"This above all, to thine own self be true"
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 9 users and 9 guests online.
PollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 85% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 4% Intervene massively—as it's doing 2% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 2% Something else (specify) 7% Total votes: 54
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Existence-Is-Identity Axioms Submitted by Stephen Boydstun on Sat, 2007-11-03 14:41.
“To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, 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 role 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. . . .” (AS 1016). Rand maintained that the concept of identity is a philosophical axiom, in the following sense: “An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. Let [one] who does not choose to accept the axiom of identity, try to present his theory without using the concept of identity or any concept derived from it” (1040). (See also Chapter 6 of ITOE and ARS - Lennox.) Rand takes the proposition “Existence is identity” to express a primary fact. This proposition is a fundamental composition upon the concepts existence and identity (further, pp. 44–45), which concepts, along with the concept consciousness, Rand takes as axiomatic. Two other propositions expressing primary facts are “Existence exists” and “Consciousness is of existence not only itself.” Rand constructs arguments to show that these two propositions are indeed axiomatic (AS 1015–16, 1039–40). I have come round to taking the proposition “Existence is identity” as an epigram encapsulating identity postulates on existence, such as the proposition “To exist . . . is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.” Three years ago, led by Rand’s text, I began drawing forth other identity postulates on existence contracted into “Existence is identity.” I have constructed arguments showing that some of these postulates are indeed axiomatic. I will here share a couple of these postulates and my demonstrations that their denials give rise to self-contradictions. A. Exclusions of Non-Contradiction: Entities Rand states her finer structure for the law of identity as follows. “Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute, or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. . . . A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole” (AS 1016). Rand’s law of identity entails that objects come in some exclusive kinds. Leaf and stone are kinds that are exclusive with respect to each other. Any object is also of kinds that are not exclusive of each other: a leaf is a kind of plant part, it is a kind of light catcher, and it is a kind of drain clogger. To say that an object is a leaf and a stone violates identity in Rand’s sense; it is a contradiction. But to say that an object is a leaf and a drain clogger is no contradiction. Objects come in some exclusive kinds, and it is sensitivity to these sets of kinds that is written into Rand’s conception of noncontradiction concerning the kind-identity of an object. (Cf. Plato’s Sophist 252e–54b.) Rand clearly intends that what is here proposed for objects is to be generalized to entities. Every entity is of some kinds that are exclusive relative to other kinds of entity. Rand uses the term entity in the paragraph preceding the object examples of leaf and stone. That is, she uses entity in the initial statement of her law of identity: “To exist is to be something, . . . it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes” (AS 1016). On that page, it is clear that she takes for entities not only what are ordinarily called objects such as leaf, stone, or table, but micro-objects such as living cells and atoms, super-objects such as solar system and universe, and substances such as wood. Now we have a modest problem. If we say “to exist is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes,” we seem to say that attributes are either entities or are not existents. Consider for attributes “the shape of a pebble or the structure of the solar system” (AS 1016). To avoid the patent falsehood that the shape of a pebble does not exist, shall we say that not only the pebble is an entity, but its shape is an entity? Rand reaches a resolution by a refinement in her metaphysics nine years after her first presentation. In 1966 she writes “Entities are the only primary existents. (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships among entities)” (ITOE 15). Let us say then that to exist is either (a) to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes or (b) to be some specific character in the nature of entities. In ITOE Rand also makes the refinement of taking materials, physical substances, to be not fully specific entities. “Materials exist only in the form of specific entities, such as a nugget of gold, a plank of wood, a drop or an ocean of water” (ITOE 16). Materials, for Rand, would seem to fall under both (a) and (b), and I do not see any defect in that. Let us now expose self-contradictions that obtain in denial of the ramification of "existence is identity" that entities are always of some exclusive kinds. Suppose an entity exists and is not of any kind that excludes it being any other kinds. If the supposed entity is nothing but existence itself, then there is no contradiction; one is simply talking about existence as a whole. So suppose an entity exists and is not of any kind that excludes it being other kinds and is not existence as a whole. Then the supposed entity could be one with any other entities that are of exclusive kinds (just as a leaf that is a drain clogger could be one with a leaf that is dead, maple, and wet). For it is not an entity of any kind excluding it being other kinds. But to say that an entity is not of any exclusive kind and that it is one and the same with another entity that is of some exclusive kind(s) is a contradiction. (Non-A is A.) Indeed if some entity were not of any exclusive kind, then it could be one with the person who supposes such an entity. Then to suppose an entity that is not of any exclusive kind is to suppose that one’s person could be an entity not of some exclusive kinds. But that supposition contradicts the presupposition that one is of the exclusive kind person, a person who makes the (errant) supposition. (Cf. Aristotle’s Metaphysics 1007b19–1008a28.) So I have argued the axiomatic standing of “existence is identity,” where the existents are entities and the identity is kind-identity. All entities are of some exclusive kinds—a leaf cannot be a stone at the same time—and this postulate must be accepted on pain of self-contradiction. B. Exclusions of Non-Contradiction: Actions Rand’s law of identity entails that actions come in some exclusive kinds in the following sense. Burning of a leaf and freezing of a leaf are kinds of actions that are exclusive with respect to each other. However, to say that a leaf is burning and floating is no violation of identity, no contradiction. Some actions of objects—burning and freezing in the case of leaves—are exclusive with respect to each other. Rand’s conception of noncontradiction concerning actions pertains to these. (Cf. Republic 436b, 436e; Metaphysics 1061b35–62a1.) Rand’s law of identity also entails that every entity that has actions has certain actions and not others. A green leaf manufactures chlorophyll; a stone does not. Rand’s conception of noncontradiction concerning actions pertains to these exclusions as well. “The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature” (AS 1037). (Cf. On Generation and Corruption 338b15) I want to prove axiomatic the truth that every action-bearing entity bears certain kinds of action and not others. Suppose an entity could bear any kind of action without restriction of the kind of action. Then it could bear all the acts of a leaf and a stone. Indeed, it could bear all the acts of all the kinds of entity there are. Such an entity would be the conjunction of all the kinds of entity there are with respect to their possible actions. It would be more. Not only could this super-acting entity bear all the actions of, say, a leaf. It could also burn and freeze at the same time. Yet, having all the possible actions of a leaf, its burning excludes its freezing at the same time. Our super-acting entity is capable of burning and freezing at the same time, and it is incapable of burning and freezing at the same time. Our super-acting entity can float on water, like a leaf, and yet, like a stone, it cannot float on water. These are contradictions. No such entity can exist. There is no entity that can bear any kind of action without restriction of the kind of action. Moreover, let a person suppose there could be an entity that could bear any kind of action without restriction of the kind of action. Such an entity could bear the act of supposing its existence, just as a person might do. But unlike a person, the super-acting entity could suppose at the same time that such an entity is impossible. But this contradicts the presupposition of a person that contradictories are false. So I have argued the axiomatic standing of “existence is identity” where the existents are action-bearing entities and the identity is restriction of the kinds of actions of those entities. Rand’s thesis that any entity that exists has a specific nature [“to exist . . . is to be an entity of a specific nature . . .” (AS 1016)] has now been proven to be axiomatic insofar as the action nature of entities is concerned. The postulate that every action-bearing entity bears certain kinds of action and not others must be accepted on pain of self-contradiction. It should be noticed that I have not proven that, for every action-bearing entity, some of the kinds of action it bears are exclusive with respect to each other. I leave open the possibility that some kinds of entities can bear all the kinds of actions in their repertoire simultaneously. Certainly a leaf is not such an entity. (See also Change and Entity and Contradiction with Particulars.)
( categories: )
|
Good luck and good riddance
Leonid
(Leonid)No ,its presents countless contradictions,as I've shown number of times before.
(Nick)Pick a few and present them here. Don’t just blow hot air.
Here is just one.Reality,you said,is unidentified flux of nothing in particular.
1.This is by itself a contradiction.if something exists it exists as something,that is-possesing properties,identity.If something exists as nothing how you ever can know it? We learn about reality by using our perception.If things have no identity then it's nothing to perceive.One cannot perceive unidentified flux.Besides,every available evidence from our perception contradicts your premise.It says to us that our world is a sum of identified objects.On what basis you conclude that existence has no identity? Can you cite any observation that reality has no identity and therefore unobservable? If you cannot you are refuted and if you can you claim contradiction.
2.Subjects,according to you,differ from objects by having some inherent identity.This is another contradiction.You postulate two different realities with different metaphysics.You don't explain by what means subjects spontaniously acquire identity in unidentified reality.Your second premise contradicts the first.
3.You claim that we actually provide unidentified flux with identities by taking "snapshots".This claim brings up more contradictions.a)You cannot take any snapshots on something which has no identity.b)If reality has no identity you cannot be aware of it-one cannot be aware of nothing in particular.Identity precedes consciousness.That means you cannot possess any consciousness.
c) If things have no identities you cannot distinguish one thing from another and therefore you provide things with identities on arbitrary basis,by wish or whim.In other words your world is pure fantasy which has nothing to do with reality. Your position contradicts existence,consciousness and identity,evidence of your own eyes and common sense.It is contradiction to claim that such a position can be compatible with Objectivism.I said all this before but you conveniently choose to evade my arguments.I think I've wasted far too much time and effort in attemt to talk you out of your delusion.If reality itself cannot persuade you,nobody ever could.Good luck and good riddance.
P.S "You are an incredibly stupid person."
Shame,Nick! You ran out of arguments again.Or maybe just out of stuff you are sniffing?
I really don't like you, Leonid
(Nick)1."Now, with regard to your unsupported claim that literature differs from philosophy"
(Leonid)It obviously differs.Philosophy is comprehensive view on reality.Literature is an art,presentation of abstracts in the concrete,perceptual form.The language of literature could be ambiguous,but that of philosophy should be precise.Ancient mythology is literature,not philosophy.
(Nick)Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Whether or not it is a comprehensive view of reality depends on ones view of reality and whether or not a comprehensive view of reality is possible. This is one of the issues of philosophy. Whether or not the language of literature is ambiguous is also issue. Yes, there are some poems which mean different things to different people, but there is also poetry which is very precise and clear. It can be like painting a mental picture which is worth more than a thousand words. Shakespeare’s words in the form of Macbeth’s speech about life being a tale told by and idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing; is the best statement of nihilism ever. T. S. Elliot’s persona in “The Love song of J. Alfred Prufrock” is the best illustration of a man living for others, subjugated to society, and “Invictus” by William Earnest Henley is one of the best statements of authentic individualism. The “I” speech from Rand’s Anthem is another. Linguistic Analysis type philosophers, like Russell, tried to deny that anything not provable in logic and mathematical systems is not meaningful. They are the ones trying to be precise, but they tend to miss a lot of things which are meaningful, which people live and die for, and are more important to them than the Pythagorean Theorem. Yes, math and logic are important, but they are not God. There is much which cannot be communicated by it but can be communicated in literature.
(Nick)2."NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivism preserves existential freedom within the objective parameters."
(Leonid)No ,its presents countless contradictions,as I've shown number of times before.
(Nick)Pick a few and present them here. Don’t just blow hot air.
(Leonid)Freedom cannot be derived from the flux of nothing in particular and cannot be achieved by re-creation of reality.This is the "freedom" to be delusional,"freedom" of drug addict to see reality as he pleases.
(Nick)Now, that’s not a very precise statement. It’s a bigoted opinion, not even an argument. It certainly isn’t philosophy or good literature.
(Nick)3."This is consistent with my views that words are not the objects"
(Leonid)This is not answer to my question.Previously you claimed that things have no identity and we provide it by taking snapshots. Now you say"It is not the reality in the snapshot." which is obvious contradiction to your previous position.I asked whether you've changed your view and you are evading the answer.
(Nick)You don’t seem to understand me. Yes, we give identity to that which surrounds us, but it is merely a provisional name we use to communicate and think. It is not necessarily the reality we try to capture with the name. It is a cubby hole we may have to adjust as we learn more about those things we name, take pictures of.
(Nick)4."We have provisional identities, based on our best information at the time"
(Leonid)According to you things don't have any identities before you take snapshots,including provisional identities.Things without identities wouldn't give you any information.
(Nick)We are the ones who put meaning into the world. We exist first and choose projects and identify that which helps us or hurts us in the pursuit of our goals. We don’t ask things for information. We give it information. If a tree helps us build a house, that is what we use if for. It’s existence first, then essence.
(Nick)5"animals and plants automatically do that which is in their rational self-interest as far as their capabilities allow."
(Leonid)-rationality means volitional noncontradictory integration of perceptual data into concepts.Animals clearly don't have such a faculty.Viruses also act toward self-benifit and self-preservation.Would you call them rational too? I never heard about rational virus-except in science-fiction.Are we going to discuss X-files now?
(Nick)Yes, viruses also act rationally toward their own self-interest. Volition has nothing to do with rational action. Computers act rationally, but computers do not have volition.
(Nick)6."If consciousness cannot be reduced to matter yet is an existent, then it is a ghost."
(Lenoid)-As I mentioned before consciousness is not an object,it's faculty,function.Your vision is also cannot be reduced to the matter. Software on your computer cannot be reduced to the hard driver.Does it make it ghost? Life is also not an object,it's a process,like the runnung of your car.When your car stops to run would you say that its running cease to exist,become nothingness.Regardless to all that,existence of nothingness is contradiction in terms.Entity cannot exist and not exist the same time.What it is-is and what it isn't-isn't.
(Nick)Binswanger disagrees with you. He says he is a dualist and that Objectivism dualistic. Is he wrong? And, I told you were Rand spoke of life as the fundamental alternative because it goes out of existence. It is something which becomes nothing. And, when Sartre says he is what he is not and is not what he is, he does not mean that he is and isn’t at the same time. He means that he is in a process of becoming.
(Nick)7"Any rational jurist would conclude that you don’t know how."
(Leonid)First no rational jurist would be able to reach any conclusion based on assumption that reality is unidentified flux of everchanging nothing in particular and all knowledge is relative.
Wow! All my explanation gets ignored so that you can hang on to this gross misinterpretation of my views. I don’t know what to say. It’s all I can do not to call you a name and say what I really think of you. If I do that, you’ll accuse me of resorting to insult. I can’t help it. You are misrepresenting my views, and I’m offended by it. You are an incredibly stupid person.
(Leonid)Second we are not in the court of law and I don't have to prove to you anything.I just used your argument to show that your philosophy is completely unapplicable to the real life.
(Nick)You haven’t done anything. You haven’t proven anything nor disproved anything I’ve said. I wish I could debate someone for whom I have more respect. It’s beneath me to keep responding to you.
bis bald,
Nick
Get life
Leonid
1."Now, with regard to your unsupported claim that literature differs from philosophy"
It obviously differs.Philosophy is comprehensive view on reality.Literature is an art,presentation of abstracts in the concrete,perceptual form.The language of literature could be ambiguous,but that of philosophy should be precise.Ancient mythology is literature,not philosophy.
2."NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivism preserves existential freedom within the objective parameters."
No ,its presents countless contradictions,as I've shown number of times before.Freedom cannot be derived from the flux of nothing in particular and cannot be achieved by re-creation of reality.This is the "freedom" to be delusional,"freedom" of drug addict to see reality as he pleases.
3."This is consistent with my views that words are not the objects" This is not answer to my question.Previously you claimed that things have no identity and we provide it by taking snapshots. Now you say"It is not the reality in the snapshot." which is obvious contradiction to your previous position.I asked whether you've changed your view and you are evading the answer.
4."We have provisional identities, based on our best information at the time" According to you things don't have any identities before you take snapshots,including provisional identities.Things without identities wouldn't give you any information.
5"animals and plants automatically do that which is in their rational self-interest as far as their capabilities allow."-rationality means volitional noncontradictory integration of perceptual data into concepts.Animals clearly don't have such a faculty.Viruses also act toward self-benifit and self-preservation.Would you call them rational too? I never heard about rational virus-except in science-fiction.Are we going to discuss X-files now?
6."If consciousness cannot be reduced to matter yet is an existent, then it is a ghost."-As I mentioned before consciousness is not an object,it's faculty,function.Your vision is also cannot be reduced to the matter. Software on your computer cannot be reduced to the hard driver.Does it make it ghost? Life is also not an object,it's a process,like the runnung of your car.When your car stops to run would you say that its running cease to exist,become nothingness.Regardless to all that,existence of nothingness is contradiction in terms.Entity cannot exist and not exist the same time.What it is-is and what it isn't-isn't.
7"Any rational jurist would conclude that you don’t know how."
First no rational jurist would be able to reach any conclusion based on assumption that reality is unidentified flux of everchanging nothing in particular and all knowledge is relative.Second we are not in the court of law and I don't have to prove to you anything.I just used your argument to show that your philosophy is completely unapplicable to the real life.
"Broken crutches" Are you using literary devices?
(Nick)1. "You don’t seem capable of understanding literary devices like analogies and metaphors."
(Leonid)I think that you don't understand difference between literature and philosophy. Apparently Sartre didn't understand it as well.
(Nick)Let’s point out first that your retort here does nothing to counter my accusation that you do not understand literary devices. You are changing the subject. Second, you are not commenting on your misunderstanding of Bacon’s maxim or my argument that if you think it is ambiguous, then you must also think Rand’s philosophy is ambiguous. You are not trying to defend yourself against that charge. You lost that point. If you would be honest, you would admit it.
Now, with regard to your unsupported claim that literature differs from philosophy, literature is a means of presenting philosophy. Rand uses it as well as Sartre. The Epic of Gilgamesh and the literature of Homer and others is what humans used for history and understanding this existence prior to the impersonal ways of describing nature fostered in the west by Thales. Hinduism relies on long epic poems which talk about Braham and avatars like Krishna and Vishnu. Native Americans and certain Africans and South Americans have their stories which preserve their thought. There is much which can be captured in literature which cannot be captured in expository writing. Yes, literature also has limitations, which is why other forms of communication evolved. However, people who claim literature differs from philosophy don’t understand literature or philosophy.
(Nick)2."That’s all you do, use labels instead of arguments. I’m the one trying to get you to bring some original ideas to the discussion. My Neo-Objectivism is original."
(Leonid)What is original in ecclectic mixture of existentialism which is idealistic philosophy with poorly understood misinterpretated Objectivism.? What it can produce except a stream of contradictions?
(Nick)First, I don’t misunderstand Objectivism. You do. You’ve demonstrated this a number of times. Second, pure Objectivism already has contradictions and weaknesses. I’ve been pointing out these problems in my Alice series and in many of my subsequent posts on these pages. Pure Existentialism also has problems. When they are combined as I combine them, the weaknesses of each philosophy are offset as their strengths are augmented. Objectivism has a problem with freedom, but pure Existentialism reduces to pure subjectivism, relativism. NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivism preserves existential freedom within the objective parameters.
(Nick)3."It is like taking a snap shot. It is not the reality in the snapshot."
(Leonid)How that conforms to your previous claim that we actually provide identity to objects by taking snapshots?Are you changing your position here?
(Nick)This is consistent with my views that words are not the objects. They are variables we use in communication and thinking. We exist first and put meaning into our existence. We observe and classify, putting objects into cubbyholes, but they are our cubbyholes. It would be unidentified phenomena before this.
(Nick)4."We deal with provisional identities. We can’t really say what something is if it is still in a process of becoming."
(Leonid)On what basis you make your provisional identity then? Besides,the process of becoming never stops,so we never can say anything about what something is.Why to bother?
(Nick)It is true that we may never get to the end, but something is better than nothing. We have provisional identities, based on our best information at the time, and we adjust it as we learn more, as science is doing with Pluto and the method of analyzing lead in bullets. If we had all the answers, there would be no point in learning more. We don’t have all the answers, so we keep on learning.
(Nick)5."No, Leonid. You were clearly refuted here. You said you couldn’t believe Binswanger would say something so nonsensical as that Objectivism is dualistic. I showed you where he did say that"
(Leonid)No,you didn't.You misunderstood Binswanger.What he said is that consciousness cannot be reduced to the matter.That doesn't mean that matter and consciousness can exist separately.Rand once said "Mind without body is a ghost,body without mind is a corpse,both of them are symbols of death." It is no dualism in Objectivism.
(Nick)I’m aware of Rand’s statement, yet I’m also aware of Binswanger’s statement. Go back and read it. If consciousness cannot be reduced to matter yet is an existent, then it is a ghost. Or, perhaps Binswanger is wrong. Is that possible? I can point to other Objectivists who also talk about the consciousness as separated from the body but interacting with it. Don’t forget my other argument that an external world, which Rand mentions, implies and internal one as well. This is also a dualism.
(Nick)6."Animals are automatically rational."
(Leonid)Automatically rational is contradiction in terms.Rationality means ability to make decisions,based on conceptual thinking which is volitional process.Rationality pressuposes volition.
(Nick)No, animals and plants automatically do that which is in their rational self-interest as far as their capabilities allow. Trees reach out with their roots for nutrients in the soil and turn their leaves to the sun. This is rational action for the survival of the tree. Man has to weigh options and make decisions. It is not always automatic, and it is not always rational. Rationality does not presuppose volition. Irrationality does.
(Nick)7."You were criticizing Sartre for talking about nothingness, and I showed you where Rand also talked about it as the only fundamental alternative, that which makes the concept of value possible. Sartre uses it this way also."
(Leonid)And I showed that this topic has nothing to do with concept of existence of "nothingness" which is another contradiction in terms.
(Nick)Yes, when life ceases to exist, it changes from something to nothing. This is relevant to the topic of nothingness. There does exist a concept of nothingness in Objectivism, as paradoxical as that may sound.
(Nick)9."You can’t really stand on your own two feet and think for yourself. You are not independent enough.”
(Leonid)And how do you know that? Is this conclusive statement? Or maybe this is one of your provisional identities?And isn't it true that no knowledge is conclusive,one only can talk in terms of possibilities? Or it's also inconclusive? You said "You don't even know what a premise is."-on what basis you can know that if I never told you what premise is? I may know it and I may not,but you cannot know that except by using innate knowledge,revelation or one of your other mystical tools.And in any case as you said "It really isn’t anything in particular until we give it a name"-so it is your name against my and there is nothing to argue about.You should practice what you preach and then,maybe you will see what a mess you created out of philosophy.You are using two broken crutches-Existentialism and distorted Objectivism which you've corrupted.
(Nick)No, I don’t need to use revelation or something mystical. I am a teacher. I work with thousands of individuals, and I assess what they know and what they don’t. That is part of what I do for a living. Yes, it is a guess, and it could be wrong, but there is a high degree of certainty with the educated opinions of professionals. And, if I am wrong, you could easily prove it by telling me what premises are or laying out your arguments premise by premise. You aren’t doing this. Any rational jurist would conclude that you don’t know how.
bis bald,
Nick
You are using two broken crutches
1. "You don’t seem capable of understanding literary devices like analogies and metaphors."
I think that you don't understand difference between literature and philosophy. Apparently Sartre didn't understand it as well.
2."That’s all you do, use labels instead of arguments. I’m the one trying to get you to bring some original ideas to the discussion. My Neo-Objectivism is original."
What is original in ecclectic mixture of existentialism which is idealistic philosophy with poorly understood misinterpretated Objectivism.? What it can produce except a stream of contradictions?
3."It is like taking a snap shot. It is not the reality in the snapshot."
How that conforms to your previous claim that we actually provide identity to objects by taking snapshots?Are you changing your position here?
4."We deal with provisional identities. We can’t really say what something is if it is still in a process of becoming."
On what basis you make your provisional identity then? Besides,the process of becoming never stops,so we never can say anything about what something is.Why to bother?
5."(Nick)No, Leonid. You were clearly refuted here. You said you couldn’t believe Binswanger would say something so nonsensical as that Objectivism is dualistic. I showed you where he did say that"
No,you didn't.You misunderstood Binswanger.What he said is that consciousness cannot be reduced to the matter.That doesn't mean that matter and consciousness can exist separately.Rand once said "Mind without body is a ghost,body without mind is a corpse,both of them are symbols of death." It is no dualism in Objectivism.
6."Animals are automatically rational."
Automatically rational is contradiction in terms.Rationality means ability to make decisions,based on conceptual thinking which is volitional process.Rationality pressuposes volition.
7."You were Criticizing Sartre for talking about nothingness, and I showed you where Rand also talked about it as the only fundamental alternative, that which makes the concept of value possible. Sartre uses it this way also."
And I showed that this topic has nothing to do with concept of existence of "nothingness" which is another contradiction in terms.
9."You can’t really stand on your own two feet and think for yourself. You are not independent enough.
And how do you know that? Is this conclusive statement? Or maybe this is one of your provisional identities?And isn't it true that no knowledge is conclusive,one only can talk in terms of possibilities? Or it's also inconclusive? You said "You don't even know what a premise is."-on what basis you can know that if I never told you what premise is? I may know it and I may not,but you cannot know that except by using innate knowledge,revelation or one of your other mystical tools.And in any case as you said "It really isn’t anything in particular until we give it a name"-so it is your name against my and there is nothing to argue about.You should practice what you preach and then,maybe you will see what a mess you created out of philosophy.You are using two broken crutches-Existentialism and distorted Objectivism which you've corrupted.
Stop evading. Use your mind, Leonid. Stop using crutches.
(Nick)1."Sartre advanced knowledge and philosophy by transcending logic and systematic philosophy, as did Nietzsche. What he said is not all that ambiguous to those who understand him When it is explained, the literal paradox disappears, but this is also what happens in Existentialism."
(Leonid)Literal paradox is ambiguity.
(Nick)No, some things have both literal and symbolic meanings, like Bacon’s quote, the one you don’t understand and seem willing to drop. “Atlas Shrugged” is an allusion to the myth about Atlas holding the world on his shoulders, but Rand is trying to say something about the producers of the world who keep it figuratively on their shoulders. You don’t seem capable of understanding literary devices like analogies and metaphors. You don’t do well understanding literal logic either.
I think you should answer my arguments and not evade, not try to change the subject and hope everybody will forget your weak claim and weaker reasoning. You interpreted Bacon’s maxim incorrectly. I corrected you, and you said he isn’t a philosopher and Sartre is and that Sartre should be expected not to be ambiguous. I said that if you thought Bacon was ambiguous, then you must think Rand is also, since Rand adopted Bacon’s maxim to summarize part of her philosophy. I also talked about how Bacon originated the scientific method, influenced philosophers, and is not ambiguous to those who understand him. You came back with the statement, “Literal paradox is ambiguity.” It is ambiguous to puppy dogs and people who have very little education in philosophy or literature. It is not ambiguous to those who are a little bit more knowledgeable and brighter than you.
(Nick)2."Nope, that is all Objectivist dogma. I don’t think you even understand We exist first and observe and classify previously unidentified phenomena. By doing so, according to existentialists, we create the world and ourselves. "
(Leonid)This is existentialist dogma,unsupported by any observations,typical arbitrary statement,contradictory claim for primacy of consciousness and subjective idealism.See,I can use labels instead arguments as good as you do,Nick and even better.But I don't enjoy this kind of conversation.It's waste of time and effort.Try to use your mind and bring some original ideas instead vague quotes and old anti-Rand/Peikoff cliches.
(Nick)That’s all you do, use labels instead of arguments. I’m the one trying to get you to bring some original ideas to the discussion. My Neo-Objectivism is original. My Alice series is original. I’ve brought up criticisms which nobody here has refuted yet. All they can do is avoid me or insult me. All you can do is ignore my arguments and fall back on Rand/Peikoff clichés, some of which you even get wrong.
(Nick)3."You tend to go to the extreme, saying anything in flux is so completely uncertain that we can’t even make provisional tags for it. Yes, some things are certain enough to save lives or send machines and people into outer space, but they are still only inductively certain, not conclusive"
(Leonid)I'm talking about metaphysics,axioms.You change topic and discuss epistemology.These are two different subjects..Some knowledge is conclusive,some is not.It has nothing to do with a question whether objects have inherent identity or not.
(Nick)You are not. The axiomatic concepts are matters for epistemology, according to Rand. That’s why they are discussed in her Objectivist Epistemology. She claims that Aristotle meant them to be metaphysical, that things have inherent identity, but she was wrong, according to John Herman Randal, an Aristotelian scholar. A is A is a procedural rule for logic, and logic is part of the subject matter of epistemology, how we know. Metaphysics is concerned with the foundation for what is. If what is is in a process of becoming, then the law of identity is a way of keeping something static for awhile, at least during the course of an epistemological argument. It is like taking a snap shot. It is not the reality in the snapshot.
4."(Leonid)b).If existence is indetermined flux than how do we distinguish one entity from another to label them?
(Nick)By taking conceptual snapshots, observing and categorizing, giving things labels, putting them into our cubbyholes."
(Lenoid)By taking snapshots on what? Observing what? Provisional identifications based on what?If you do all these things that means you already deal with identities of objects. If you observe unidentified flux of nothing in particular you'll get nothing to categorize.Only objects with properties could be categorized and puted into cubbyholes.
(Nick)We deal with provisional identities. We can’t really say what something is if it is still in a process of becoming. I explained this in depth, with examples from current science, where we are adjusting our cubbyholes and rewriting our textbooks, but you dropped all that. Are you hoping people will forget it?
(Nick)5."No, we can step off a cliff and fall, even before we call something gravity. It is a force of some kind but nothing in particular before we give it a name."
(Leonid)How nothing in particular kills us?
(Nick)It really isn’t anything in particular until we give it a name.
6.Binswanger:"Conscious experience is correlated with and does require a brain process, but there are still two irreducibly different things: the state of awareness and the brain process. "
(Leonid)That true,but that doesn't implicate mind-body dichotomy.Your visual perception also cannot be reduced to electro-chemical process in your eye or brain,but it doesn't mean you can separate the vision from the eye.Mind and body exist unseparated and Binswanger clearly indicated that:" The mind exists and the brain exists—and neither is the other."
(Nick)No, Leonid. You were clearly refuted here. You said you couldn’t believe Binswanger would say something so nonsensical as that Objectivism is dualistic. I showed you where he did say that. He is clearly not treating mind or consciousness as part of the body. It is separate, an existent of its own. “The mind exists and the brain exists—and neither is the other.” This is not saying that the mind is an ability of the brain. It is its own existent. Once again, you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of Objectivism, according to this prominent Objectivist.
(Nick)7."In the upcoming years, who knows what other facts of nature will emerge?"-
(Leonid) a lot of things and all of them have identity.Facts of nature don't emerge,they simply exist and we discover them.
(Nick)8."We can also call man the only irrational animal. This would distinguish him from other animals"
(Leonid)You can. That would mean then that other animals are rational and man is not.In such a case you should call them "man" and "man" you'd call an animal.Doesn't make any difference.
(Nick)Animals are automatically rational. They do what they must to pursue their own survival. Humans, however, do irrational things. Therefore, if we identify man the same way we identify other animals, by observation and generalization, then we would have to conclude that man is an irrational creature.
(Nick)9. "I cited where Rand talked about life as the only fundamental alternative. It is not, according to her, like running a mile. Have you not read “The Objectivists Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness?"
(Leonid)You simply evaded my response by changing the topic.Life,according to Rand is self-sustained process,not an object.Why you are talking about alternatives and choices? These are questions of ethics which TVOS discusses.I discuss metaphysics.And in any case it has nothing to do with concept of "nothingess" which is contradiction in terms.
(Nick)I am not changing subjects. You make false accusations. You were Criticizing Sartre for talking about nothingness, and I showed you where Rand also talked about it as the only fundamental alternative, that which makes the concept of value possible. Sartre uses it this way also.
(Nick)10."You are not very good at using logic."
(Leonid)It may be, but I use logic to understand reality,you use it for mind-games.
(Nick)I don’t agree. You don’t really use real logic, but what you think is logic you use as a crutch. You can’t really stand on your own two feet and think for yourself. You are not independent enough.
(Nick)11." I asked you to lay out your argument premise by premise, and you haven’t done that."
(Leonid)Neither you. All you do is to bring stream of assumptions unsupported by facts,contradictory by nature,vague and unprovable by any kind of logic.
(Nick)That’s an unsupported accusation. It’s a general statement not pointing to anything specific that I said. I’ve asked you before to pick something which you think is unsupported, and you didn’t do so. You just say everything I say is that way. That’s evasion. It is also evasion trying to turn that light back on me, evading the fact that you have not laid out your argument premise by premise. This is transparent, Leonid. You are trying to hide the fact that you don't know how to lay out an argument premise by premise. You don't even know what a premise is.
bis bald,
Nick
You try to prove unprovable. Try to use your mind instead
Leonid
1."Sartre advanced knowledge and philosophy by transcending logic and systematic philosophy, as did Nietzsche. What he said is not all that ambiguous to those who understand him
When it is explained, the literal paradox disappears, but this is also what happens in Existentialism."
Literal paradox is ambiguity.
2."(Nick)Nope, that is all Objectivist dogma. I don’t think you even understand We exist first and observe and classify previously unidentified phenomena. By doing so, according to existentialists, we create the world and ourselves. "
This is existentialist dogma,unsupported by any observations,typical arbitrary statement,contradictory claim for primacy of consciousness and subjective idealism.See,I can use labels instead arguments as good as you do,Nick and even better.But I don't enjoy this kind of conversation.It's waste of time and effort.Try to use your mind and bring some original ideas instead vague quotes and old anti-Rand/Peikoff cliches.
3."You tend to go to the extreme, saying anything in flux is so completely uncertain that we can’t even make provisional tags for it. Yes, some things are certain enough to save lives or send machines and people into outer space, but they are still only inductively certain, not conclusive"
I'm talking about metaphysics,axioms.You change topic and discuss epistemology.These are two different subjects..Some knowledge is conclusive,some is not.It has nothing to do with a question whether objects have inherent identity or not.
4."(Leonid)b).If existence is indetermined flux than how do we distinguish one entity from another to label them?
(Nick)By taking conceptual snapshots, observing and categorizing, giving things labels, putting them into our cubbyholes."
By taking snapshots on what? Observing what? Provisional identifications based on what?If you do all these things that means you already deal with identities of objects. If you observe unidentified flux of nothing in particular you'll get nothing to categorize.Only objects with properties could be categorized and puted into cubbyholes.
5."NicK)No, we can step off a cliff and fall, even before we call something gravity. It is a force of some kind but nothing in particular before we give it a name."
How nothing in particular kills us?
6.Binswanger:"Conscious experience is correlated with and does require a brain process, but there are still two irreducibly different things: the state of awareness and the brain process. "
That true,but that doesn't implicate mind-body dichotomy.Your visual perception also cannot be reduced to electro-chemical process in your eye or brain,but it doesn't mean you can separate the vision from the eye.Mind and body exist unseparated and Binswanger clearly indicated that:" The mind exists and the brain exists—and neither is the other."
7."In the upcoming years, who knows what other facts of nature will emerge?"- a lot of things and all of them have identity.Facts of nature don't emerge,they simply exist and we discover them.
8."We can also call man the only irrational animal. This would distinguish him from other animals"
You can. That would mean then that other animals are rational and man is not.In such a case you should call them "man" and "man" you'd call an animal.Doesn't make any difference.
9. "(Nick)I cited where Rand talked about life as the only fundamental alternative. It is not, according to her, like running a mile. Have you not read “The Objectivists Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness"
You simply evaded my response by changing the topic.Life,according to Rand is self-sustained process,not an object.Why you are talking about alternatives and choices? These are questions of ethics which TVOS discusses.I discuss metaphysics.And in any case it has nothing to do with concept of "nothingess" which is contradiction in terms.
10."You are not very good at using logic."
It may be, but I use logic to understand reality,you use it for mind-games.
11." I asked you to lay out your argument premise by premise, and you haven’t done that."
Neither you. All you do is to bring stream of assumptions unsupported by facts,contradictory by nature,vague and unprovable by any kind of logic.
It's only incomprehensible to those who can't comprehend
(Nick)1."But what Rand meant by Bacon’s quote was that man can adjust nature to himself only by recognizing and respecting the laws of nature"
(Leonid)Bacon wasn't philosopher,Sartre is.One expect from philosopher to eliminate ambiguity,not to multiply it.
(Nick)That’s a weak argument for several reasons: First, Rand adopted Bacon’s statement to summarize part of her philosophy. If Bacon was ambiguous, then so was Rand. Second, it is debatable as to whether or not Bacon was a philosopher. He is included in the History of Philosophy because he was an influence on Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, and Hume. He is considered by many to be the originator of scientific method. Third, Sartre advanced knowledge and philosophy by transcending logic and systematic philosophy, as did Nietzsche. What he said is not all that ambiguous to those who understand him. He might be ambiguous to people like you, people who can’t see past the dust on their glasses.
(Nick)2."Things don’t come with name tags. We don’t ask things how they want to be identified.We observe and classify"
(Leonid)I have no problem with it.That is identification.I have a problem with your claim that existence is flux without identity and that we,who actually provide it,make things what they are.And this is a problem for two reasons.
a).Suppose I accept your claim.Providing identities is conscious process.One has to possess consciousness to do that.But consciousness is a faculty of awarness of existence.If existence is unidentified flux of no-things,things without any properties then what we would be conscious of? One cannot be conscious of something without identity and therefore one never would be able to aquire consciousness.Consciousness which conscious only of itself is contradiction in term.Without to acquire consciousness by observing things one cannot make any snapshots.In other words Law of Identity precedes consciousness.
(Nick)Nope, that is all Objectivist dogma. I don’t think you even understand it. You merely quote it. We exist first and observe and classify previously unidentified phenomena. By doing so, according to existentialists, we create the world and ourselves. I agree that there is some pre-existing essence to man which is independent of our wishes and whims, but there is freedom to create within those objective parameters. Besides, even those things we do identify enough to make into laws are only certain with degrees of certainty. You tend to go to the extreme, saying anything in flux is so completely uncertain that we can’t even make provisional tags for it. Yes, some things are certain enough to save lives or send machines and people into outer space, but they are still only inductively certain, not conclusive. You may have heard how science is back-pedaling on what was the science of identifying bullets used from certain boxes. This is freeing prisoners who were falsely imprisoned from the former scientific testimony. Science is also adjusting what they said formerly about the planet Pluto. Our cubby holes are getting adjusted, and textbooks have to be rewritten. If this continues, in a thousand years from now, our most certain truths will seem like the myths of Zeus and Thor seem to us. My first chapter in my Alice series shows what happens to the blind man, the turkey, and the frog when they depend too much on inductive evidence.
(Leonid)b).If existence is indetermined flux than how do we distinguish one entity from another to label them?
(Nick)By taking conceptual snapshots, observing and categorizing, giving things labels, putting them into our cubbyholes. Some things move slower than others and are easier to match up with our snapshots than are other things. Some things keep up some regularity as they change. This allows us to predict. We do notice that objects, like rocks and acorns, do have predictable natures, with high degrees of certainty. Humans are, however, more open ended. Within certain physical limits, they have freedom. We cannot box-in humans as we do objects. We even have some trouble, as I indicated above, with objects.
(Leonid)How do we know that entity X we should call "tree" and entity Y we should call "lake" Since they have no identity before we gave it to them our organs of perception cannot provide us with any information about them.
(Nick)Our sense organs do give us some information. Just because we can’t be certain doesn’t mean we can’t have anything. We make provisional identifications and distinctions and adjust them as we need to.
(Leonid) We cannot perceive unidentified flux,something which is nothing in particular,we cannot take any snapshots,our films would be empty.The only possible way to know existence in such a case would be mystical one-innate knowledge.If thing has no identity and exists prior to it essence the only way to know what it is in order to label it would be just to know.
(NicK)No, we can step off a cliff and fall, even before we call something gravity. It is a force of some kind but nothing in particular before we give it a name and refer to it. We can see something and call it a tree. We can use these labels in our communication and thinking. We must remember, though, that our words are not the objects. They are ways we have of trying to make sense of an absurd reality into which we find ourselves. It is existence first, then essence. BTW, Rand seems to just know her axiomatic concepts. She seems to think all humans have this implicit knowledge and often deny it. This is why she calls them immoral. It’s almost Platonic.
(Nick)3." Which of us are perceiving things as they are?"
(Leonid)The short answer would be -all of us.The long answer requires full examenation of perception.I think it is the issue for anther thread if you interested.As very brief summary I can only say that perception is result of interaction of entity,medium of perception and perceptional organs.The very purpose of perception is to provide us with information what things really are.
(Nick)I’ve written about this in my essay on perception, logic, and language. It is posted on the Dissent forum of this board.
(Nick)4."But Objectivism is also dualistic, according to Binswanger. The consciousness is not reducible to the matter. It is separate from the body. It perceives the external world. The existence of such a world logically implies an internal world. This is a dualism."
(Leonid)No. Consciousness is a faculty,an ability.It cannot be separated from the body since it is a faculty of the body.It is like to say that your faculty of vision is separated from your body.I don't think that Binswanger could utter such a nonsense and I know his works well.Can you provide support to your claim?
(Nick)Perhaps the most in-depth discussion of philosophy of mind by a prominent Objectivist philosopher is found in Harry Binswanger's 1998 three-tape course The Metaphysics of Consciousness (Binswanger 1998). In it, he says:
Conscious experience is correlated with and does require a brain process, but there are still two irreducibly different things: the state of awareness and the brain process. Yes, man does have a mind and a body, but neither can be reduced to the other... Consciousness exists and matter exists. Each is what it is and neither is a form of the other.
In a question-answer period afterwards, he says:
Dualism is a dangerous term because of its being used for a strawman. But if you mean: Do we believe there are really two existents? Yes! The mind exists and the brain exists—and neither is the other.
Later he says:
So, yes, I'm a dualist. Or as Leonard [Peikoff] says in OPAR, because the term dualism is not one we have to fight to save and it's so associated with Descartes, the proper word for it is: Objectivism, not dualism.]
We have our own distinct view here. But if you had to put it in the historical classification, yeah, we're not monists. We believe that both consciousness and matter exist and neither is reducible to the other.
Binswanger, Harry. 1998. The Metaphysics of Consciousness. Gaylordsville, CT: Second
(Nick)5"Tell me how gravity can have existence when it has no substance and is not a concept in someone’s mind, when it has no referent. What criteria would something have to have to not exist?"
(Leonid)First,gravity is not an object,it's relationship between objects,determined by objects' identities.Second,every one who jumps from the 20th floor without parachute will has refferent of it even if he never learned about concept of gravity and never heard such a word.Gravity exists simple as fact of nature.
(Nick)Yes, it exists as an unidentified phenomena which can make things and people fall. Once we give it an identity, we can refer to it. This way, we sort of bring it into existence. Psychologists recently came up with a condition known as Asberger’s syndrome. It didn’t exist when I was a kid. In the upcoming years, who knows what other facts of nature will emerge?
(Nick)6."How do we know that man is a rational animal? We observe and classify him, as we do with other animals. However, many so-called men are not very rational. Many of them are downright irrational. So, this so-called essential property is somewhat arbitrary."
(Leonid)No it's not arbitrary.It how we distinguish man from all other living things.This is unique,essential property of man.And this is not a question of numbers.If it were only one rational animal we would call him man. Futhermore,rationality is not automatic,it is potential ability. Man may choose to exercise it or not.This is what Rand calls primary choice.This is the essence of free will."Existentialists identify the essential property as freedom"-and they are wrong. Without mind,rationality how one can exercise his freedom? How he will make choices,by what means? That why animals don't have freedom-they have no mind.
(Nick)We can also call man the only irrational animal. This would distinguish him from other animals. What guides that initial choice to be rational? I think we’ve been here before, and you said Peikoff changed his position on that. Primary choice must be baseless, like the Existential choice. It must also be a first cause, if you want to be logical about it. Of course, first causes are not logical. I can explain all this with linguistics and Chomsky’s creativity principle, but it would probably be lost on you.
(Nick)7."Death is the point at which life goes out of existence. It is when the somethingness of life ceases, becomes nothing"
(Leonid)Life is not an object.It is a process.It is like you running a mile.When you finish to run would you say that your running went out of existence? It never existed.It is you,who exists and run. Objects,things cannot become nothing,existence exists.
(Nick)I cited where Rand talked about life as the only fundamental alternative. It is not, according to her, like running a mile. Have you not read “The Objectivists Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness?
(Nick)8."For me, logic is a tool"
(Leonid)For me,logic is also a tool.I use it to identify reality in noncontradictory way.Logic tells me that contradictions cannot exist since every thing is what it is.If,however,one divorces logic from reality it becomes a matter of faith,God,arbitrary mind game like chess.Some people may enjoy it,I'm not.
(Nick)You are not very good at using logic. You are trapped by a dogma you don’t even know as much about as I do. You didn’t do well defining “validity,” and you evaded defining “premises.” I asked you to lay out your argument premise by premise, and you haven’t done that. All you do is quote parts of Objectivist literature, but you also misunderstand some Objectivist literature. I think Objectivism is a sort of faith for you. Logic, as Rand and other Objectivist writers present it, is your god. This, however, is not the real logic of philosophers and logicians.
bis bald,
Nick
I don't understand uncomprehensible.You too,even if you say you
Leonid
1."But what Rand meant by Bacon’s quote was that man can adjust nature to himself only by recognizing and respecting the laws of nature"
Bacon wasn't philosopher,Sartre is.One expects from philosopher to eliminate ambiguity,not to multiply it.
2."Things don’t come with name tags. We don’t ask things how they want to be identified.We observe and classify"
I have no problem with it.That is identification.I have a problem with your claim that existence is flux without identity and that we,who actually provide it,make things what they are.And this is a problem for two reasons.
a).Suppose I accept your claim.Providing identities is conscious process.One has to possess consciousness to do that.But consciousness is a faculty of awarness of existence.If existence is unidentified flux of no-things,things without any properties then what we would be conscious of? One cannot be conscious of something without identity and therefore one never would be able to aquire consciousness.Consciousness which conscious only of itself is contradiction in term.Without to acquire consciousness by observing things one cannot make any snapshots.In other words Law of Identity precedes consciousness.
b).If existence is indetermined flux without properties how do we distinguish one entity from another to label them? How do we know that entity X we should call "tree" and entity Y we should call "lake" Since they have no identity before we gave it to them our organs of perception cannot provide us with any information about them. We cannot perceive unidentified flux,something which is nothing in particular,we cannot take any snapshots,our films would be empty.The only possible way to know existence in such a case would be mystical one-innate knowledge.If thing has no identity and exists prior to it essence the only way to know what it is in order to label it would be just to know.
3." Which of us are perceiving things as they are?"
The short answer would be -all of us.The long answer requires full examenation of perception.I think it is the issue for anther thread if you interested.As very brief summary I can only say that perception is result of interaction of entity,medium of perception and perceptional organs.The very purpose of perception is to provide us with information about things as they are.
4."But Objectivism is also dualistic, according to Binswanger. The consciousness is not reducible to the matter. It is separate from the body. It perceives the external world. The existence of such a world logically implies an internal world. This is a dualism."
No. Consciousness is a faculty,an ability.It cannot be separated from the body since it is a faculty of the body.It is like to say that your faculty of vision is separated from your body.I don't think that Binswanger could utter such a nonsense and I know his works well.Can you provide support to your claim?
5"Tell me how gravity can have existence when it has no substance and is not a concept in someone’s mind, when it has no referent. What criteria would something have to have to not exist?"
First,gravity is not an object,it's relationship between objects,determined by objects' identities.Second,every one who jumps from the 20th floor without parachute will get refferent of it even if he never learned about concept of gravity and never heard such a word.Gravity exists simple as fact of nature.
6."How do we know that man is a rational animal? We observe and classify him, as we do with other animals. However, many so-called men are not very rational. Many of them are downright irrational. So, this so-called essential property is somewhat arbitrary."
No it's not arbitrary.It how we distinguish man from all other living things.This is unique,essential property of man.And this is not a question of numbers.If it were only one rational animal we would call him man. Futhermore,rationality is not automatic,it is potential ability. Man may choose to exercise it or not.This is what Rand calls primary choice.This is the essence of free will."Existentialists identify the essential property as freedom"-and they are wrong. Without mind,rationality ,how one can exercise his freedom? How he will make choices,by what means? That why animals don't have freedom-they have no mind.
7."Death is the point at which life goes out of existence. It is when the somethingness of life ceases, becomes nothing"
Life is not an object.It is a process.It is like you running a mile.When you finish to run would you say that your running went out of existence? It never existed.It is you,who exist and run. Objects,things cannot become nothing,existence exists.
8."For me, logic is a tool"
For me,logic is also a tool.I use it to identify reality in noncontradictory way.Logic tells me that contradictions cannot exist since every thing is what it is.If,however,one divorces logic from reality it becomes a matter of faith,God,arbitrary mind game like chess.Some people may enjoy it,I'm not.
You are unable to understand a lot of things
(Nick)!."Man, however, can, within objective parameters, adapt nature to himself. Humans can adapt nature to themselves."
(Leonid)Isn't that exactly what I've just said.? "Man exists by adjusting Nature to his needs."
(Nick)But what Rand meant by Bacon’s quote was that man can adjust nature to himself only by recognizing and respecting the laws of nature. He can’t just ignore reality and adjust it to himself. This would be Subjectivism, creating reality. The quote does not mean that man is the master and nature is the slave. It means that nature can be a slave only if man respects its mastery over him, that it cannot be abused. When it is explained, the literal paradox disappears, but this is also what happens in Existentialism. When we know what Sartre means when he says, “I am what I am not and am not what I am,” it is not paradoxical. It makes perfect sense. When we know what it means when Sartre says, “We are forced into freedom,” the paradox disappears. We understand it. People also understand such profound statements as “There are no absolutes,” even when a literalist will priggishly call it a contradiction. Don’t let logic limit understanding. It is a tool, not a god, not a prison.
(Nick)2."We just give them an identity, something to which we can refer when communicating and thinking about them."
(Leonid)This is a process of identification which is proper function of consciousness. Identity,however,is existence and comes before identification.
(Nick)Things don’t come with name tags. We don’t ask things how they want to be identified. We observe and classify. We objectify things, putting them into cubbyholes. They are, however, our cubbyholes. Sometimes we have to adjust those cubbyholes as we find out more about things. We don’t always perceive things as they are. We give them provisional identities so we can talk and think about them.
."(Nick)Since we don’t perceive things as they are, as accurately as some animals perceive them, it is not logical to infer that aliens perceive things as they are."
(Leonid)Every living thing peceives entities as they are.They just use different means of perception.If you'd percieve a person by X-rays instead light you'd perceive the same person.You wouldn't claim that your X-ray picture reflects not you but different person.
(Nick)If my senses perceived things like X-rays do, I’d think that this is the way things are. Other living things, however, may not perceive things that way. Which of us are perceiving things as they are?
4."(Nick)You still don’t seem to understand the difference between subjects and objects. It’s the subjects which provide identities for the objects, but they participate in creating their own identities."
(Leonid)Yes,I reject metaphysical dualism.It is but one existence.Any attemt to divorce identity from entity,object from subject and mind from reality leads to countless contradictions as you successfully demonstrated.
(Nick)But Objectivism is also dualistic, according to Binswanger. The consciousness is not reducible to the matter. It is separate from the body. It perceives the external world. The existence of such a world logically implies an internal world. This is a dualism.
5."Nick)That’s the contention of Objectivism, that we discover and do not create. However, as I said in other posts, there are things we bring into existence by attaching a label to unidentified phenomena, like we do with gravity. "
(Leonid)Yes,you did and that means recognition of the primacy of consciousness which is contradiction in terms.
(Nick)You quote Peikoff very well, but you don’t prove your case. Tell me how gravity can have existence when it has no substance and is not a concept in someone’s mind, when it has no referent. What criteria would something have to have to not exist?
(Nick)6."No, because we don’t know what man is."
(Lenoid)But we do. Man defined by his essential property as rational animal.If ,however ,one defines man by unessentials as ,say,featherless byped,or somebody who can ran a mile in 4 minutes,then,obviously we don't.
(Nick)How do we know that man is a rational animal? We observe and classify him, as we do with other animals. However, many so-called men are not very rational. Many of them are downright irrational. So, this so-called essential property is somewhat arbitrary. Existentialists identify the essential property as freedom, which is to say, paradoxically, man’s essence is open-ended. He participates in creating his own identity.
(Nick)7."death, is a nothingness which makes value possible."
(Leonid)It is not such a thing as nothing.Dead body is not nothing,it is dead thing,different from the living one but still exists.If you can show to me the hole from a doughnut I'd agree with you.
(Nick)Death is the point at which life goes out of existence. It is when the somethingness of life ceases, becomes nothing. It is very important. Matter changes form but does not cease to exist. Life does. This fundamental alternative, according to Rand, in The Objectivists Ethics, in The Virtue of Selfishness, makes the concept of value possible. You still aren’t taking this seriously, are you?
(Nick)8."I am not a complete Existentialist. I contend that man is in flux within parameters which are not in flux. "
(Leonid)Yes,you've said it before and I repeat that this is like to say that A is A and Non-A,a contradiction.
(Nick)Yes, I do not place as much emphasis on A is A as you do. It is a procedural rule for communication and thinking. Logic is a tool, not a god or a prison. I hold that there is some fixed identity in the parameters in which A is in a process of becoming.
(Nick)9."More about your inability to understand"
(Leonid)You right. I'm unable to understand contradictions.But you,apparently have no problems with it.As some postmodernist said "You don't get contradictions? Take drugs!"
(Nick)I am more than a computer. I understand some things which cannot be captured with logic. For me, logic is a tool. I use it and respect it. I think I understand it better than you do, but it is not my god. It is not my prison. This does not mean I am a postmodernist. I am a NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivist.
bis bald,
Nick
I 'm unable to understand contradictions.
Leonid
!."Man, however, can, within objective parameters, adapt nature to himself. Humans can adapt nature to themselves."
Isn't that exactly what I've just said.? "Man exists by adjusting Nature to his needs."
2."We just give them an identity, something to which we can refer when communicating and thinking about them."
This is a process of identification which is proper function of consciousness. Identity,however,is existence and comes before identification.
3."(Nick)Since we don’t perceive things as they are, as accurately as some animals perceive them, it is not logical to infer that aliens perceive things as they are."
Every living thing peceives entities as they are.They just use different means of perception.If you'd percieve a person by X-rays instead light you'd perceive the same person.You wouldn't claim that your X-ray picture reflects not you but different person.
4."(Nick)You still don’t seem to understand the difference between subjects and objects. It’s the subjects which provide identities for the objects, but they participate in creating their own identities."
Yes,I reject metaphysical dualism.It is but one existence.Any attemt to divorce identity from entity,object from subject and mind from reality leads to countless contradictions as you successfully demonstrated.
5."Nick)That’s the contention of Objectivism, that we discover and do not create. However, as I said in other posts, there are things we bring into existence by attaching a label to unidentified phenomena, like we do with gravity. "
Yes,you did and that means recognition of the primacy of consciousness which is contradiction in terms.
6."No, because we don’t know what man is."
But we do. Man defined by his essential property as rational animal.If ,however ,one defines man by unessentials as ,say,featherless byped,or somebody who can ran a mile in 4 minutes,then,obviously we don't.
7."death, is a nothingness which makes value possible."
It is not such a thing as nothing.Dead body is not nothing,it is dead thing,different from the living one but still exists.If you can show to me the hole from a doughnut I'd agree with you.
8."I am not a complete Existentialist. I contend that man is in flux within parameters which are not in flux. "
Yes,you've said it before and I repeat that this is like to say that A is A and Non-A,a contradiction.
9."More about your inability to understand"
You right. I'm unable to understand contradictions.But you,apparently have no problems with it.As some postmodernist said "You don't get contradictions? Take drugs!"
More about your inability to understand
(Nick)1.Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This is literally a contradiction, a paradox."
(Leonid)Nature to be commanded (by man),must be obeyed(to man)-this is the meaning of the statement.Nature is a slave,man is a master. I still don't see contradiction.
(Nick)No, Leonid. You don’t understand Objectivism. Most animals and living things must adapt to nature. Man, however, can, within objective parameters, adapt nature to himself. Humans can adapt nature to themselves. To do so, they must follow the laws of nature. Reality is the final arbiter. If this would not matter, then Objectivism would be Subjectivism, subject to each individual’s wishes and whims. Man would be the complete master and nature the complete slave. This is definitely “not” what Rand meant.
(Nick)2."We see something and call it a tree."
(Leonid)We see something tall,with brown trunk and branches,green leaves. We can call it tree or may not to call it by any name,we can define it ostencibly by pointing on it and so on. That would not change a single leaf,nor it will add a smallest feature to the object,since its identity is metaphisically given and has nothing to do with our labeling,perceptions, concepts,wishes or whims. You cannot turn leaves to dollars by labeling them so.
(Nick)It is true that we don’t change things by labeling them. We just give them an identity, something to which we can refer when communicating and thinking about them.
(Leonid)We percieve things similary because things have fixed features and we have fixed common organs of perception.
(Nick)Things appear to have similar features due to our limited perception. They may actually have features we cannot perceive with our unassisted organs. Certain animals have more acute senses than we and perceive what we do not. They perceive things more accurately than we.
(Leonid)Even extraterrestial alliens would percieve things as they are,their logic should be non-contradictional and they have to recognize inallienable rights as long as they are intelligent beings.They don't have choice about that if they choose to live.
(Nick)Since we don’t perceive things as they are, as accurately as some animals perceive them, it is not logical to infer that aliens perceive things as they are.
(Leonid)We see certain features and properties which constitute identity of object or subject and give to them different names in different languages.
(Nick)You still don’t seem to understand the difference between subjects and objects. It’s the subjects which provide identities for the objects, but they participate in creating their own identities.
(Leonid)We,however don't provide entities with features by naming them.
(Nick)I never said we did. We just provide them with identity, a name tag.
(Leonid)They exist independently from us.
(Nick)That’s the contention of Objectivism, that we discover and do not create. However, as I said in other posts, there are things we bring into existence by attaching a label to unidentified phenomena, like we do with gravity. Remember, I mentioned Pirsig and his book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence.
(Leonid)Language is often ambiguous,meaning of the words depend on context.When you say "white" you may mean colour or man of Europenian origin.That another reason why snapshots cannot provide identity, because identity is not ambiguous,it simply what entity is.
(Nick)Regular spoken language is often ambiguous. Predicate calculus is more precise. Meta languages like symbolic logic are more precise, but even they are not completely certain, according to logicians like Goedel. Still, certain things can be communicated in calculus which cannot be communicated in regular spoken language, but there are also things which require regular spoken language. Love sonnets sound much better in regular spoken language than in predicate calculus. And, some things may not be captured in either language. Logic and languages provide the strands in the nets we use to drag the universe for data we can observe and classify, identify. Some things, though, will inevitably slip through the holes in those nets. That which gets away may shed valuable light on that which we catch. Learning is a constant process. We may never have all the answers.
(Nick)3."You are trying to say that anyone who disagrees with Rand’s objectivism is a complete relativist and subjectivist. In a way, you are generalizing too much too."
(Leonid)I'm not,but even if I did,according to you,this is my snapshot which provides objects with identity and if it so then this is my snapshot against yours and we have nothing to agree or disagree about.
(Nick)No, this is not according to me. It is according to the complete relativist, which I am not. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a complete relativist. If that is your snapshot, then your picture is pretty distorted.
(Leonid)Logic, as you mentioned elswere, is a matter of faith and therefore arbitrary,not connected to existence.So why bigot should be persuaded by it?
(Nick)Because he agreed to accept logic as a standard. Didn’t you read that in the dialogue?
(Leonid)He has his own logic,based on different premises.As you've said wrong premises don't exlude valid argument and true conclusion.
(Nick)I also said logic is not the same as opinion. One can’t have one’s own logic. It is an independent standard. If the argument is invalid, leads to contradiction, it doesn’t matter if the premises are true or false, the conclusion is not certain to follow from the premises.
(Leonid)So how one can even know what is wrong and what is right? Rand's views according to that are as good as anybody else,Sartre,Marx,Plato, Lenin or Marcuse.
(Nick)According to complete relativism, that would be true. However, the bartender proved, through an old argument used by Plato, that complete relativism leads to contradictory conclusions. Plato did a lot to defend Objectivism.
(Nick)4." Volition implies that man’s nature is not fixed, man has freedom to become."
(Leonid)Does he have freedom to become non-man?
(Nick)No, because we don’t know what man is. There some features which remain constant, but there are also some features which change. It is only when everything is static that we can have a complete and fixed definition.
(Leonid)If he does then he's no longer man and doesn't have any freedom, which is contradiction-freedom to become not free,volition to become determined.
(Nick)He doesn’t. Your straw man definition of man as an entity with freedom is contradictory. An entity with freedom cannot have a fixed nature. If it did, then there would be no difference between man and an acorn or a rock, something which does not have freedom.
(Leonid)Besides,man cannot exist in such a state and his freedom becomes dead whish.But to die one doesn't need any freedom. This is completely determined process.(if one not in hurry)That means that volition is fixed,permanent feature.
(Nick)Nope, just because not everything is free, such as the determined process of death, it doesn’t mean other things are not free. As I keep saying, it is freedom within parameters.
(Nick)5."It is the whole which makes the doughnut possible."
(Leonid)You probably mean hole.
(Nick)Yes, I made a mistake. Thank you for pointing it out to me. We all know how perfect your spelling is.
(Leonid)Does it means that after eating doughnut you still keep its hole? Even Existentialist should preserve some remnants of common sense.
(Nick)You probably mean “mean”. It was a literary device, something like what is used in poetry to try to communicate something which cannot be communicated as well in literal logic. Unfortunately, if people are not very literary, they will miss the point. There is a contrast to somethingness. And, when my date stands me up at the restaurant, there is nothingness where she would normally be. I also pointed out how Rand talked about how the fundamental alternative to life, death, is a nothingness which makes value possible. You sloughed over that point. It’s important, much more important than some lame joke aimed at ridiculing me and Existentialism.
(Nick)6."Yes, we discussed this before. Remember? I said man’s inability to jump from here to the moon is not a limitation to him if it is not his goal to do so. If he does not choose to eat stones, breath water, or drink cyanide, then he does not have those limitations"
(Leonid)And if he does he ceases to exist.But for that he doesn't have to do anything. I'm talking about metaphysically given man's nature.Naturally man cannot jump to the Moon. He cannot eat stones and live.He also cannot change his nature,identity,in such a way that he loses his rationality and volition and still exists as a man.
(Nick)You still miss the point. If man does not choose to do what he can’t do, then it is not a limitation to him. Man determines his own limitations through the free choice of his projects.
7."(Leonid)So you admit then man is not flux and has unchangable essential identity-mind and volition.
(Nick)I never denied this."
(Leonid)But you've stated number of times that man is flux in the process of becoming.Flux means constantly changing entity without any fixed features including mind and volition.Entity cannot be flux and non-flux and man without mind and volition is not man. A is A.
(NicK)It takes a great deal of patience for me to keep explaining this to you, Leonid. Try to help me a little. Focus. It is not my contention that man is completely in flux, although this is the contention of Existentialism. I am not a complete Existentialist. I contend that man is in flux within parameters which are not in flux. There is a humanness, an essence of man, which remains the same from location to location and from time to time. An Asian in Asia is no more or less human than an American in Spokane. However, within those parameters, there is freedom to become. This is my Neo-Objectivism.
bis bald,
Nick
More about nature and contradictions
1.Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This is literally a contradiction, a paradox."
Nature to be commanded (by man),must be obeyed(to man)-this is the meaning of the statement.Nature is a slave,man is a master. I still don't see contradiction.
2."We see something and call it a tree."
We see something tall,with brown trunk and branches,green leaves. We can call it tree or may not to call it by any name,we can define it ostencibly by pointing on it and so on. That would not change a single leaf,nor it will add a smallest feature to the object,since its identity is metaphisically given and has nothing to do with our labeling,perceptions, concepts,wishes or whims.You cannot turn leaves to dollars by labeling them so.We percieve things similary because things have fixed features and we have fixed common organs of perception.Even extraterrestial alliens would percieve things as they are,their logic should be non-contradictional and they have to recognize inallienable rights as long as they are intelligent beings.They don't have choice about that if they choose to live.
We see certain features and properties which constitute identity of object or subject and give to them different names in different languages.We,however don't provide entities with features by naming them.They exist independently from us.Language is often ambiguous,meaning of the words depend on context.When you say "white" you may mean colour or man of Europenian origin.That another reason why snapshots cannot provide identity, because identity is not ambiguous,it simply what entity is.You have to distinguish between identity and identification.The first is metaphysical concept and the second is epistemological.For further elaboration you can watch that:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyJJC-J2g7A
3."You are trying to say that anyone who disagrees with Rand’s objectivism is a complete relativist and subjectivist. In a way, you are generalizing too much too."
I'm not,but even if I did,according to you,this is my snapshot which provides objects with identity and if it so then this is my snapshot against yours and we have nothing to agree or disagree about.Logic, as you mentioned elswere, is a matter of faith and therefore arbitrary,not connected to existence.So why bigot should be persuaded by it? He has his own logic,based on different premises.As you've said wrong premises don't exlude valid argument and true conclusion.So how one can even know what is wrong and what is right? Rand's views according to that are as good as anybody else,Sartre,Marx,Plato, Lenin or Marcuse.
4." Volition implies that man’s nature is not fixed, man has freedom to become."
Does he have freedom to become non-man? If he does then he's no longer man and doesn't have any freedom, which is contradiction-freedom to become not free,volition to become determined.Besides,man cannot exist in such a state and his freedom becomes dead whish.But to die one doesn't need any freedom. This is completely determined process.(if one not in hurry)That means that volition is fixed,permanent feature.
5."It is the whole which makes the doughnut possible." You probably mean hole.
Does it means that after eating doughnut you still keep its hole? Even Existentialist should preserve some remnants of common sense.
6."Yes, we discussed this before. Remember? I said man’s inability to jump from here to the moon is not a limitation to him if it is not his goal to do so. If he does not choose to eat stones, breath water, or drink cyanide, then he does not have those limitations"
And if he does he ceases to exist.But for that he doesn't have to do anything. I'm talking about metaphysically given man's nature.Naturally man cannot jump to the Moon. He cannot eat stones and live.He also cannot change his nature,identity,in such a way that he loses his rationality and volition and still exists as a man.
7."(Leonid)So you admit then man is not flux and has unchangable essential identity-mind and volition.
(Nick)I never denied this."
But you've stated number of times that man is flux in the process of becoming.Flux means constantly changing entity without any fixed features including mind and volition.Entity cannot be flux and non-flux and man without mind and volition is not man. A is A.
Without it, there would be no identity
"(Nick)No, we just give it a label, an identity."
(Leonid)1.Label is not identity.Identity is property of the thing,sum of its essential features which distinguish it from every other object and determines the mode of its actions.Label is what we call these features.Labels are arbitrary-in different languages we label the same identity differently. If labels were sine qua none of identity then identity of the object would be subjective,dependend on the person who gives the label.
(Nick)Yes, it is. We see something and call it a tree. Things with similar characteristics are also called trees. Other people in our culture adopt this same terminology, and we can communicate, to some extent. It is not totally individually relative, but it might be considered culturally relative. Language is social. Some people argue that logic is not social, that modus ponens must hold in Asia as well as it does in Spokane. Rules of inference must hold in any culture, but some cultures may have slightly different structures which allow for more or less of these logical rules, and terms for objects may differ and emphasize different things. That’s why Whorf claims people in different cultures may understand certain concepts differently. This could be the reason why there is so much difficulty in communication at international conferences. What makes perfect sense to people who speak one language may be totally non-sense to people who only speak another, with different concepts and a different structure. Chomsky and Pinker claim that all human languages are capable of communicating all possible concepts, but this is debatable. Einstein used the language of calculus to explain his theories. They were more equipped for what he was explaining than regular spoken language. The same can be true for different languages. I am not claiming that because I disagree with you it means that everything is individually subjective, but there is some individual relativism even among people who speak the same language. It is a wonder that we can communicate as well as we do. I prove this in my classrooms from time to time. I say a word, like “tree,” and I have my students write down the first five words they associate with that word. Some say “leaf,” “branch,” “wood,” “twig,” and “forest.” Others say “bird,” “park,” “stream,” “maple,” and “squirrel.” If we are trying to get other people to understand us, to transfer what is in our minds to someone else’s mind, it is not easy. The exact same words mean something slightly different to some people than they do to others. This problem is even more pronounced when people speak entirely different languages and are from different cultures and had different learning experiences. It is even more pronounced when people have preconceived ideas and biases. This, I think, is part of the problem I am having with you. I don’t think you are really trying to be open to what I am saying.
(Leonid)Consider your own parable of bigot in the bar.Why bigot and bartender should argue at all? According to your philosophy each of them took different snapshot on the object-Vietnam war- and labeled it differently.Each of them provided this object with different identity.So people shouldn't argue about anything since identity is simple matter of opinion.Metaphysical subjectivism leads to ethical relativism.
(Nick)It’s a little more complicated than that. The bigot is generalizing too much, assuming that Asians are less than human and that this point of view is just as true as the bartender’s point of view that all men are equal. The bartender is using logic to prove that such as view is contradictory, and the bigot doesn’t get it. Complete individual relativism doesn’t hold up when challenged with logic, but limited relativism does. You are trying to say that anyone who disagrees with Rand’s objectivism is a complete relativist and subjectivist. In a way, you are generalizing too much too.
(Nick)2." I hold that there is a certain nature of man, a humanness, which exists for Asians as it does for humans in Spokane, and it doesn’t change from time to time."
(Leonid)So you admit then man is not flux and has unchangable essential identity-mind and volition.
(Nick)I never denied this. This is NickOtani’s Neo-Objectivism. It is not pure Objectivism, and it is not pure Existentialism. It is a combination of both along with elements of other philosophies. It is, as I said before, eclectic. It is the Jeet Kon Do of philosophy.
(Leonid)However you said "it is not logical to say it is a fixed feature of man’s identity that he has an unfixed identity, an ability to choose what he will become." Your first stetement contradicts the second.The true is that man has fixed identity which allows him to exercise mind and volition.
(Nick)No, it is your position that contradicts itself. Volition implies that man’s nature is not fixed, man has freedom to become. You are saying man has fixed nature to not have a fixed nature, not to be bound by a fixed nature.
(Leonid)If it weren't fixed,permanent feature of man it would mean that he may lose this ability.But in such a case he also would lose his "maness",becomes non-man.So it is not logical to suppose that man's identity is not fixed
(Nick)Existentialists would say that man has no permanent feature, or, paradoxically, man’s only permanent feature is change. He is not complete. He is still in the process of becoming. We can’t say what an individual is until he is dead and not capable of becoming something new in the future.
(Nick)3." Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This is literally a contradiction, a paradox."
(Leonid)Please explain why this is contradiction. I cannot see any.
(Nick)‘To command’ is the opposite of ‘to obey.’ It’s like saying that to be a master is to be a slave. It is like saying ‘To be A, one must be not-A.’ It is contradictory. If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand simple logic.
(Nick)4."You have enough trouble with the basics, like existence before essence. "-
(Leonid)Yes,I think it is completely uncomprehensible to think that thing can exist as no-thing.This is contradiction in terms.
(Nick)Nothingness can be a kind of something. It forms the back ground on which somethingness manifests itself. It is the whole which makes the doughnut possible. Rand also talks about it when she says life ceases to exist. It is the only fundamental alternative she knows. It makes the concept of value possible.
(Nick)5."When things are completely bound by a fixed nature, they are not free to choose what they will be. This is an argument."
(Leonid)Man is not completely free.He cannot exist by eating stones,breathing water or drinking cianide.His nature,identity also doesn't allow him to exist as an animal or plant-without to use his mind and volition.
(Nick)Yes, we discussed this before. Remember? I said man’s inability to jump from here to the moon is not a limitation to him if it is not his goal to do so. If he does not choose to eat stones, breath water, or drink cyanide, then he does not have those limitations. His choices for projects determine his obstacles. I also said that he can choose to live as a plant or animal, but the plant or animal cannot choose to live as a human. The human has more freedom of choice. Why do you keep repeating the same stuff to which I already replied?
bis bald,
Nick
Label is not identity.
Leonid
1."(Nick)We don’t know anything until we exist."
This is not my point.My claim is that existence exists regardless to our consciousness.You claim that we provide identity and therefore existence to objects by taking snapshots.According to such a claim the opposite side of the Moon never existed before we took its pictures which is obvious absurd.
2"(Nick)No, we just give it a label, an identity.
Label is not identity.Identity is property of the thing,sum of its essential features which distinguish it from every other object and determines the mode of its actions.Label is what we call these features.Labels are arbitrary-in different languages we label the same identity differently. If labels were sine qua none of identity then identity of the object would be subjective,dependend on the person who gives the label.Consider your own parable of bigot in the bar.Why bigot and bartender should argue at all? According to your philosophy each of them took different snapshot on the object-Vietnam war- and labeled it differently.Each of them provided this object with different identity.So people shouldn't argue about anything since identity is simple matter of opinion.Metaphysical subjectivism leads to ethical relativism.
3." I hold that there is a certain nature of man, a humanness, which exists for Asians as it does for humans in Spokane, and it doesn’t change from time to time."
So you admit that man is not flux and has unchangable essential identity-mind and volition.However you said "it is not logical to say it is a fixed feature of man’s identity that he has an unfixed identity, an ability to choose what he will become." Your first statement contradicts the second.The true is that man has fixed identity which allows him to exercise mind and volition.If it weren't fixed,permanent feature of man it would mean that he may lose this ability,his essence will change to something else in the process of becoming.But in such a case he also would lose his "manness",become no-man.So it is not logical to suppose that man's identity is not fixed.Or he has his essential features,his identity or he is no man.
4." Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This is literally a contradiction, a paradox."
Please explain why this is contradiction. I cannot see any.Man exists by adjusting Nature to his needs.
5."You have enough trouble with the basics, like existence before essence. "-Yes,I think it is completely uncomprehensible to think that thing can exist as no-thing.This is contradiction in terms.
6."When things are completely bound by a fixed nature, they are not free to choose what they will be. This is an argument."
Man is not completely free.He cannot exist by eating stones,breathing water or drinking cianide.His nature,identity also doesn't allow him to exist as an animal or plant-without to use his mind and volition.This is not paradox to say that man can exist only qua man.This is Law of Identity.
Rand, herself, contradicts herself
(Nick)1."Gravity didn’t exist until someone called it that."
(Leonid)And what happened to it before man came to existence? We know that Law of gravity had been applicable millions of years before man.
(Nick)We don’t know anything until we exist.
(Leonid)Our Solar system formation and as matter of fact we ourselves are result of gravity.However to name gravity "gravity" doesn't provide it with any features to form Solar system or black holes.
(Nick)No, we just give it a label, an identity.
(Leonid)Besides,laws of Nature are not objects. They are relationships,manifestations of interactions between objects according to their identity.
(Nick)Actually, even objects are just dense formations of matter, according to some scientists. It’s all just phenomena.
(Leonid)Things don't need tags to have identity. We need them to form concepts and communicate..
(NicK)We have concepts for things that don’t exist. Evidently, we don’t need them to form concepts and communicate.
(NicK)2." I agree there is some objective reality"
(Lenoid)-and some what?Non-objective reality? Objective non-reality? Please
explain.
(Nick)Again? I explained over and over again that I hold that there is a certain nature of man, a humanness, which exists for Asians as it does for humans in Spokane, and it doesn’t change from time to time. Within those parameters, however, man’s nature can change and develop. That’s what I mean by freedom within parameters.
(Nick)3."Objects exist as unidentified phenomena"
(Lenoid)-well ,as I said before this is violation of Law of Identity.
(Nick)The law of identity is a procedural rule for communication and thinking. It doesn’t bind objects in reality. However, Existentialists do recognize that non-human things are more fixed than humans. That is why it is pragmatic to call trees “trees” and not rocks.
(Lenoid)Nothing can exixst as no thing-that is without identity.
(Nick)There is a discussion about “nothingness” in Existentialism, but you would probably not understand it. You have enough trouble with the basics, like existence before essence. I do talk about it in my Alice series.
(Leonid)Identity is not provided by snapshots (perception)or by process of abstraction, but it is very essence of the thing.As Rand said existence is identity.
(Nick)You are not really presenting an argument, Leonid. You are merely repeating Objectivists’ claims. It is like I said, Rand is one of those philosophers who believe in essence prior to existence. Freedom is logically in conflict with that view. When things are completely bound by a fixed nature, they are not free to choose what they will be. This is an argument.
(Nick)4. "Volition is the ability of the subject to develop the mind’s nature, assuming there is no distinction between mind and body."
(Leonid)-Right. And this is fixed essential feature of man,his identity.This identity will not change as long man is man.
(Nick)No, it is not logical to say it is a fixed feature of man’s identity that he has an unfixed identity, an ability to choose what he will become. It’s like saying that it is an absolute that there are no absolutes, which pure Existentialism does say.
(NicK)5."Not all contradictions can be resolved. There is paradox."
(Leonid)"By the very essence of reality contr