Questions about Objectivism

Questions about Objectivism
1

I would like to state outright that I am not an anti-objectivist. I am just someone who, after learning some about objectivism, has some unresolved issues.

First off, I must state an axiom that I have not heard elsewhere. Perhaps it is not axiomatic, but I consider it beyond refute:

One or more fundamental constituent(s) exist.

I consider this irrefutable because, without a fundamental constituent, there is instant paradox. It would imply that there are no true concrete entities because all such entities would be made of other entities which are made of other entities. Nothing would have shape because shape is defined by a border, thus there would be no concretes. A collection of concretes separated by space does not possess shape, they are simply a collection of concretes with a specific spatial arrangement. One could IMAGINE drawing lines between each concrete and giving it a shape, but this is artificial. Only that which is not composed of parts INHERENTLY has shape (i.e. has a border all by itself, without human conceptualization). Therefore, I submit that the universe is, objectively, only fundamental constituents changing location by interacting (touching) each other.

Now, I believe my definition of exist is in agreement with the objectivist community:

Exist: Shape and location

Therefore, the computer in front of me exists because it has a perceivable shape and I can establish a distance between it and the wall. The leprechaun I am imagining does not exist because I cannot establish a distance between the leprechaun in my head and the wall. It has shape but no location. I divide objects into two categories:

Concrete Object: Shape and location

Abstract Object: Shape

And concepts:

Concrete Concept: Relationship among concrete objects

Abstract Concept: Relationship among abstract objects

Therefore, the circles and squares of geometry are abstract objects. They are conceptually 2-D, I can visualize something in 2-D but such an object has no location. There is not a two dimensional object anywhere in the universe. I try to touch the square on the paper but I just touch ink and paper. Geometry is the study of abstract objects. On the other hand, physics is the study of concrete objects. The concrete objects of physics are conceptually composed of the abstract objects of geometry, but these geometrical shapes have no existence on their own.

Now, I have difficulty with the statement that “consciousness exists”. I think my difficulty is a tendency to veer toward what you call “reductionism”. To state that consciousness exists begs the question “what is consciousness?”. If it is defined as the motion and interaction of fundamental constituents (FCs) resulting in goal-directed/purpose-driven activity, then it does not exist. The word used this way is a concept, it is a relationship among concretes, specifically their spatial arrangement and motion. Now, I do not “deny consciousness”, for me this is simply a matter of consistency of definitions. We have one definition of exist and it simply cannot be used another way. I cannot establish a distance between consciousness and the wall, it does not have location, it does not exist.

However, I do not deny goal-directed activity (life). To even make this inquiry requires it. It is axiomatic because of language. Language is simply a set of rules/laws. Rules inherently produce goal-directed activity whereas having no rules does not. The universe must obey laws/rules because this is the only way to produce inquiries about laws/rules. This is purely an issue of defining the words we use in speech in a single way and always using it that way.

2

So what’s the question exactly?

3

So what’s the question exactly?

I hear many objectivists saying “consciousness exists” or “perception exists” when, according to the definition of exist (shape and location), they cannot be said to exist. They are concrete concepts, not concrete objects. Consciousness does not have location in my brain anymore than justice has location in a courthouse.

4

I hear many objectivists saying “consciousness exists” or “perception exists” when, according to the definition of exist (shape and location), they cannot be said to exist. They are concrete concepts, not concrete objects. Consciousness does not have location in my brain anymore than justice has location in a courthouse.

What is the shape and location of gravity?

Is it your contention that gravity does not exist?

I consider this irrefutable because, without a fundamental constituent, there is instant paradox. It would imply that there are no true concrete entities because all such entities would be made of other entities which are made of other entities. Nothing would have shape because shape is defined by a border, thus there would be no concretes.

A border defines the point where a thing stops existing. What is the border of the universe itself? If the universe has no border (is boundless), then does the universe therefore not exist?

Now, I believe my definition of exist is in agreement with the objectivist community:

Exist: Shape and location

What is the shape and location of 1:00 PM, Wednesday, October 29, 2008?

If an hour has no shape, and the hour is everywhere, and thus has no location, does time therefore not exist?

Now, I have difficulty with the statement that “consciousness exists”. I think my difficulty is a tendency to veer toward what you call “reductionism”. To state that consciousness exists begs the question “what is consciousness?”. If it is defined as the motion and interaction of fundamental constituents (FCs) resulting in goal-directed/purpose-driven activity, then it does not exist. The word used this way is a concept, it is a relationship among concretes, specifically their spatial arrangement and motion. Now, I do not “deny consciousness”, for me this is simply a matter of consistency of definitions. We have one definition of exist and it simply cannot be used another way. I cannot establish a distance between consciousness and the wall, it does not have location, it does not exist.

If consciousness does not exist, then you are not conscious to ask this question, and so I can not discuss it with you, for I also have no consciousness.

5

I hear many objectivists saying “consciousness exists” or “perception exists” when, according to the definition of exist (shape and location), they cannot be said to exist. They are concrete concepts, not concrete objects. Consciousness does not have location in my brain anymore than justice has location in a courthouse.

You are confusing “entity” with “existent”. Actions, relations, forces and abstractions exist; anything that exists is an “existent”. But not all existents are entities.

6

So objectivists define “entity” as shape+location and exist as?

7

So objectivists define “entity” as shape+location and exist as?

Forget “exist”. Do you think the terms “wisdom”, “rationality”, “pride”, “fear” and “consciousness” refer to something or are they all empty sounds that can mean the same thing because they mean nothing? If they mean something, how can that be unless they refer to something in reality?

8

So objectivists define “entity” as shape+location and exist as?

The concept “exist” is not a derivative, defined concept, it is axiomatic and self-evident.

9

So objectivists define “entity” as shape+location and exist as?

Yes, more or less, to the first half of the question. In his 1976 lectures on Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff described “entity” this way:

This term [entity] may be used in several senses. If you speak in the primary sense, “entity” has to be defined ostensively—that is to say, by pointing. I can, however, give you three descriptive characteristics essential to the primary, philosophic use of the term, according to Objectivism. This is not a definition, because I’d have to rely ultimately on pointing to make these points clear, but it will give you certain criteria for the application of the term in the primary sense . . .

  1. An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence—as against a quality, an action, a relationship, etc., which are simply aspects of an entity that we separate out by specialized focus. An entity is a thing.
  2. An entity, in the primary sense, is a solid thing with a definite boundary—as against a fluid, such as air. In the literal sense, air is not an entity. There are contexts, such as when the wind moves as one mass, when you can call it that, by analogy, but in the primary sense, fluids are not entities.
  3. An entity is perceptual in scale, in size. In other words it is a “this” which you can point to and grasp by human perception. In an extended sense you can call molecules—or the universe as a whole—“entities,” because they are self-sufficient things. But in the primary sense when we say that entities are what is given in sense perception, we mean solid things which we can directly perceive.

So entities in the primary sense are solid things, spatially located.

Existence, for Objectivism, is ultimately defined ostensively. You look out and you perceive things existing. When you ask “what do we mean by existing” the final answer reduces to just pointing. The law of identity states that to be is to be something, to have identity. Rand summarizes this as “Existence is identity.” Existence is broader than entity, in that there are existents which are not entities.

Taking a step back from your specific questions, I want to make a point about your methodology. It is an excellent example of what Objectivism characterizes as “rationalism”. You begin with an abstract statement: “One or more fundamental constituent(s) exist.” Your justification for this is not grounded in observation of reality, but by a purely deductive argument attempting to reduce the contrary to contradiction. Having established your starting premise, you then proceed to deduce consequences from it in a chain. Eventually your deductive chain conflicts with something of which you are directly aware – in this case, the existence of consciousness. The conflict puts you in a bind. In effect, you have deduced that consciousness does not exist, but you have a direct awareness that it does. I suggest that the root of the problem is with the overall methodology you are using.

Done properly, philosophical arguments should not be deductive chains grounded in arbitrary premises. They should be integrations of observations of reality. Your axioms should ultimately be validated perceptually, ostensively – “Look and see”. From that standpoint, the nature of the ultimate constituents of reality has no philosophical significance. It is an issue for the special sciences. Philosophy tells us only a few things about such hypothetical ultimate constituents: if they exist, they have a specific identity and act in accordance with it, and their identity is such that they produce the world which we perceive directly. That’s it. Peikoff writes about this explicitly in the first chapter of his book Objectivism.

The validation that consciousness exists is direct and ostensive. I, at least, have the experience of awareness. It’s present in every cognitive act I perform. Questions about the specific nature of consciousness, its operations and its relationship to other existents come later. We don’t need to know those things about what consciousness is in order to know that it is.

10

How can anything have meaning if the words composing it are undefined? Language precedes consciousness. If we are to discuss and inquire the language must absolutely be unambiguous. If we leave it at “self-evident” then how am I to know that, when I utter “exist” and someone else does, we are communicating effectively? Even more to the point, when I communicate with myself, i.e. think, how do I know what I’m talking about unless the word “exist” is unambiguously defined?

I think some are misunderstanding me. Please listen carefully. There are abstract concepts and concrete concepts. When you utter “justice” you are uttering a concept (no shape or location) that refers to a relationship among concrete objects (a judge or a courtroom, or whatever it is you associate with justice). A concept that refers to a relationship among concrete objects is relevant to existence. This can be distinguished from when someone utters “rotation of a tribar”. A tribar is not a concrete object (it lacks location) and thus any relationship involving it is an abstract concept (a concept with no relevance to existence).

Thus, sounds/symbols that refer to a relationship among concretes cannot be said to exist because the symbol does not refer to that which has shape and location. It refers to a RELATIONSHIP among those that have shape and location. In a universe with no life there would be no relationships because there would be no consciousness to name and categorize them. There would just be a collection of FC’s changing location. Relationships do not have an independent “existence” whereas concrete objects have shape and location independent of the presence of life. This seems an important distinction to me.

khaight:

You posted that just before I posted. Thank you very much for your well thought out post, I will need to think on it a while.

For the time being, though, I do not see how one can avoid “fundamental constituent”. Denying it results in an infinite loop paradox.

11

How can anything have meaning if the words composing it are undefined?

I suggest looking into the idea of an ostensive definition. “Exist” is an axiomatic concept.

Language precedes consciousness.

No, that’s false.

If we are to discuss and inquire the language must absolutely be unambiguous.

That’s also untrue.

how do I know what I’m talking about unless the word “exist” is unambiguously defined?

By consideration of the referents.

For the time being, though, I do not see how one can avoid “fundamental constituent”.

What is a “fundamental constituent”? I’m managed to not refer to such a thing previously in my life, so I’d like to know what it’s an alternative name for.

12

“I suggest looking into the idea of an ostensive definition. “Exist” is an axiomatic concept.” -DavidOdden

An ostensive definition is exactly that which I use to define “exist”: That which has shape and location. I can theoretically point at anything that has shape and location. I cannot point at that which lacks shape or location. One cannot ostensibly define anything that does not have shape and location. Did you read my opening post?

“Language precedes consciousness.” -David

In the sense that a language is a set of rules/laws. There can be no consciousness (no goal-directed activity) if there are no rules. Therefore, the universe must behave in accordance with specific rules. Language/rules/laws inherently give rise to goal-directed activity.

“What is a “fundamental constituent”? I’m managed to not refer to such a thing previously in my life, so I’d like to know what it’s an alternative name for.” -David

I already defined it in my opening post. Did you read it? It is a continuous object, not made of smaller objects.

13

Did you read my opening post?

Yes, I just can’t make sense of it.

In the sense that a language is a set of rules/laws.

That’s not what language is.

It is a continuous object, not made of smaller objects.

Okay, so what you’re saying is that the possibility of decomposing the structure of any entity is finite. I think everybody here agrees. The same would go for the any relationship, although the method for computing a relationship could be unbounded.

14

For the time being, though, I do not see how one can avoid “fundamental constituent”. Denying it results in an infinite loop paradox.

I still don’t see the philosophical significance of the issue. Think of it this way. We know now that tables are made up of atoms in combination. But we knew many other things about tables before we figured out that they were made up of something more fundamental, and that knowledge was valid. Tables and the atoms that make them up are equally real. Learning how the identity of the table emerges from the interactions of more basic constituents does not undermine the reality of the table. Learning how the identity of the atoms emerges from the interactions of electrons, protons and neutrons does not undermine the reality of the atoms. Learning how the identity of the electrons, protons and neutrons emerges from the interactions of quarks does not undermine the reality of the electrons, protons and neutrons. And so on.

It happens that, given the nature of our consciousness, our direct contact with reality is at the level of tables, not quarks. So our grasp of reality begins with tables (and other equivalent macroscopic objects) and we move on to grasp atoms, subatomic particles and quarks through increasingly sophisticated chains of conceptual inference. A hypothetical being of much smaller scale might start with a direct perception of atoms and have to grasp tables via conceptual inference. But we are grasping the same reality as this hypothetical being, just in a different order and by different means. And the knowledge we have is valid even if there is another deeper level of composition which we have not yet identified.

At any given time, all knowledge chains are grounded in a given, about which one can say only that “it is”. Pushing the boundaries of knowledge out, converting an “it is” into an “it is, because”, doesn’t change this, because the new knowledge chain is still grounded in an “it is” – just with a new “it”. This isn’t a problem because we aren’t invalidating our old knowledge by expanding our understanding.

That’s why I view the question of “fundamental constituents” as a question for the special sciences, not for philosophy.

On to some other topics. You ask “How can anything have meaning if the words composing it are undefined?” Words are symbols, which stand for concepts. The meaning of a concept is the concretes it isolates and integrates in reality – the units which are instances of the concept, including all of their attributes. It should be apparent that, for Objectivism, meaning is not ultimately linguistic. Language is built out of concepts, and concepts are formed by a certain cognitive process which is grounded in perception and is thus pre-verbal. Translating your question into the Objectivist context yields something like “How can a concept have meaning if the concretes it integrates have not been identified?” And the answer to that is that such concepts do not have meaning precisely because they haven’t been properly formed. You say that language precedes consciousness. Objectivism flatly disagrees – consciousness precedes language. As infants we are aware of reality well before we are capable of forming concepts out of that awareness, or building language out of those concepts.

Understanding and communication are not the same thing. I have direct awareness of my own consciousness. I infer the existence of yours based on your actions. It is absolutely possible for us to use the same word for concepts that pick out very different things in reality because we formed the concepts differently. (Consider what happens when a liberal and a conservative try to talk to each other – the meanings they use for terms like “justice”, “freedom” and “rights” are radically different.) Naturally this obstructs communication. The only way to deal with this is to ask people what they mean when it seems they mean something other than what you originally took them as meaning. Reconstruct the process they followed in forming the disputed concept and determine whether they formed it correctly or not.

I think you have a misunderstanding of sorts when you talk about how relationships between entities would not exist without consciousness. In the way you are speaking, entities would also not exist without consciousness. When we describe an entity, we are identifying a fact about an aspect of reality – that it is bounded in a certain way. Without consciousness, that identification could not occur, but the underlying fact which was identified would remain. A relationship like “above” is similar. Absent consciousness, we would not have the identification of the relationship between two locations, but the fact of the relationship would still exist.

Don’t confuse “ostensive” with pointing. You’re right that, for example, one cannot physically point at consciousness. But what ostensive definition really is is an identification of a particular aspect of reality and a mental tag – “I mean like this.” Pointing is a useful physical way of expressing this identification when the ‘this’ in question is physical. But it isn’t necessary, and the mental identification/tagging can be done to non-physical cases – consciousness being a prime example.

I highly recommend reading Peikoff’s Objectivism, particularly chapters 1-4. These cover the Objectivist view on metaphysics, sense perception, volition, concept-formation and objectivity. The basic Objectivist approach to many of these issues is pretty different from yours, and without grasping that you’re going to find the philosophy very confusing.

15

Language is a tool for communicating concepts.

Before one can have a language for a concept, one must first have the concept.

Before one can have a concept, one must first have a consciousness with which to form the concept.

When teaching infants to sign - getting the child to mimic a hand gesture is easy - but the child must learn that the sign for ‘more milk’ means “please mother may I have some more lovely drink?” before the hand sign becomes language. Without the conceptual understanding, language is just sounds or gestures.

The child can not comprehend “I want more milk so I must make this sign to get more milk” without a consciousness to make those connections.

Concepts must form before a language can define the concept, and defining the concept gives rise to finding higher level concepts, which leads to new language, and so forth.

Mommy and Daddy become Man and Woman become People become Human become organism, and so forth, just like 2+2 becomes X2 + y2 = z2 becomes E=Mc2.

16

I hear many objectivists saying “consciousness exists” or “perception exists” when, according to the definition of exist (shape and location), they cannot be said to exist. They are concrete concepts, not concrete objects. Consciousness does not have location in my brain anymore than justice has location in a courthouse.

Well, that’s not what Objectivists say, and I’m with Kyle. How is this relevant?

Here’s the quote from OPAR relating “exists,” and consciousness.

The concept of “existence” is the widest of all concepts. It subsumes everything—every entity, action, attribute, relationship (including every state of consciousness)—everything which is, was, or will be. The concept does not specify that a physical world exists.(4) As the first concept at the base of knowledge, it covers only what is known, implicitly if not explicitly, by the gamut of the human race, from the newborn baby or the lowest savage on through the greatest scientist and the most erudite sage. All of these know equally the fundamental fact that there is something, something as against nothing.

You the reader have now grasped the first axiom of philosophy. This act implies a second axiom: that you exist possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Consciousness is not inherent in the fact of existence as such; a world without conscious organisms is possible. But consciousness is inherent in your grasp of existence. Inherent in saying “There is something—of which I am aware” is: "There is something—of which I am aware.

So, you exist , possessing the faculty of consciousness. That is, you are able to perceive the world around you. Do you take issue with that?

The rest of your post is rationalistic nonsense. It’s sort of the “consciousness is not ‘a thing’ therefore it can’t exist” sort of reasoning. You let me know if you really think that you don’t exist with the ability to actually perceive reality, and then we’ll talk.

However, by use of your own definition, your thoughts and opinions on this matter don’t exist. Since they do not exist, one does not have to give consideration to them.

PS: I love the idea of someone telling David Odden what language is. If you are going to do that, I hope you did your research… he certainly has.

That’s a double LOL from me. Great minds. :smiley:

17

Hi folks, this thread was born out of a direct conversation between Alton and I. The interaction is what lead to my recent post on 'The locality of abstrations". I just wanted to comment to the effect that Alton is truly sincere in his questions and he is asking out of honest desire to integrate his knowledge. Alton has grasped much of our talks on Oism quite fast. This is an oppourtunity for all of us to persuade an active mind in a positive manner.

18

The rest of your post is rationalistic nonsense. It’s sort of the “consciousness is not ‘a thing’ therefore it can’t exist” sort of reasoning. You let me know if you really think that you don’t exist with the ability to actually perceive reality, and then we’ll talk.

Ok so given Plasmatic’s statement, maybe I should not let this set as a sort of write-off and explain it. It’s a bit of reductio ad absurdum, but sometimes when used with axioms people dont’ get it.

Rationalism is the idea that new knowledge can be deduced by floating syllogisms. It’s an improper method, since knowledge is an identification of reality, every stage in a syllogistic chain, must tie back to reality via inductive evidence. So your initial argument looks like:

P1: “exists” is defined by some entity having space + location

P2: Consciousness does not have space + location

P3: Consciousness does not exist

On the face of it, this is absurd, since if consciousness doens’t exist, then you can’t be actually doing anything by stating the syllogism. You’re denying your own ability to give meaning to the syllogism. Consciousness, the existence of entities possessing that faculty, is readily observable. It does not require proof and it is actually axiomatic. To say anything, to have language, to attempt to prove anything, you have to first accept - maybe implicitly, but accept none the less - that you are here actually taking in the world. If you don’t accept that you look pretty darn silly and that’s why people try to get you to state otherwise.

It doesn’t matter what the syllogism says, you’re here. You’re consciouss. Right?

So the idea of existence cannot deny that fact. You exist. You are conscious.

Now every other conceptual idea or emotion, freedom, happiness, etc. has to rely on the idea that you exist, and on your nature as a conceptual being. That is, freedom is a concept. It exists as a mental construct. It’s physical symbolism is probably as some sort of chemical potential in your brain, but that is really irrelevant because it is it’s meaning within your consciousness that is important. Conceptualness is the fundamental so the talk about language is really irrelevant. You can’t put a name to something until you have the something in your mind.

So the short answer is that your definition of a thing existing is not at all what is meant when objectivists say existence exists. And that a definition as such is the wrong way to think about validating anything axiomatic. You don’t prove it. You don’t syllogize it. Certainly your discussion around entities gets to epistomological issues, but it’s not going to help you work out consciousness. Axioms are validated via direct sense perception. The only thing you can say to someone who says existence doesn’t exist is “look around.”

So the question I have for you in plain english if you could, is what is troubling about this idea?

How’s that Plaz?

19

This is an oppourtunity for all of us to persuade an active mind in a positive manner.

With that in mind, I’ll remove my previous comment. While it was not meant facetiously, it could certainly be taken that way.

20

With that in mind, I’ll remove my previous comment. While it was not meant facetiously, it could certainly be taken that way.

Ok so given Plasmatic’s statement, maybe I should not let this set as a sort of write-off and explain it

Good form gentleman !