Existence

[shavedape]

Mzzz -- we've argued this before in FH and got nowhere. You consciously reject axioms, especially the most important one -- The Primacy of Existence i.e. existence exists, which is the first axiom. There can be no others before this axiom as it's literally impossible.

I know you will reject the following Rand quotes and blather something about Francis Bacon or perhaps even Plato, but I really don't care. It's your life and if you choose to walk around rejecting reality then more power to you.

Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

 

[Overmind One]

Mzzz -- we've argued this before in FH and got nowhere. You consciously reject axioms, especially the most important one -- The Primacy of Existence i.e. existence exists, which is the first axiom. There can be no others before this axiom as it's literally impossible.

I know you will reject the following Rand quotes and blather something about Francis Bacon or perhaps even Plato, but I really don't care. It's your life and if you choose to walk around rejecting reality then more power to you.

You said it best with the quotes, but I agree. I think this subject is interesting, but it is more an exercise in debate than seeking an actual answer to a question. It is sort of pointless to try to argue that one does not exist if they are interacting with others. On the other hand, things which we consider to exist cannot be locked into a finite value because nothing is finite or static. Gaining a better understanding of the "middle" where the rest of us live and exist is the key to the more lofty understandings. The question of WHY we exist, or HOW we exist would have more legs IMO. But I appreciate Mzzz posting this thread. Interesting comments!

 

[mzzz]

Actually..........blind faith is serious answer, not smartass. I have sheer blind faith that you exist, so in my mind you are real.

Yeah, I know, you got to the end answer which kind of defeats the purpose of discussion.

Did you expect me to miss that dodge??? ROFL!!!


All proof in hand leads me to conclude that your objective existance is more probable than you objective non-existance.
You post rarely
You have your own "style"
You are capable of initiating discussion


Bad choice of example then bud
It's a question of belief and "proof" working in concert IMHO. If I can plant my foot in your arse and kick it, then you are "physically real" to all current definitions, If I cannot do such a thing, Can I "metaphorically" do it? Yoo can debate, so I can "metaphorically" do so if required. Ergo, you exist.
To Me.............

As for "subjective reality", well, it don't mean shit what anyone else believes, Do YOU think you are real?

It wasn't a dodge, wanted to discuss the topic not really in relation to one specific person, me or anyone. That doesn't do much unless you can apply it to any arbitrary person. It's more applicable and generalizable to argue from the stance of any arbitrary person rather than any specific person. That just means you have adopted a definition of "physically real" and are connecting it to existence somehow, which I'm not sure how. But all that means is YOU think I'm real, does not establish my existence just what you think in regards to my existence.

Mzzz -- we've argued this before in FH and got nowhere. You consciously reject axioms, especially the most important one -- The Primacy of Existence i.e. existence exists, which is the first axiom. There can be no others before this axiom as it's literally impossible.

I know you will reject the following Rand quotes and blather something about Francis Bacon or perhaps even Plato, but I really don't care. It's your life and if you choose to walk around rejecting reality then more power to you.

That is not an axiom, not in the sense Rand describes it. And secondly, she has no interest in discussing "first philosophy", merely "second philosophy". She is making certain things axioms, for who knows whatever reasons, to discuss things that come after if we adopt those so-called axioms, such as her moral philosophy, objectivism, etc. For example, one could make the following things "axioms", in her sense: 1. God exists. 2. Everything God says is true. 3. The Bible is the word of God. Then you could go on to "second philosophy" and use those things as assumptions to go on and discuss results of that, like the morality involved in the Bible, historical implications, etc. And sometimes you may find contradictions resulting from that, such as untrue things in the Bible which would contradict the second statement questioning the axioms. That is essentially what she does. She never establishes any of the axioms in the first place. She only adopts them for purposes of discussing second philosophy. Furthermore, she never establishes why they must be axioms, in her sense of axioms which differs from mathematical definition of axioms.

Why is it impossible? Please explain how that is "literally impossible" without resorting to questions regarding my psychological state, you should be able to explain without referring to any one person, it should be able to stand on its own as an argument.

Existence exists is a meaningless statement. By meaningless I mean she does not say what existence is but she asserts that it has a property of existing. It is a meaningless statement that does not define existence because that would require relationships with other identifiers to define existence which would go against the independence of existence's existence that she seems to assert in her entire argument.

The second statement says nothing entirely. She says consciousness does not exist if existence does not exist, so why does she bother further explicating in terms of an existing consciousness?

Her methodology is wrong. Even a lot of her philosophies at second philosophy are wrong. By wrong, I mean invalid because of contradictory results in which her first and second axiom come at odds and sometimes a mixture of the last one. Plus contingent beings, quantum developments, big bang, etc. question her axioms plaguing them with such inconsistencies.

 

[Graybrew1]

Yeah, I know, you got to the end answer which kind of defeats the purpose of discussion.


It wasn't a dodge, wanted to discuss the topic not really in relation to one specific person, me or anyone. That doesn't do much unless you can apply it to any arbitrary person. It's more applicable and generalizable to argue from the stance of any arbitrary person rather than any specific person. That just means you have adopted a definition of "physically real" and are connecting it to existence somehow, which I'm not sure how. But all that means is YOU think I'm real, does not establish my existence just what you think in regards to my existence.



That is not an axiom, not in the sense Rand describes it. And secondly, she has no interest in discussing "first philosophy", merely "second philosophy". She is making certain things axioms, for who knows whatever reasons, to discuss things that come after if we adopt those so-called axioms, such as her moral philosophy, objectivism, etc. For example, one could make the following things "axioms", in her sense: 1. God exists. 2. Everything God says is true. 3. The Bible is the word of God. Then you could go on to "second philosophy" and use those things as assumptions to go on and discuss results of that, like the morality involved in the Bible, historical implications, etc. And sometimes you may find contradictions resulting from that, such as untrue things in the Bible which would contradict the second statement questioning the axioms. That is essentially what she does. She never establishes any of the axioms in the first place. She only adopts them for purposes of discussing second philosophy. Furthermore, she never establishes why they must be axioms, in her sense of axioms which differs from mathematical definition of axioms.

Why is it impossible? Please explain how that is "literally impossible" without resorting to questions regarding my psychological state, you should be able to explain without referring to any one person, it should be able to stand on its own as an argument.

Existence exists is a meaningless statement. By meaningless I mean she does not say what existence is but she asserts that it has a property of existing. It is a meaningless statement that does not define existence because that would require relationships with other identifiers to define existence which would go against the independence of existence's existence that she seems to assert in her entire argument.

The second statement says nothing entirely. She says consciousness does not exist if existence does not exist, so why does she bother further explicating in terms of an existing consciousness?

Her methodology is wrong. Even a lot of her philosophies at second philosophy are wrong. By wrong, I mean invalid because of contradictory results in which her first and second axiom come at odds and sometimes a mixture of the last one. Plus contingent beings, quantum developments, big bang, etc. question her axioms plaguing them with such inconsistencies.

Sorry Mzzz. Does that mean I am ahead of the game because of my insane intelligence level?
I still wuvs ya bud.

 

[SciphonicStranger]

I like to think that I am just a part of God's super awesome video game. I think I'm going skydiving tomorrow.

 

[shavedape]

That is not an axiom, not in the sense Rand describes it. And secondly, she has no interest in discussing "first philosophy", merely "second philosophy". She is making certain things axioms, for who knows whatever reasons, to discuss things that come after if we adopt those so-called axioms, such as her moral philosophy, objectivism, etc. For example, one could make the following things "axioms", in her sense: 1. God exists. 2. Everything God says is true. 3. The Bible is the word of God. Then you could go on to "second philosophy" and use those things as assumptions to go on and discuss results of that, like the morality involved in the Bible, historical implications, etc. And sometimes you may find contradictions resulting from that, such as untrue things in the Bible which would contradict the second statement questioning the axioms. That is essentially what she does. She never establishes any of the axioms in the first place. She only adopts them for purposes of discussing second philosophy. Furthermore, she never establishes why they must be axioms, in her sense of axioms which differs from mathematical definition of axioms.

Why is it impossible? Please explain how that is "literally impossible" without resorting to questions regarding my psychological state, you should be able to explain without referring to any one person, it should be able to stand on its own as an argument.

Existence exists is a meaningless statement. By meaningless I mean she does not say what existence is but she asserts that it has a property of existing. It is a meaningless statement that does not define existence because that would require relationships with other identifiers to define existence which would go against the independence of existence's existence that she seems to assert in her entire argument.

The second statement says nothing entirely. She says consciousness does not exist if existence does not exist, so why does she bother further explicating in terms of an existing consciousness?

Her methodology is wrong. Even a lot of her philosophies at second philosophy are wrong. By wrong, I mean invalid because of contradictory results in which her first and second axiom come at odds and sometimes a mixture of the last one. Plus contingent beings, quantum developments, big bang, etc. question her axioms plaguing them with such inconsistencies.

Even "Kim", who is a brain-dead reality show twit, rolls her eyes at you. She knows, as we all do with the exception of you for some bizarre reason, that the second quote I listed was the most relevant and easiest to understand. It started off with the very simple line: "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness". This explains in eight easy to understand words exactly what Rand was saying. These eight words stop your ridiculous "query" dead in its tracks.

How do you know you exist you ask? Because your consciousness wouldn't be possible without existence. There would be no "you" to posit the question of your existence. In order for you to be conscious you need to exist first. No matter how much you want to put the "consciousness cart" before the "existence horse" it will never work. Consciousness follows from existence and that order cannot be changed. In order for a consciousness to exist existence must exist first, hence the term "existence exists"; everything else follows from there (that includes consciousness).

"Existence exists" is an axiom (the Prime axiom to be exact). You can't reduce that simple concept down any further. It precedes all other axioms because no other axiom would exist if existence didn't exist. Literally everything proceeds from the axiom that "existence exists" -- everything. This includes consciousness, axiomatic concepts, puppies, Cuervo tequila martinis (yes, they exist, I shit you not), Mercedes Benz cars, lawn mowers, the Green Bay Packers, the "sport" of professional wrestling, the pedantic and erroneous scribblings of Immanuel Kant and literally everything else that comprises the universe. (Do I really need to add a rhetorical "duh" here?)

Okay, I'm done. I've learned long ago that it's pointless to go round and round with you in regards to philosophy because it's a wasted endeavor. Your nonsensical and willfully obtuse response to my initial post in this thread proves that edification is not what you seek here. As for what your motives are, to be honest, I really don't want to know. Have fun playing in the philosophical sandbox but just be sure to watch out for buried cat turds (at least we hope they are cat turds).

 

[Graybrew1]

We have so few members, it would be nice if we could try to be a bit more civil to each other, Please????

What is it with men and their chest pounding?

 

[Bluce Ree]

I like to think that I am just a part of God's super awesome video game. I think I'm going skydiving tomorrow.

You sure? Weren't you down to your last guy? Or did you get a bonus guy?

 

[Bluce Ree]

We have so few members, it would be nice if we could try to be a bit more civil to each other, Please????

What is it with men and their chest pounding?

That's how we get big pecs. They swell from all the pounding.

 

[Jim of WVa]

How do you know I exist?

Please refrain from smartass answers, such as, you don't you're a figment of my imagination. Hardy har har har.

What does this have to do with the new David Brin novel coming out this June?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANVT0hYbAfE&feature=youtu.be

 

[Graybrew1]

What does this have to do with the new David Brin novel coming out this June?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANVT0hYbAfE&feature=youtu.be

Why does it have to?

 

[Graybrew1]

That's how we get big pecs. They swell from all the pounding.

Too bad that does not work for women too.
Wait...............that might be really scary if it did.

 

[Overmind One]

Too bad that does not work for women too.
Wait...............that might be really scary if it did.

And painful!

 

[Graybrew1]

And painful!

Yes, but the question is.... for who?

 

[Overmind One]

Yeah, I know, you got to the end answer which kind of defeats the purpose of discussion.


It wasn't a dodge, wanted to discuss the topic not really in relation to one specific person, me or anyone. That doesn't do much unless you can apply it to any arbitrary person. It's more applicable and generalizable to argue from the stance of any arbitrary person rather than any specific person. That just means you have adopted a definition of "physically real" and are connecting it to existence somehow, which I'm not sure how. But all that means is YOU think I'm real, does not establish my existence just what you think in regards to my existence.



That is not an axiom, not in the sense Rand describes it. And secondly, she has no interest in discussing "first philosophy", merely "second philosophy". She is making certain things axioms, for who knows whatever reasons, to discuss things that come after if we adopt those so-called axioms, such as her moral philosophy, objectivism, etc. For example, one could make the following things "axioms", in her sense: 1. God exists. 2. Everything God says is true. 3. The Bible is the word of God. Then you could go on to "second philosophy" and use those things as assumptions to go on and discuss results of that, like the morality involved in the Bible, historical implications, etc. And sometimes you may find contradictions resulting from that, such as untrue things in the Bible which would contradict the second statement questioning the axioms. That is essentially what she does. She never establishes any of the axioms in the first place. She only adopts them for purposes of discussing second philosophy. Furthermore, she never establishes why they must be axioms, in her sense of axioms which differs from mathematical definition of axioms.

Why is it impossible? Please explain how that is "literally impossible" without resorting to questions regarding my psychological state, you should be able to explain without referring to any one person, it should be able to stand on its own as an argument.

Existence exists is a meaningless statement. By meaningless I mean she does not say what existence is but she asserts that it has a property of existing. It is a meaningless statement that does not define existence because that would require relationships with other identifiers to define existence which would go against the independence of existence's existence that she seems to assert in her entire argument.

The second statement says nothing entirely. She says consciousness does not exist if existence does not exist, so why does she bother further explicating in terms of an existing consciousness?

Her methodology is wrong. Even a lot of her philosophies at second philosophy are wrong. By wrong, I mean invalid because of contradictory results in which her first and second axiom come at odds and sometimes a mixture of the last one. Plus contingent beings, quantum developments, big bang, etc. question her axioms plaguing them with such inconsistencies.

You cannot say "I do not exist" and be correct, no matter what argument you use.

 

[mzzz]

View attachment 7090

Even "Kim", who is a brain-dead reality show twit, rolls her eyes at you. She knows, as we all do with the exception of you for some bizarre reason, that the second quote I listed was the most relevant and easiest to understand. It started off with the very simple line: "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness". This explains in eight easy to understand words exactly what Rand was saying. These eight words stop your ridiculous "query" dead in its tracks.

How do you know you exist you ask? Because your consciousness wouldn't be possible without existence. There would be no "you" to posit the question of your existence. In order for you to be conscious you need to exist first. No matter how much you want to put the "consciousness cart" before the "existence horse" it will never work. Consciousness follows from existence and that order cannot be changed. In order for a consciousness to exist existence must exist first, hence the term "existence exists"; everything else follows from there (that includes consciousness).

"Existence exists" is an axiom (the Prime axiom to be exact). You can't reduce that simple concept down any further. It precedes all other axioms because no other axiom would exist if existence didn't exist. Literally everything proceeds from the axiom that "existence exists" -- everything. This includes consciousness, axiomatic concepts, puppies, Cuervo tequila martinis (yes, they exist, I shit you not), Mercedes Benz cars, lawn mowers, the Green Bay Packers, the "sport" of professional wrestling, the pedantic and erroneous scribblings of Immanuel Kant and literally everything else that comprises the universe. (Do I really need to add a rhetorical "duh" here?)

Okay, I'm done. I've learned long ago that it's pointless to go round and round with you in regards to philosophy because it's a wasted endeavor. Your nonsensical and willfully obtuse response to my initial post in this thread proves that edification is not what you seek here. As for what your motives are, to be honest, I really don't want to know. Have fun playing in the philosophical sandbox but just be sure to watch out for buried cat turds (at least we hope they are cat turds).

You just said the same thing reworded with your usual childish ad-hominem manner. She doesn't define her meaning of existence but from your second paragraph I'm guessing you're saying your entire perceptual reality is existence. Then you add the burden of proving your perceptual field defines existence and maps out existence. And you haven't proven that existence can exist without your consciousness because that is something she seems to be implying, that it continues to exist even without the presence of your consciousness. If you don't have consciousness, you wouldn't have your perceptual faculties with which to determine if existence continues to exist or not.

It's not an axiom, not in the sense she says it is. Axioms aren't proven in the system which it is defined. It's only taken as a convention for deriving further conclusions.

 

[Backstep]

IMHO, the meaning of life and or the do we exist are as individual as the person that asks, unless the person subscribes to the herd mentality. Then "it's" the leader of said herd that says what is real or the meaning of life.

People have been running the circle track and splitting hairs over do we exist for thousands of years, this is why we see them pictured sitting out side a cave, a life time of split hairs leaves no room in the cave.

IMO this is no different than debating what came first, the chicken or the egg. Or if a tree falls in when no one is around, does it make a sound.

 

[shavedape]

You just said the same thing reworded with your usual childish ad-hominem manner. She doesn't define her meaning of existence but from your second paragraph I'm guessing you're saying your entire perceptual reality is existence. Then you add the burden of proving your perceptual field defines existence and maps out existence. And you haven't proven that existence can exist without your consciousness because that is something she seems to be implying, that it continues to exist even without the presence of your consciousness. If you don't have consciousness, you wouldn't have your perceptual faculties with which to determine if existence continues to exist or not.

It's not an axiom, not in the sense she says it is. Axioms aren't proven in the system which it is defined. It's only taken as a convention for deriving further conclusions.

*

Okay, I'm done. I've learned long ago that it's pointless to go round and round with you in regards to philosophy because it's a wasted endeavor.

If you do truly seek edification then I direct you to the two links below.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html

 

[mzzz]

Nah, I've already read most of it, she doesn't have a valid argument and seems to use her own brand of unjustified logic/methodology. I don't think she is even considered a philosopher anymore, more a pseudo-philosopher, much like pseudo-scientists.

 

[Overmind One]

Nah, I've already read most of it, she doesn't have a valid argument and seems to use her own brand of unjustified logic/methodology. I don't think she is even considered a philosopher anymore, more a pseudo-philosopher, much like pseudo-scientists.

Just so its clear, is it existence itself you are debating, or the notion of confirming it via words/actions? If it is the ability to define or describe existence which is the issue, then many of the things we experience every minute of every day cannot be conclusively described or explained. Air, for instance. We can see it, feel it, and measure its volume. Indeed, we cannot survive without it. But WHAT is it? Its a collection of gasses...what is a gas? Etc etc. At the root of this is the question:

Why argue existence?

It seems like it might be easier to argue WHY things exist than IF they exist, don't you think?