This is an oppourtunity for all of us to persuade an active mind in a positive manner.
For what it’s worth, I never thought Alton was being dishonest. He strikes me as smart and intellectually engaged. But he’s starting from a very different context, which means there’s going to be a lot of premise-checking and discussions of method before content. I wouldn’t have bothered writing the two earlier posts I contributed to the discussion if I had thought he wasn’t sincere in his curiosity.
Thanks everyone, very much, I know you all took a good bit of time with this. By the way, to avoid confusion, by “language” I do not mean symbols or sounds even, but simply a set of rules. A good example is, picturing two continuous (indivisible, undeformable) spheres approaching and coming to 0 distance, what is the rule that governs their behavior? Well, at 0 distance the rule is that distance must then increase. This is self-evident and we term it “collision” which gives rise to repulsion between entities. I called this, possibly in error, language. I’m not sure what else I would term it.
I think a lot of the problem is that I’m starting from a different context than objectivism and I did not see that at first. As one poster said, I am starting from a point termed “rationalism”. With my lack of experience I confused the two philosophies. I have studied practically no philosophy in my lifetime so thank everyone for your patience.
I believe objectivists essentially start from Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” point? Their consciousness and perception precedes everything. Their constant experience and perception IS existence, they need no definition, it simply IS. Existence simply IS because they perceive/identify/are conscious; existence is what they perceive. Do I have this correct?
Assuming that is correct, I do not have a problem with it. I do not deny my consciousness, my perception, my existence, nor any other existence. However, in the interest of objectivity, I am compelled to ask “What exists independent of me?”. This is not in the interest of removing myself from or denying my existence, but rather gauging the effect of my consciousness. I can imagine that, indeed, there are entities with shape and location (indivisibles) whether I ever point to them or think of them or, by extension, whether there is ever consciousness. However, immediately upon gaining consciousness I must accept (even implicitly) my consciousness and existence. These do not exist independent of my consciousness (to avoid contradictoin) and I would call them dependent existences whereas I would call indivisible objects independent existences. This does not make dependent existences any less “real” because I have accepted them implicitly, axiomatically. However it is unavoidable that they be distinguished from independent existences in order to avoid self-contradiction and maintain consistency. I conclude that the effect of my consciousness is the existence of my consciousness as a dependent existent. Additionally, all of my thoughts are dependently existent and any concept is a dependent existent (if it is a concept that is a relationship among concretes).
So the table is a dependent existent, if I were not conscious and nothing else was there is no “table” here, only a collection of fundamental constituents. However, I exist, my consciousness exists, I identify, and I identify the table. Therefore by virtue of my identification/consciousness the table exists.
I do not think this technically disagrees with objectivist philosophy, I hope that it merely clarifies. I do not see a way around distinguishing independent and dependent existents (entities?) if one is to maintain objectivity. I also do not see any reason that making this distinction interferes with the current core of objectivist philosophy.
I believe objectivists essentially start from Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” point?
Not really. Closer would be to say: “I think, therefore I cannot deny I am”. Or, perhaps, “I cannot deny I am, because a denial itself assumes I am”. (You can’t have a consciousness-free denial of consciousness.)
By the way, to avoid confusion, by “language” I do not mean symbols or sounds even, but simply a set of rules… I’m not sure what else I would term it.
I think you need to maintain a distinction between facts, which are mind-independent, and rules, which are mental integrations (conceptualizations) of patterns or relationships between facts. Take the example you used, of two spheres bouncing off each other. In reality, you have the fact of two spheres interacting in a certain way. You observe that. You observe other entities interacting, and you see similarities between those other interactions and that of the two spheres. You conceptualize the similarity as “collision”.
I think a lot of the problem is that I’m starting from a different context than objectivism and I did not see that at first. As one poster said, I am starting from a point termed “rationalism”. With my lack of experience I confused the two philosophies.
“Rationalism” in the sense I used it isn’t so much a philosophy as a way of thinking. There are numerous philosophers who have used rationalistic methods but who vary widely in their substantive content. Plato used rationalistic argument. So did Kant, Leibniz, Spinoza and Descartes. But their philosophies are very different in content.
You can think of rationalism as a philosophical method which focuses on concepts while turning away from reality. Rationalists love to build abstract castles in the sky, but have trouble connecting them to the actual world we experience through sense perception. Rationalism is contrasted with two other approaches, ‘empiricism’ and ‘objectivism’. Empiricism is basically the flip side of rationalism – a focus on facts and sense perception, grasped discretely without benefit of conceptualization. Objectivism is a blending – a focus on reality as grasped through concepts. (Or, conversely, concepts as grounded in reality.)
You should also be aware that the Objectivist use of ‘rationalism’ and ‘empiricism’ is somewhat ideosyncratic in the history of philosophy. If you see the terms used in a standard philosophy text they will have a somewhat different meaning. I point this out so you won’t be confused if and when that happens.
I believe objectivists essentially start from Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” point? Their consciousness and perception precedes everything. Their constant experience and perception IS existence, they need no definition, it simply IS. Existence simply IS because they perceive/identify/are conscious; existence is what they perceive. Do I have this correct?
Not exactly, although given the earlier posts in the thread I can see why you would think so. One difference between the Cartesian approach and the Objectivist one is that Descartes accepted what we today call the prior certainty of consciousness. This is the idea that we know consciousness before we know existence. Objectivism rejects this. All consciousness is consciousness of something. We must be aware of something external to consciousness before we can be aware of ourselves as conscious. The famous passage from Rand laying out her approach to the axioms is:
Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.
To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors —the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
Moving on.
I do not think this technically disagrees with objectivist philosophy, I hope that it merely clarifies. I do not see a way around distinguishing independent and dependent existents (entities?) if one is to maintain objectivity. I also do not see any reason that making this distinction interferes with the current core of objectivist philosophy.
Hmm. I think the distinction you are drawing between mind-independent and mind-dependent existents is the same as the distinction in early modern philosophy between primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities were held to exist independent of our awareness of them – shape and size are the canonical examples, or perhaps atomic structure in the modern world. Secondary qualities were held to be dependent on our awareness. Examples included color and temperature.
This distinction led to many problems in philosophy. Primary qualities were held to be ‘out there’, in reality, but the metaphysical status of secondary qualities was a tangled knot. Where is the ‘redness’. It can’t be ‘out there’, because if consciousness goes away then the redness goes away. But if it’s in the mind, then color is subjective – it’s an illusion, something we create because of the nature of our minds, not real.
Objectivism rejects the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, for reasons I don’t want to go into now because I have to go to work. I think Peikoff’s discussion of this in chapter 2 of Objectivism would be illuminating, particular the section on “The Metaphysical Status of Sensory Qualities”. You might also look into The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley.
By the way, to avoid confusion, by “language” I do not mean symbols or sounds even, but simply a set of rules.
Okay, but now we have a problem. By “language”, _ I _ mean something quite different: I mean a specific system of symbolic communication with particular properties, a system that is crucial to human cognition and communication. Some specific examples are “English”, “French”, “Hungarian”, “Saami”. Some things which are not language are “painting”, “music”, “fish pheromones”, “electronic circuits”. Now here’s a problem: if you use the word “language” your way and I use the word "language: my way, I’m betting there will be some pointless misunderstandings that arise.
A good example is, picturing two continuous (indivisible, undeformable) spheres approaching and coming to 0 distance, what is the rule that governs their behavior? Well, at 0 distance the rule is that distance must then increase. This is self-evident and we term it “collision” which gives rise to repulsion between entities. I called this, possibly in error, language. I’m not sure what else I would term it.
You’re speaking of the laws of physics, it seems. Talk to a physics guy about the specific laws that pertain to particles smacking each other.
I believe objectivists essentially start from Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” point?
No, we start my rejecting Cartesian rationalism. Existence is primary, and consciousness depends on prior existence.
Probably what causes your confusion is that we reject the view that pure reason creates existence, so in that sense, reason is not so important. But man’s faculty of reasoning is essential to his survival, thus the second R (in the Northwest corner of your screen) is Reason. Specifically, that means the capacity to integrate percepts which are caused by the facts of reality, which creates knowledge.
So the table is a dependent existent, if I were not conscious and nothing else was there is no “table” here, only a collection of fundamental constituents.
If your did not exist but all other men existed, there would be a table. just no you. If no men existed but trees and birds existed, there wouldn’t even be a table, but there could be trees. If no trees or stuff existed – if existence didn’t exist – we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Therefore by virtue of my identification/consciousness the table exists.
No, by virtue of the fact that some other man created the table, the table exists, and it exists completely independent of you. Because you exist, you might recognise the thing as a table. You could even create a concept for such a thing if it didn’t already exist, e.g. you could look at one and say “What a clever object! I shall teach my people about it, and I shall call it ‘miis’!”.
Starting with “tables” may be a bad way to get a proper grasp of the relationship between other objects and consciousness. Tables are purely man-made, whereas “lizards” are naturally occurring. The classification “lizard” is man-made, but it reflects natural fact (history and structure). Other classifications are possible, and exist.
I believe objectivists essentially start from Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” point? Their consciousness and perception precedes everything. Their constant experience and perception IS existence, they need no definition, it simply IS. Existence simply IS because they perceive/identify/are conscious; existence is what they perceive. Do I have this correct?
No, not really.
Consciousness exists is the third axiom. Existence would exist whether we were conscious or not. The fact that we are observing it only means that there is an entity present to do the observing.
In short: There is something which I perceive.
There is: Existence exists
Something: existence is identity
which I perceive: consciousness exists
That’s the hierarchical order of the axioms. Consciousness could not exist without existence or identity, but existence exists with or without consciousness.
Okay I see. The objectivist perceives and thus concludes that s/he exists and is conscious, otherwise how would s/he perceive. Also that s/he perceives someTHING, and therefore identity is also self-evident by virtue of existence. I think I have it now.
David: Indeed we would be at odds. I don’t see a difference between “physical laws” and “linguistic laws”, they both simply state that “situation X results in Y results in Z… etc.”. They are both a chain of internal consistency (consistent with rules/laws posited at the outset). In the case of indivisible constituents no “body” posited the rules. They simply are, they are axiomatic. An indivisible is axiomatic as a result of dentity. In a hypothetical universe with no indivisible there is no identity since every single thing’s identity is a sum of other thing’s identities which are the sum of other thing’s identities… which never ends and so a single entity can never be assigned a single identity. Because of the axiom of identity and the extension to the indivisible, two indivisible constituents (such as spheres) cannot remain at 0 distance or they would now possess a single contour, a new continuous object, and would be called something else, a dumbbell or something. Being continuous this new object would be defined as indivisible, yet it was clearly produced from two parts. This is a self-contradiction. Therefore, repulsion is axiomatic by extension of the axioms of identity and indivisible constituent. There is no existence without repulsion/collision. I am referring to these laws, required by the very nature of existence, a form of “language”. In the absence of this “language” there is not existence. That is why I state that “language precedes existence”. Better stated perhaps “non-contradiction precedes existence”. However, I can see the fallacy in that, to conceptualize these rules/laws I must exist, therefore existence precedes them. On the other hand, these laws/rules must have held before I ever conceptualized them. So perhaps non-contradiction IS existence, and non-contradiction IS rule/law consistency. Non-contradictory rules/laws inherently produce goal-directed activity (consciousness and life) as opposed to chaos, which inherently cannot, so we cannot imagine existence without life, life is a natural consequence of existence. Non contradiction (“language” as I poorly put it) is existence is consciousness is life.
People who make contradictory statements confirm their own error every moment of their life. Non-contradiction IS life.
Also David, it sounds like objectivist epistemology would examine the appropriate ways to apply man’s reasoning?
The example of the table is, perhaps, poor. Let’s say “rock” instead. Everyone loves to discuss the “rock” when illustrating a universe without life. If I make my point with the rock I think it is illustrated better. Now, life is a natural consequence of non-contradiction, but there is no axiom or anything that requires there to *always* be life. If all life was vanquished from the universe there is not “rock”. A person is not there to name it so. There are merely indivisible constituents acting in accordance with their identities. Thus there are “independent existents”, indivisible structures. However with the very first perception by a consciousness there are now “dependent existents”. The life-form perceives and concludes axiomatically that it exists and has perceived someTHING (identity). There is now “rock” when the perceiver looks at it and conceptualizes the cluster of indivisible fragments. The rock is a “dependent existent”. Does this make my point clearer?
Khait:
Thanks for the clarification on Descartes and Rationalism. Also in response to the “mind dependent and independent” existents. I don’t think this is what I’m talking about. There is a difference between “table” and “red”. While both classified under the broad term “dependent existent” (just as humans are classified as mammals) but are contrasted by an additional classification. There are “dependent concrete existents” and “dependent conceptual existents”. They can be distinguished by how they are defined/understood. A concrete existent is defined/understood by pointing. I point at the rock, the table, etc. A conceptual existent is defined by comparing. This can be a series or combination of pointing, but it is still a comparison and fundamentally distinguished from a concrete. The example of color is a good way to illustrate this. To understand “red” you cannot simply point at an apple or look at an apple. Objectively all you see is “apple”. The fact that it has *some* color is only understand by, then, seeing a green apple for instance. With two red apples you still only understand “apple”. However with two differently-colored apples you now understand that what you previously termed “apple” is broad, that the term “apple” can refer to objects with a different quality. You can then name the different objects as “green apple, red apple, etc.”. However, you still only understand the color as a comparison to what it is NOT. These are conceptual existents. Other examples are “up”, “justice”, and “dishonest”. They are all ultimately understood by comparison of two or more concrete existents. Again, I do not think this is at odds with the fundamental core of objectivism. I am saying that red, big, etc. exist, but that they are simply fundamentally different than table, rock, and tree. Also these are fundamentally different from “indivisible constituent”, an independent existent.
Finally, it’s true that the actual nature of the indivisible is irrelevant to philosophy, philosophy simply says that there is one. Its architecture/shape is the primary study of physics. Whether there is just one or fifteen trillion is also the primary study of physics. Philosophy, in starting from axioms, states that there is at least one.
David: Indeed we would be at odds. I don’t see a difference between “physical laws” and “linguistic laws”, they both simply state that “situation X results in Y results in Z… etc.”.
Physical laws exist whether we are aware of them and understand them or not. Physical laws are eternal.
Linguistic laws are created by the same consciousnesses (whats the proper plural?) that created the language. Linguistic laws vary from language to language. They are transient.
They simply are, they are axiomatic.
An axiom in our terms is that which cannot be explained without reference to itself. If I describe Gravity, I can explain and reduce, explain and reduce, but only to a point - that Existence exists. (Not Gravity exists - because that means something exists. (I’m not sure I’m using the right term when I say “reduce” - I mean explain more and more fundamental concepts.
So perhaps non-contradiction IS existence, and non-contradiction IS rule/law consistency.
We would say that non-contradiction is the second axiom. Existence is identity. A thing can not be and not be: A is A, and A cannot be “Not A”.
Volitionaly consciousness, however, can be contradictory - but in being so, acts against itself. The universe doesn’t change to accomodate the contradiction - the consciousness simply denies reality.
People who make contradictory statements confirm their own error every moment of their life. Non-contradiction IS life.
Non-contradiction is existence. Life just is. 
Also David, it sounds like objectivist epistemology would examine the appropriate ways to apply man’s reasoning?
It would - suggest you read “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Peikoff - for a comprehensive exploration of Objectivist Philosophy as a whole, and “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” by Rand for a more detailed examine of reasoning, concept formation, etc.
I don’t see a difference between “physical laws” and “linguistic laws”, they both simply state that “situation X results in Y results in Z… etc.”.
I don’t remember if it was mentioned in this thread, but Objectivist epistemology is explained in the aptly names Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Rand. One of the point that is repeated in that book and in discussions of Objectivist epistemology is the genus / species distinction. We have a broad concept of “law” which roughly refers to all principles of the form “situation X results in Y”, the “genus”. We can get more specific by talking about a linguistic law, or a physical law, or moral law. Physical and linguistic laws don’t intersect – gravity and grammar are different things. They do have a similarity, namely they are kinds of laws.
In the case of indivisible constituents no “body” posited the rules.
Actually, laws are expressions of fact, so every law is “posited” (or, to get etymological, “given”). Hence the law of gravity F=GMm/d^2 is an expression of actual facts of existence which was discovered and posited (by Newton). Mathematical operations such as exponentiation, multiplication and division aren’t part of the “raw universe”, they are operations created by man in expressing relations that exist in the universe.
An indivisible is axiomatic as a result of dentity. In a hypothetical universe with no indivisible there is no identity since every single thing’s identity is a sum of other thing’s identities which are the sum of other thing’s identities… which never ends and so a single entity can never be assigned a single identity.
I don’t agree that the identity of a thing is the sum of its parts. A man is more than the totality of his atoms. However, your argument could be corrected to remove that assumption. I understand where you’re going with that argument, I just do not find the claim to be axiomatic (although the conclusion is true).
Because of the axiom of identity and the extension to the indivisible, two indivisible constituents (such as spheres) cannot remain at 0 distance or they would now possess a single contour, a new continuous object, and would be called something else, a dumbbell or something.
This is basically the Pauli Exclusion Principle, right; but that is a “scientific result”, not an axiom (and it’s applicable to fermions).
What is the shape and location of gravity?
Is it your contention that gravity does not exist?
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?
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?
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.
Ask yourself what is gravity. Is it the description of the attraction or is it the thread connecting the objects? If it is the thread(object) and has location then it can be said to exist.
To say that a thing stops existing implies that it can lose length, width, and height, this is irrational? The universe, like alton once explained(lets see if I get this correct), is all objects and space. Space does not have shape so to say there is a border is irrational?
Time has no shape or location so it does not exist according to his definition of the word exist(which I agree with).
What is consciousness? Is it a bunch of chemicals in our brains? If so it can be said to exist.
P1: “exists” is defined by some entity having space + location
P2: Consciousness does not have space + location
P3: Consciousness does not exist
Exist is shape and location not space and location.
What is consciousness? If it’s chemicals in your brain then it certainly has shape and location.
What is consciousness? If it’s chemicals in your brain then it certainly has shape and location.
“If” doesn’t help us. Are you positing that consciousness is “chemicals in your brain”?
“If” doesn’t help us. Are you positing that consciousness is “chemicals in your brain”?
Well thats a good question, and I’ll have to think about that. I put ‘if’ in order to tie it to that definition of exist.
You are confusing “entity” with “existent”. Actions, relations, forces and abstractions exist; anything that exists is an “existent”. But not all existents are entities.
What distinguishes the subset of entities from existents?
What distinguishes the subset of entities from existents?
I have a post earlier in the thread with an extended quote from Leonard Peikoff describing some of the characteristics of entities that distinguish them from the broader class of existents. I suggest referring back to that to see if it clarifies things for you.
I have a post earlier in the thread with an extended quote from Leonard Peikoff describing some of the characteristics of entities that distinguish them from the broader class of existents. I suggest referring back to that to see if it clarifies things for you.
On the face of it these make as much sense as the medieval distinctions bt primary and secondary characteristics. I.e., these aren’t empirical, but rather merely nominal distinctions. The third characteristic concedes as much.
I’m also unsure of the meaning of ‘self-sufficient’ in the first characteristic. Aren’t all entities “separate[d] out by specialized focus”? “An entity is a thing” sounds like a tautology IMO.
What distinguishes the subset of entities from existents?
Why would the distinction be important to you?
David:
you said “Actually, laws are expressions of fact, so every law is “posited” (or, to get etymological, “given”). Hence the law of gravity F=GMm/d^2 is an expression of actual facts of existence which was discovered and posited (by Newton).”
I am saying that the universe obeys certain laws and rules whether any “body” discovers or posits them. Whatever you call them, laws, rules, etc. It’s a system where every cause has a specific effect. Nobody decided what the laws of the universe were to be, they just are.
Also, my argument about an indivisible, continuous, homogenous entity could simply say that “The identity of an object is directly related to the sum of its constituents”. This leaves out the assumption that an object is exactly the sum of its constituents. Arguing that assumption would probably horribly derail the thread.
You also said “This is basically the Pauli Exclusion Principle, right; but that is a “scientific result”, not an axiom (and it’s applicable to fermions).”
No, what I am saying is more general. What I am saying is not a scientific result but a matter of the logical extension of ubiquitous observations (namely the observation of identity). The PEP is a theory of quantum that is built upon the corpuscular hypothesis specifically. It requires an assumption that is not axiomatic (a hypothesis) and draws conclusions from that assumption. The existence of the indivisible follows from the axiom of identity and leads to the conclusion that no two indivisible objects may remain at 0 distance. Upon this conclusion based on ubiquitous observation it is now the job of physicists to elucidate the architecture of these indivisible objects through specific experimentation. Once they have discovered the architecture they can then explain how these entities interact and produce the objects we observe and manipulate in general (i.e. they tie the specific experimentation back to ubiquitous observations).
Trivas:
you said “What distinguishes the subset of entities from existents?”
Entity: Shape and location
Existent: An entity or a relationship among entities
Existent is the more general category. It can be subdivided:
Independent Existent: A continuous, indivisible entity. Essentially synonymous with “entity”.
Concrete Dependent Existent: A collection of independent existents (entites) with one or more particular set(s) of spatial arrangements.
Abstract/Conceptual Dependent Existent: A collection of independent or concrete existents with two or more consecutive set(s) of spatial arrangements.
These go from the conceptually simple (1) to the conceptually complex (3).
Thus, tables and cows fall into category 2. Love, justice, and consciousness fall into category 3. It may be difficult to understand the difference between 2 and 3 at first glance. The important thing to realize is that 2 is a *static* relationship whereas 3 is *dynamic*, the keyword is “consecutive” implying time. For the sake of discussion lets assume that the atom is the fundamental constituent, the argument works whatever we call the fundamental constituent. For instance, you may refer to a particular collection of atoms as a tree. The atoms are not always in precisely the same location, but you can assign a set of locations for all the atoms such that you still identify it as a tree if all the atoms are at one of the locations you assigned it. Mathematically this could easily become outrageously complicated, but conceptually it is not hard. So if some bark gets scraped off and a few trillion of the atoms are carried to the Andromeda Galaxy you still identify the tree because you can decide that, as long as a certain minimum number of atoms remain at some minimum proximity, it is still a tree. If the tree is chopped in half you may not identify it as a tree anymore although the two pieces lie within inches of each other. Instead of a tiny fraction of the atoms being separated you’re now dealing with half the atoms in the tree, which may be above your minimum number. No matter what your criteria, it is always static. You always look at where all the atoms are simultaneously and decide if it’s a tree right then.
On the other hand, category three is dynamic. Love is not simply a picture of specific atoms at specific locations whether they are in someone’s brain or body or whatever. It takes more than two people at some proximity for love to exist. There must be interaction, motion, etc. Love is not just a candlelit fancy restaurant with two people sitting at a table. It is one person talking to the other, looking at each other, thinking, planning, feeling, etc. Consciousness is the quintessential example. There is simply no single set of spatial locations of entities that results in consciousness. Consciousness involves consecutive locations, motion, interaction, etc. Justice is not simply a courtroom, it is an action or set of actions. It is a judge pronouncing sentence or a revolutionary fighting for the neglected common folk. Category three is the ubiquitous experience of everyday, our lives, our experiences. It is without a doubt the most complex.
I thought of an additional quality to distinguish the three classes of existent while considering the word “create”. Which, if any, existents can be “created”?
First, what does this word “create” mean? To some it means simply “to make something out of nothing”. However this violates the axiom of identity. We must, then, define “create” merely as some kind of a change in the location of entities that already exist. Lets think about some simple examples of “creating” to help.
If I break a branch I can say “I created a stick”. The stick and the branch are distinguished because they have different identities. The branch’s identity involved direct attachment to the tree in addition to several chemical processes that depended on materials gathered by the roots. The stick’s identity does not involve direct attachment to the tree or the same chemical processes as before (a new set of processes, associated with rot and such, would define the stick’s identity). On the other hand, if I stack some rocks and walk away did I create a wall? Did I create a pile?
These two scenarios are fundamentally different because in the first case I identified the stick at the expense of the tree’s identity. Certainly, the tree is not the same tree as it was before I identified the stick. As in the original post, I identify a class 2 existent by a specific set of spatial criteria of the constituents relative to each other. If breaking and separating one of its branches does not violate my spatial criteria I cannot identify the stick if I am consistent with my own criteria. I still must identify the totality of all the constituents as “tree”. Alternatively I can decide to change my criteria for what I identify as “tree”. In the second case I identified the wall/pile by virtue of the sum of individual identities. So, we have two scenarios for creation: creating an entity with an identity at the expense of one or more other entities’ identity(ies) or creating an entity with an identity by the sum of two or more other entities’ identities.
Expense Creation: Verb. Changing the location of one or more entities (which compose entity A) followed by the identification of an entity ( 
only by altering the spatial criteria for identification of entity A.
So if I peel some paint off my car and identify what I pull off as a “flake” I have identified it at the expense of altering some spatial criteria for the car. For instance, before one of my criteria for identifying the car may have been that no more than .1% of the constituents of the paint were placed at a distance of no more than 1 micrometer from X many constituents of the car. Since I have violated that criteria I no longer identify it as car. I must reformulate my criteria of identification of the car to not include the paint that has been peeled off at all. When I do, I identify the flake with some criteria.
This all sounds terribly complicated and I know nobody is ever going to identify their car or other things in this much detail. In reality you will simply look at an object and decide it’s identity. But you must realize that, at some level, what I have described is what is going on. Your brain must use some set of criteria. It is important to get these kinds of details down and to understand the principles solidly before going on to more complex topics and discussions.
Sum Creation: Verb. Changing the location of one or more entities (that are not entity A) followed by the identification of an entity (A) as a relationship among the entities moved in addition to any other entities.
So I identify a bunch of individual blocks. I move them closer to another bunch of blocks. Then I identify “pile” as some set of spatial criteria of each block relative to the other. This one’s a lot cleaner/easier to understand.
Therefore, only class 2 existents (dependent concretes) can be “created” by definition. Class 3 existents cannot because they are concepts, not objects. This is a matter of internal consistency (verbs may only proceed concrete nouns, standard English) and avoiding absurdity (we can only imagine concrete nouns performing actions, i.e. people walk, chairs fall, but justice doesn’t punish and love doesn’t jump). Class 1 existents cannot be “created” because they are continuous entities (not made of smaller entities) and the only way to “create” such a thing is for it to appear out of nothing. This avoids violating the axiom of identity, which is why I expressly left it out of my definition in the first place.
Summary: Class 1 and 3 existents cannot be created. Only class 2 existents can be created by definition.
Alton:
The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power—and it is the only meaning of the concept “creative.” “Creation” does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. “Creation” means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before. (This is true of any human product, scientific or esthetic: man’s imagination is nothing more than the ability to rearrange the things he has observed in reality.) The best and briefest identification of man’s power in regard to nature is Francis Bacon’s “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” In this context, “to be commanded” means to be made to serve man’s purposes; “to be obeyed” means that they cannot be served unless man discovers the properties of natural elements and uses them accordingly.
In regard to nature, “to accept what I cannot change” means to accept the metaphysically given; “to change what I can” means to strive to rearrange the given by acquiring knowledge—as science and technology (e.g., medicine) are doing; “to know the difference” means to know that one cannot rebel against nature and, when no action is possible, one must accept nature serenely.
olition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation. Further, metaphysical facts are unalterable by man, and limit the alternatives open to his choice. Man can rearrange the materials that exist in reality, but he cannot violate their <ioe2_111> identity; he cannot escape the laws of nature. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
Thought youd appreaciate Rands comments above.