’s classic and oft-repeated statement, Existence exists, and that means something exists of which one is aware, and you exist, being conscious that it is so, is surely the starting place to understand the import of that phrase.
The foundational value lies in being able to begin any specific discussion with the reality of a world of things, and with conscious beings who are in touch with it, taken for granted. You don’t want to find yourself being asked about your evidence for something, to prove that an event nobody witnessed indeed occurred. You say, “Existence exists,” and pause leisurely to let them consider the wisdom of attempting to refute that.
The primacy of existence and the efficacy of consciousness are incontestable (logically.) That doesn’t stop people from contesting them. The statement, “Existence exists,” is a concise “argument” for those two axioms and their interconnection. (“Argument” of axioms consists in pointing to their manifestations in reality.) You make the assertion as an ostensive summary, and no argument is needed (nor could there be one.) Dissenters are then in the position to try to refute all of existence (themselves included) and the possibility of knowledge (their own included.)
Yes, it is simply the axiom that states that something exists. It is not applied to particular entities. It is one of the foundations of all knowledge, but it doesn’t in itself give us any particular physical knowledge of how the world works. It is important in helping to ground an epistemology that allows us to come to know things about the world, however.
The Law of Identity, provided the key to unlocking the “Infinite” regress which had been enshrined as a “Metaphysical” lock binding the chains of an “Epistemological” understanding of the relationship between the three axioms.
Yes, it is simply the axiom that states that something exists. It is not applied to particular entities. It is one of the foundations of all knowledge, but it doesn’t in itself give us any particular physical knowledge of how the world works. It is important in helping to ground an epistemology that allows us to come to know things about the world, however.
It is applied to all particular existents, to all of existence. If it were not applied to particular entites, it wouldn’t be applied.
Also, it gives us the most general, the most powerful physical knowledge, that of identity and its role in causation.
If this seems nit-picking, I am just responding to the statements as written. Fundamentals in philosophy must be accurately worded. Put the wrong term in, or a term in the wrong place, and you have set up a premise that will “prove” a falsehood, or, more importantly, fail to prove the truth.
It is applied to all particular existents, to all of existence. If it were not applied to particular entites, it wouldn’t be applied.
Also, it gives us the most general, the most powerful physical knowledge, that of identity and its role in causation.
If this seems nit-picking, I am just responding to the statements as written. Fundamentals in philosophy must be accurately worded. Put the wrong term in, or a term in the wrong place, and you have set up a premise that will “prove” a falsehood, or, more importantly, fail to prove the truth.
Mindy
Mindy
But is it applied to every particular existent in it’s various particular forms? And in that case, is it not just a restating of the Law of Identity?
No, as closely related as existence and identity are, they are not the same concept.
Mindy
p.s. I formatted this incorrectly. My comments follow the lavendar quotes.
Haha. I was able to follow.
Ok. So it applies to the pencil on my desk- not just to the molecules which comprise the pencil? correct? “The pencil exists”. “It is an existent”.
If this is the case, I am very confused as to the way some seem to use the axiom.
I don’t think YOU particularly have used it in this way, but perhaps you could shed some light on the issue for me.
I’ve ran into many that seem to imply that because of the axiom, it is improper/illogical to ask “why” about an existent- and especially to imply that an existent has a cause. But, my pencil did have a cause. Had somebody not altered the wood of the tree and all the other elements of nature required in order to make it, it would not exist (in it’s current form). And it seems there are plenty of legitimate “why questions” that could be asked regarding my pencil. “Why was it created?” “Why is it mine?” “Why is it on my desk?” etc…
Ok. So it applies to the pencil on my desk- not just to the molecules which comprise the pencil? correct? “The pencil exists”. “It is an existent”.
If this is the case, I am very confused as to the way some seem to use the axiom.
I don’t think YOU particularly have used it in this way, but perhaps you could shed some light on the issue for me.
I’ve ran into many that seem to imply that because of the axiom, it is improper/illogical to ask “why” about an existent- and especially to imply that an existent has a cause. But, my pencil did have a cause. Had somebody not altered the wood of the tree and all the other elements of nature required in order to make it, it would not exist (in it’s current form). And it seems there are plenty of legitimate “why questions” that could be asked regarding my pencil. “Why was it created?” “Why is it mine?” “Why is it on my desk?” etc…
Do you see the conflict that confuses me here?
Yes, I think I do. It is improper to ask, “That is a pencil, but why does it exist?” It is not improper to ask how this graphite became embedded in this wood, or how the whole thing got itself painted yellow, or how it came to be on my desk. Those things are all interactions among existing things.
I’ve ran into many that seem to imply that because of the axiom, it is improper/illogical to ask “why” about an existent- and especially to imply that an existent has a cause.
When asking “why does ‘X’ exist?” and "why does ‘X’ behave in the way that it does?, it’s all too easy to fall into the trap of asking (or believing) “why couldn’t ‘X’ not exist?” or “why couldn’t ‘X’ behave differently than it does?”. This type of question lead to an infinite regress and/or the belief that “something” or “someone” in the Universe has the power to change the identity and behavior of other existents. No one has that power. When a scientist combines two or more elements he does not personally effect the behavior or outcome of the event. The elements will behave in a manner that is independent of the the scientist making the combination. This fact is the source of the the scientific method and the reproducibility of experiments and of the axiom(s)the Primacy of Existence and the Law of Identity.
When I was in college and taking engineering courses a student asked one of the professors “why does electricity behave the way that it does?” The professor answered, correctly, that he could not explain “why” electricity behaved the way that it does – that he could only tell us “how” it behaves and some of the things that we can do with it. Neither animate or inanimate matter has the power to alter the identity or behavior of other matter. Things are what they are and behave as they behave.
If this is the case, I am very confused as to the way some seem to use the axiom.
Parmenides came up with the principle “What is is. What is not, is not.” HE needed it to do battle with the skeptics and sophists of his time. Perhaps he would have rather have had Aristotle’s Noncontradiction Principle, but he was a pre-Socratic and the affirmation of existence is a necessary stepping stone to what Aristotle did.
When asking “why does ‘X’ exist?” and "why does ‘X’ behave in the way that it does?, it’s all too easy to fall into the trap of asking (or believing) “why couldn’t ‘X’ not exist?” or “why couldn’t ‘X’ behave differently than it does?”. This type of question lead to an infinite regress and/or the belief that “something” or “someone” in the Universe has the power to change the identity and behavior of other existents. No one has that power. When a scientist combines two or more elements he does not personally effect the behavior or outcome of the event. The elements will behave in a manner that is independent of the the scientist making the combination. This fact is the source of the the scientific method and the reproducibility of experiments and of the axiom(s)the Primacy of Existence and the Law of Identity.
When I was in college and taking engineering courses a student asked one of the professors “why does electricity behave the way that it does?” The professor answered, correctly, that he could not explain “why” electricity behaved the way that it does – that he could only tell us “how” it behaves and some of the things that we can do with it. Neither animate or inanimate matter has the power to alter the identity or behavior of other matter. Things are what they are and behave as they behave.
Well actually, the scientist in choosing to combine them (provided he does so physically, not on pencil and paper) will affect their behavior. Otherwise they would remain uncombined. Furthermore, the manner in which he chooses to combine them will lead to uncertainty (since the tools he uses have a limit as to their ‘fineness’) in both position and momentum, in a manner such that the uncertainty in one multiplied by the uncertainty in the other have a minimum. Again, this has nothing to do with pen and paper but with the fact that there is a quanta of coarseness, a level of interaction that cannot be further divided.
Well actually, the scientist in choosing to combine them (provided he does so physically, not on pencil and paper) will affect their behavior. Otherwise they would remain uncombined.
But when combined, they still act according to their nature. While a new object has been formed, the component objects still act in predictable ways.
Furthermore, the manner in which he chooses to combine them will lead to uncertainty (since the tools he uses have a limit as to their ‘fineness’) in both position and momentum, in a manner such that the uncertainty in one multiplied by the uncertainty in the other have a minimum. Again, this has nothing to do with pen and paper but with the fact that there is a quanta of coarseness, a level of interaction that cannot be further divided.
What relevance do you believe this to have to this discussion? Until you answer that, I can only guess that you believe this is relevant to the identity/nature of particles, and I will respond to that…
It is impossible to make an arbitrarily precise measurement of anything, since measurement requires interaction with the object, and interaction will affect the measured result. You cannot have the effect (a measurement) without the cause (measuring).
But why is it relevant to the nature or identity of the object to be able to say that you can always measure its position/momentum more and more precisely, without limit?
Do not fall into the trap of applying quantum mechanics to philosophy. In the same vein, people often use the uncertainty principle as a way to validate the existence of free will. Scientific principles have no bearing on philosophy, as those very scientific principles are grounded on philosophic principles.
“Very scientific principles” , I hope you weren’t referring to the Copenhagen interpretation…
The expression “those very scientific principles” is ambiguous, because “very” can be an adverb modifying “scientific” (as you read it) or as a deictic, meaning “same”, analogous to “that very dog barked all night” (as I am morally certain Brian intended it).
Do not fall into the trap of applying quantum mechanics to philosophy. In the same vein, people often use the uncertainty principle as a way to validate the existence of free will. Scientific principles have no bearing on philosophy, as those very scientific principles are grounded on philosophic principles. Brian
The expression “those very scientific principles” is ambiguous, because “very” can be an adverb modifying “scientific” (as you read it) or as a deictic, meaning “same”, analogous to “that very dog barked all night” (as I am morally certain Brian intended it).
Brian’s quote clearly sets a context in which the ambiguity you point out is impossible. His meaning is perfectly clear, that scientific principles at large are what he refers to.
