Bill Vallicella explains some of the problems with some major and key Randian ideas. Will those who really need to read his piece read it? You know who you are . . .
I remember reading one of Leonard Peikoff's books on Objectivism where he proposed a solution to the brain in a vat "problem". I should look it up because I recall it didn't seem terribly plausible.
Bill has also posted a second article, 'Modal Confusion in Rand/Peikoff', and a commenter has asked for his thoughts on Rand's theory of concept formation as presented in ITOE (which is apparently considered "her greatest achievement").
If only Dawson Bethrick, the most long-winded Rand apologist on the face of the earth, would take Bill's criticisms under advisement. That way we might avoid more ill-conceived, novella-length "rebuttals" of presuppositional apologetics—rebuttals so mind-numbingly dull and obtuse that one's strength fades even contemplating a response.
Dominic: That way we might avoid more ill-conceived, novella-length "rebuttals" of presuppositional apologetics—rebuttals so mind-numbingly dull and obtuse that one's strength fades even contemplating a response.
Vytautas: But they are tests to see if you could "out wordsmith the wordsmith", so that you could build your endurance by reading Dawson and responding to him.
I agree with everything Dominic has said about Bethrick :-)
BTW, I figured out that Rand's "Objectivism" was, shall we say less-than-rigorous, when I realized that "existence exists" is about the same thing as saying "redness reds." Existence is an attribute of an object, not an object that can exist itself. There is no such thing as "existence" that exists anywhere, there are just objects that have the property of existence.
Of course, for all the complaining that theology suffers from the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of existence that Randians bring up (they just assume without arguing that this is ipso facto "bad" too), "existence exists" is basically the same thing as appealing to a Platonic archtype--which is highly ironic given how much disdain "Objectivists" hold for Plato!
Indeed; in fact, existence is commonly regarded as a second-order property. Do Randians take "existence exists" to be a first principle of some kind, a la epistemological foundationalism? I've never really bothered to find out what they believe since I've only ever run across Dawson, and he was plainly not worth responding to.
Dominic: Do Randians take "existence exists" to be a first principle of some kind, a la epistemological foundationalism?
Vytautas: Yes, if you deny that existance exists, then you have no way of knowing anything. So whatever exists exists, and man should identify what exists so he can survive in existance for himself.
Vytautas: Yes, if you deny that existance exists, then you have no way of knowing anything. So whatever exists exists, and man should identify what exists so he can survive in existance for himself.
Thanks. Of course, as noted above, "existence exists" is not a sensible statement to begin with. Neither is it useful even if modified to be sensible; viz, perhaps, your restatement, "whatever exists exists". That's merely tautological and doesn't tell us anything. True, if we deny it we have no way of knowing anything, in virtue of the fact that knowledge entails knowledge of something existent—but affirming the statement doesn't, in and of itself, commensurately provide us with some way of knowing things. An epistemological first principle needs to function as the foundational proposition of the entire worldview it supports; namely the rest of the epistemology itself, its accompanying metaphysical and ethical theories, and so on. A first principle is only useful and workable if you can deduce the rest of the worldview from it. You can't deduce anything from 'whatever exists exists'. You can't deduce any kind of epistemology (ie, how we know that whatever exists exists, how we know that we know, etc); we can't deduce any kind of metaphysic (ie, what is the nature of existence, what is the ground of existence, etc); and we certainly can't deduce any ethical or anthropological propositions (ie, what is right and wrong, what is the nature of man, etc).
So Randian objectivism seems to be fundamentally incoherent as formulated by Rand; and if we correct that incoherency, it's fundamentally useless since its founding axiom is incapable of founding anything.
Well, let me offer this as a tiny contribution, perhaps it will save a lot of wasted time:
In Objectivism, "Existence exists" is an axiomatic truth, not a epistemological forumlation. I think you'll find that you likely have no issue with it....unless you believe in things that don't exist.
Anyone wishing to get on the learning curve, you can get source statements without reading entire books here:
Well, as pointed out, John, "existence exists" is not actually true, since it is incoherent. If what is meant is "whatever exists exists", then certainly that's an axiomatic truth of any system, so as a distinctive of Randian Objectivism, it's...well, not very distinctive.
Okay, now I see this: "it's fundamentally useless since its founding axiom is incapable of founding anything." and I will respond even though Mr Tennant's last post was long-winded, mind-numbingly dull etc.
Rand does not deduce her system from her axiomatic metaphysical foundation "Existence." All truth discovered by Objectivism is through induction, and all induction is consistent with the constraint that all existents named/claimed in the induction must actually exist in objective reality.
Oh if only it were true of all systems. You are wrong about that. Many systems are founded on axioms that do not except objective reality. Religious systems, for instance, are founded on "God Is" which has nothing to do with reality, but upon which vast systems are made. Likewise, radical skeptics axiomatic truth is "There are no absolutes", a void self-contradiction.
Rand finds it necessary to set a simple declaration of objective reality at the root of her system as a stop sign to invalidate any such attempts.
Rand does not deduce her system from her axiomatic metaphysical foundation "Existence." All truth discovered by Objectivism is through induction, and all induction is consistent with the constraint that all existents named/claimed in the induction must actually exist in objective reality.
I see; so the entire worldview is inductively inferred? Then there is no certainty in it—induction is an informal fallacy. And am I to take it that "existence exists" is also implicitly making some kind of statement about the nature of existence? Ie, an objective world outside our senses exists? That seems to be implied, but I'm not sure. If it is, that too is an unjustified presupposition, assuming we're interested in philosophical rigor.
Many systems are founded on axioms that do not except objective reality
This statement does seem to support my suspicion that "existence exists" is more than a trivial existential statement. In fact, "existence" seems to be synonymous with "an external world". I'd have expected you to point this out if it was the case, since obviously the reformulation that "everything which exists exists" is not actually an accurate representation of this axiom. While every worldview necessarily presupposes that "everything which exists exists", not every worldview presupposes that "an external world exists". These are not similar statements. And, as I've pointed out, starting out with the axiom that an external world exists is illicit.
Religious systems, for instance, are founded on "God Is" which has nothing to do with reality, but upon which vast systems are made.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement. On the one hand, I don't know of any religious system which takes "God is" as a first principle. On the other, the axiom that "God is" isn't in any way at odds with the axiom that an external world exists. You need to clarify what you mean by the word "founded".
Rand finds it necessary to set a simple declaration of objective reality at the root of her system as a stop sign to invalidate any such attempts.
Hang on, so now "existence exists" actually means "the physical universe only exists"? How much more metaphysical baggage can two words carry? The whole system seems to be a house of cards. What are these metaphysical commitments based on? Pure speculation?
John said..."Dr. Vallicella has so far declined to respond to my non-long counter to his objection at his blog."
Well, he is a very smart man. Have you ever debated a Randroid, er, Objectivist?
John said..."Meanwhile here we have . . . a "hack" smear"
I thought it was an instance of the law of identity. Would 'sloppy amateur' work better?
Others,
Regarding existence existng, I'm inclined to say that it is not a property that belongs but is a belonging of a property. Entering into a relationship of predicate exemplification. Thus 'existence exists' is true because at least one thing has entered into exemplification or predication relationships. Speaking of contingent existents.
Vallicella writes,
‘Existence itself exists of absolute metaphysical necessity and the contingent exists in virtue of its dependence on self-existent existence.’ (p. xi)
For two more level-headed analysis of existence existing see:
Induction is not a fallacy. The results of induction are fallible, yes, but the goal is to deploy reason with greater and greater precision until a given proposition/claim achieves a position of "true" and "certain" within the context of human knowledge. At all times, 'reason' includes logic AND facts.
The Axiom of Existence does not have to be specific about the 'nature of existence'; that is redundant. It only sets the foundation that anything claimed by anyone in any part of knowledge must actually exist, that is not be imagined or outside reality.
If you require skepticism about the existence of something real, as you last sentence implies, for "rigor", the burden is on you to show how that produces anything other than nihilism.
"... starting out with the axiom that an external world exists is illicit." Assuming the possibility that you are making everything up in your mind is illicit. --------------------------- "..."existence" seems to be synonymous with "an external world"" It is true that "not every world view presupposes that "an external world exists". As you are aware, Objectivism calls this Primacy of Consciousness. Luckily, Objectivism does not have to refute these systems or contend with them philosophically. Anyone proposing there is something like a "non-external world" which is anything more than the psychology of the individual so claiming, bears the burden of demonstrating how this can be totalized into a philosophical system with objective truth validation. --------------- If "God Is" is NOT the axiom of religion, what is? Doesn't the bible even say it nearly word for word? "I am that I am." If you say religion has NO axiomatic belief, then you have proven that it is just another fantasy of each person believing in it. Just a psychological state.
On the other hand, if religion admits that (in your words, not mine) there is an external world, then it begs the question....Is God part of that external world? If so, what is the objective identity of God. ------------ Objectivism is a house built on a simple but solid bedrock: the existents of reality. Only they exist. Objectivists, and I would argue everyone, bears the burden of identifying them and not going into denial that certain things do not exist nor inventing things with no identification and taking them seriously. Meanwhile, any system that claims truth for anything -- external or internal -- that has no identity, is solely responsible for validating the truth of their existence. And good luck with that.
Surely you aren't serious. Induction is an informal fallacy—it is a kind of logically invalid inference which may nonetheless yield true results. To wit:
In logic, a type of nonvalid inference or argument in which the premises provide some reason for believing that the conclusion is true. Typical forms of inductive argument include reasoning from a part to a whole, from the particular to the general, and from a sample to an entire population. Induction is traditionally contrasted with deduction. Many of the problems of inductive logic, including what is known as the problem of induction, have been treated in studies of the methodology of the natural sciences. (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 'induction'.)
You then say,
The results of induction are fallible, yes, but the goal is to deploy reason with greater and greater precision until a given proposition/claim achieves a position of "true" and "certain" within the context of human knowledge.
But what you're describing here—"greater and greater precision"—is characterized by deduction. Induction works in the opposite direction: from greater precision and certainty towards less and less of the same. How can you not be familiar with the problem of induction (cf Hume)? How can you not be aware that "truth" and "certainty" are impossible given inductive inference? Could it be because all you've ever read is Rand? That does seem consistent with your ignorance of basic logical concepts. Next time, take a Logic 101 course and read some introductory philosophy before you head out into the real world and try to pontificate on a blog published by people who have a clue and can call your bluff. You're just embarrassing yourself. (In that vein, also bemused by your couching this in terms of "the context of human knowledge". What other context is there with regards to epistemology?)
The Axiom of Existence does not have to be specific about the 'nature of existence'; that is redundant.
It's only redundant if you're presupposing something about the nature of existence. Otherwise, all you are saying is that for every thing which exists, that thing exists. ∀x∃x. Not exactly a revelation.
It only sets the foundation that anything claimed by anyone in any part of knowledge must actually exist, that is not be imagined or outside reality.
Well, that's another truism—but whether or not it's the case isn't implied by ∀x∃x. You'd have to assume something about the nature of existence (N) first, such that ∀x∃x → N(x); thus ¬(N)x → ¬∃x. So where's your justification?
If you require skepticism about the existence of something real, as you last sentence implies, for "rigor", the burden is on you to show how that produces anything other than nihilism.
If you're interested in vindicating Randian Objectivism from my observation that it's built on unjustified metaphysical assumptions, you'll have to do better than that. You can argue that the existence of an external world is self-evident and does not require justification, but the statement "existence exists" doesn't achieve anything towards that goal. And even if I accept that it's reasonable to assume the existence of an external world without additional justification (which I don't; yet I'm not a skeptic since I base my epistemology on objective revelation), that says nothing about the possible nature of the external world. Even if I go so far as to grant you that "existence exists" means "the external world as we perceive it exists", that doesn't gain you any traction whatsoever in rejecting the claims of Christian theism. To get from the existence of the external world to the non-existence of God looks just like an argument from ignorance.
Assuming the possibility that you are making everything up in your mind is illicit.
I agree, since I was speaking in terms of building a workable worldview, which requires an information-rich starting premise. You haven't defended your claim by burning a strawman.
It is true that "not every world view presupposes that "an external world exists". As you are aware, Objectivism calls this Primacy of Consciousness. Luckily, Objectivism does not have to refute these systems or contend with them philosophically. Anyone proposing there is something like a "non-external world" which is anything more than the psychology of the individual so claiming, bears the burden of demonstrating how this can be totalized into a philosophical system with objective truth validation.
"Luckily"? If "luck" takes the form of question-begging ad hoc stipulations, I guess. Of course, I can stipulate, ad hoc, that we should only eat ostriches. Does that make it true? That said, an ostrich may stipulate, ad hoc, that anyone proposing to eat it bears the burden of having to visually prove their presence first. Doesn't stop it from tasting delicious. Cf the arguments from reason.
If "God Is" is NOT the axiom of religion, what is? Doesn't the bible even say it nearly word for word? "I am that I am." If you say religion has NO axiomatic belief, then you have proven that it is just another fantasy of each person believing in it. Just a psychological state.
The Bible also says that "Jesus wept" and "Cain spoke to his brother Abel". Should either of those be considered the axiom of religion qua religion? Are you even thinking before you type? Mind you, from a Christian perspective those are certainly axiomatic propositions—because the Christian starts with the axiom that the Bible is the word of God. What other religions might say doesn't interest me, and I don't make the mistake of assuming all religions are created equal.
On the other hand, if religion admits that (in your words, not mine) there is an external world, then it begs the question....Is God part of that external world? If so, what is the objective identity of God.
I think you'll need to actually explain how that is begging the question. Yes, God is part of the external world. The objective identity of God is...God. What, do you want an exhaustive list of his attributes? Isn't a name sufficient any more? Or are you asking for something more like coordinates in spacetime?
What about Anton Thorn at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Thorn2.html? He has been mentioned here at Triablogue only a few times. Is he even more of a philosophical lightweight than Bethrick?
I wonder how all this talk about how "existence exists" interplays with Paul's blog Tinkerbell Exists! http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/tinkerbell-exists.html.
Here Paul interacts with the following Clarkian statements:
"Everything exists. Trees exist. Rocks exist. Unicorns exist. Minds exist. Dreams exist. Atheists exist. God exists. Hallucinations exist. A term that is predicable of everything, however means nothing. ...[E]xistence is indistinguishable from nothing." - John Robbins, Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System, 1997, p.87
"Being and reality are so universal as to be meaningless. A word that is applicable to everything is applicable to nothing. if trees exist and are real, so do dreams exist and are real. Hallucinations are real hallucinations" - G.H. Clark, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, 410
Dominic Bnonn Tennant are you a Clarkian Scripturalist? You've made some comments that a Clarkian would make. For example:
"An epistemological first principle needs to function as the foundational proposition of the entire worldview it supports; namely the rest of the epistemology itself, its accompanying metaphysical and ethical theories, and so on. A first principle is only useful and workable if you can deduce the rest of the worldview from it."
and "I agree, since I was speaking in terms of building a workable worldview, which requires an information-rich starting premise."
and
"Mind you, from a Christian perspective those are certainly axiomatic propositions—because the Christian starts with the axiom that the Bible is the word of God."
It seems to me that the Triabloggers, along with Aquascum (http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/) have effectively refuted Clarkian and Cheungian Scripturalism. Though, I tend to agree that on non-theistic grounds, induction cannot lead to certainty for all the reasons that Clarkians have pointed out.
Btw, you didn't seem to call induction a formal fallacy (as many Clarkians have done in the past). Instead you called it (properly) and informal fallacy. So, I'm not sure now.
Thank you for your revealing post. There is no need to continue. You are a theist and all else follows from that. It is regretful you stooped so low in your attempted shaming and ridicule.
To any other Objectivist reading this, you are witnessing the twisted system necessary to make room for "objective revelation".
Hi Annoyed Pinoy, no, I'm not a Clarkian scripturalist—at least, not as I understand the term. Scripturalists like Clark and Cheung seem to object to any knowledge-claims not derived from the Bible. I do take a strong foundationalist approach to epistemology, so I believe that the only justified true belief is found in the propositional content of Scripture and what can be deduced from it. But I don't deny that other knowledge sources provide warranted beliefs. That said, I'm still relatively unstudied in epistemology, so I wouldn't want to have to say that I hold to any particular position too dogmatically.
Thank you for your revealing post. There is no need to continue. You are a theist and all else follows from that. It is regretful you stooped so low in your attempted shaming and ridicule.
To any other Objectivist reading this, you are witnessing the twisted system necessary to make room for "objective revelation".
Egad! The You're A Meanie defense! Woe—a devastating debate tactic; I am undone. If only I had seen it coming, I could have countered with the So's Your Face technique—but now it's too late. Still, no sense crying over spilled milk, eh. I must man up and do what a gentleman must do. Sir, you are the better man. Your studied, paternal sadness at my abject condition, and your earnestly hen-like concern for other Objectivists has convinced me that Christianity is false. I will rename my blog, purchase all of Rand's works, and embark upon an epic philosophical journey to enlightenment, spreading the news of my newfound freedom from epistemological rigor far and wide, throughout this fair series of inter-connected tubes—until they resound with the tinny echoes of my battlecry: existence exists!
and an email to Bill. I was going to follow up with a post on the numerous fallacies that could be found in the 'existence exists' argument. But you seem to have beaten me to it. Oh well I may plagiarise it anyway.
Sheesh, so I miss a day and Bnonn goes on a rampage.... >:-D
To add a bit more in layman's terms(although I doubt John's still reading):
The Law of Identity (expressed as "A is A") is necessary for logic to begin, but it doesn't tell us anything about the attributes of what exists. In other words, let's stick with A is A for a moment (although all of this could easily apply to "existence exists" too).
"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality (italics original).
Everything is fine up until the "Thus" statement. That A is A DOES NOT MEAN THAT A CANNOT BE SUPERNATURAL.
If A is supernatural, then A is supernatural. You cannot rule out the supernatural by saying "A is A."
The assumption being made is that only the natural world exists; but this is an assumption that must be argued for. It is not enough to say, "A is A, therefore no there is no supernatural." That's irrational and incoherent.
As such, Randians push the Law of Identity far beyond what is warranted. And this easily comports back to the notion of "existence exists" too. For if a supernatural being exists, then supernatural existence exists too.
Finally, not to pile too much on, the above article also goes on to quote Rand as saying:
"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge" (italics mine).
Of course, I merely point out that the last sentence is obviously absurd. We can aquire factual knowledge in an unreasonable manner. For instance, someone could "reason", "All dogs are mammals; all cats are mammals; therefore, all cows are mammals." This is irrational. The conclusion is still factually true. Even using faulty reasoning, you've come to acquire knowledge.
Finally, the above Rand quote also suffers from the fact that it's a faith-statement. Rand just asserts that man's reason can tell us all there is to know about reality. I just ask how it's possible to use reason to figure out quantum truth, where the law of non-contradiction itself seems "bent." As Bohr is attributed to saying, anyone who thinks he's understood quantum mechanics hasn't understood it.
So again, as was my original point, Randian philosophy is "less-than-rigorous." There's too much smuggled in without justification.
I offered my own arguments against Randroid understandings of "existence exists" and "the argument from the primacy of existence over consciousness" as well as their claims about physicalism and materialism etc., here:
"""Physicalist Donald Davidson writes, “"[M]ental characteristics are in some sense dependent, or supervenient, on physical characteristics. Such supervenience might be taken to mean that there cannot be two events alike in all physical respects but differing in some mental respect, or that an object cannot alter in some mental respect without altering in some physical respect."
Is Davidson therefore a Randian materialist? Either way, physicalism (and Rand might be read as physicalist, however crude her formulations might be), either reductive , or-not-so reductive does have a certain force: one reason, for, like DUI laws as well (some Geist if a few shots of tequila render it unfit to drive).
I suggest the theologians are, as per usual, not really arguing against physicalism per se, but doing the usual veiled aesthetics that clergymen specialize in: Rand? Objectivism? Rah-thur. Ghastly. Dreadful.
Even in the original article (responding to me), Bethrick equivocates like never before:
"At least David seems to get the argument which I presented in my blog. That’s good! Logically, then, David should have no problem with the assessment that his theism conceives of the world subjectively, for this is a direct outcome of theism. As Paul Manata once conceded, “reality is subjective” because it’s “based on the divine mind.” This statement invites problems of its own, of course, since it can only suggest that the “divine mind” on which “reality” is “based” could itself not be part of reality, which would mean that it’s not real."
re MavP's point on "Fragility": "Fragile" describes something in nature. Glass is not disposed to be fragile: the physico-chemical structure of glass (ie solidified silicon) and specific design makes it "fragile", according to human sensibility--but there's no disposition or attribute "fragility" along with the silicon atoms. Disposition sounds a lot like anthropomorphism (aka the Aristotelian-cause papist-nostalgia trip).
That said, yes Rand's point--the que sera sera meme!--may be stated crudely and reductionist as usual, but I think she was attempting to discuss something like determinism: and in that case, even Rand's billiard-ball material determinism superior to theological spooks of various sort (tho I am one who contends Aristotle was empirical-materialist anyways: more early biologist than metaphysician. See the Categories). Rand's sort of like Spinoza for dyslexic, agnostic republicans (tho, even Randianism is thankfully free of the spinozaistic substance, perfection, yada yada).
Few would doubt determinism and newtonian mechanics holds in physical realm (notwithstanding a few quantum anomalies). Pendulums and guillotines work identically each time--at least on earth-- unless something went wrong at human level (or they wore out).
Does determinism hold at level of human decisions? More likely than not, though some compatibilism (ie recognizing liberty, choice, as well as bio-physical cause) seems difficult to ignore, even if only a useful illusion. Yet if determinism does hold, Rand's heroic Reason also an illusion. What is Reason if one must do something.....
I don’t know If I said it already, but this so good stuff keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part 2012 Movie Free Download just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks.
I remember reading one of Leonard Peikoff's books on Objectivism where he proposed a solution to the brain in a vat "problem". I should look it up because I recall it didn't seem terribly plausible.
ReplyDeleteBill has also posted a second article, 'Modal Confusion in Rand/Peikoff', and a commenter has asked for his thoughts on Rand's theory of concept formation as presented in ITOE (which is apparently considered "her greatest achievement").
ReplyDeleteIf only Dawson Bethrick, the most long-winded Rand apologist on the face of the earth, would take Bill's criticisms under advisement. That way we might avoid more ill-conceived, novella-length "rebuttals" of presuppositional apologetics—rebuttals so mind-numbingly dull and obtuse that one's strength fades even contemplating a response.
Dominic: That way we might avoid more ill-conceived, novella-length "rebuttals" of presuppositional apologetics—rebuttals so mind-numbingly dull and obtuse that one's strength fades even contemplating a response.
ReplyDeleteVytautas: But they are tests to see if you could "out wordsmith the wordsmith", so that you could build your endurance by reading Dawson and responding to him.
I'd describe Dawson as many things, but a wordsmith would never be one of them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything Dominic has said about Bethrick :-)
ReplyDeleteBTW, I figured out that Rand's "Objectivism" was, shall we say less-than-rigorous, when I realized that "existence exists" is about the same thing as saying "redness reds." Existence is an attribute of an object, not an object that can exist itself. There is no such thing as "existence" that exists anywhere, there are just objects that have the property of existence.
Of course, for all the complaining that theology suffers from the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of existence that Randians bring up (they just assume without arguing that this is ipso facto "bad" too), "existence exists" is basically the same thing as appealing to a Platonic archtype--which is highly ironic given how much disdain "Objectivists" hold for Plato!
Indeed; in fact, existence is commonly regarded as a second-order property. Do Randians take "existence exists" to be a first principle of some kind, a la epistemological foundationalism? I've never really bothered to find out what they believe since I've only ever run across Dawson, and he was plainly not worth responding to.
ReplyDeleteDominic: Do Randians take "existence exists" to be a first principle of some kind, a la epistemological foundationalism?
ReplyDeleteVytautas: Yes, if you deny that existance exists, then you have no way of knowing anything. So whatever exists exists, and man should identify what exists so he can survive in existance for himself.
Vytautas: Yes, if you deny that existance exists, then you have no way of knowing anything. So whatever exists exists, and man should identify what exists so he can survive in existance for himself.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Of course, as noted above, "existence exists" is not a sensible statement to begin with. Neither is it useful even if modified to be sensible; viz, perhaps, your restatement, "whatever exists exists". That's merely tautological and doesn't tell us anything. True, if we deny it we have no way of knowing anything, in virtue of the fact that knowledge entails knowledge of something existent—but affirming the statement doesn't, in and of itself, commensurately provide us with some way of knowing things. An epistemological first principle needs to function as the foundational proposition of the entire worldview it supports; namely the rest of the epistemology itself, its accompanying metaphysical and ethical theories, and so on. A first principle is only useful and workable if you can deduce the rest of the worldview from it. You can't deduce anything from 'whatever exists exists'. You can't deduce any kind of epistemology (ie, how we know that whatever exists exists, how we know that we know, etc); we can't deduce any kind of metaphysic (ie, what is the nature of existence, what is the ground of existence, etc); and we certainly can't deduce any ethical or anthropological propositions (ie, what is right and wrong, what is the nature of man, etc).
So Randian objectivism seems to be fundamentally incoherent as formulated by Rand; and if we correct that incoherency, it's fundamentally useless since its founding axiom is incapable of founding anything.
hmmm.....
ReplyDeleteDr. Vallicella has so far declined to respond to my non-long counter to his objection at his blog.
Meanwhile here we have both a "hack" smear and a display of monumental ignorance about Ayn Rand's metaphysics.
I wonder if I should bother.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Well, let me offer this as a tiny contribution, perhaps it will save a lot of wasted time:
ReplyDeleteIn Objectivism, "Existence exists" is an axiomatic truth, not a epistemological forumlation. I think you'll find that you likely have no issue with it....unless you believe in things that don't exist.
Anyone wishing to get on the learning curve, you can get source statements without reading entire books here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/
John Donohue
Well, as pointed out, John, "existence exists" is not actually true, since it is incoherent. If what is meant is "whatever exists exists", then certainly that's an axiomatic truth of any system, so as a distinctive of Randian Objectivism, it's...well, not very distinctive.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Bnonn
Okay, now I see this: "it's fundamentally useless since its founding axiom is incapable of founding anything." and I will respond even though Mr Tennant's last post was long-winded, mind-numbingly dull etc.
ReplyDeleteRand does not deduce her system from her axiomatic metaphysical foundation "Existence." All truth discovered by Objectivism is through induction, and all induction is consistent with the constraint that all existents named/claimed in the induction must actually exist in objective reality.
John Donohue
".. an axiomatic truth of any system"
ReplyDeleteOh if only it were true of all systems. You are wrong about that. Many systems are founded on axioms that do not except objective reality. Religious systems, for instance, are founded on "God Is" which has nothing to do with reality, but upon which vast systems are made. Likewise, radical skeptics axiomatic truth is "There are no absolutes", a void self-contradiction.
Rand finds it necessary to set a simple declaration of objective reality at the root of her system as a stop sign to invalidate any such attempts.
John Donohue
[I am typing too fast and watching football and made a few errors last posts. I meant "formulation" of course, and "accept" not "except."]
ReplyDeleteRand does not deduce her system from her axiomatic metaphysical foundation "Existence." All truth discovered by Objectivism is through induction, and all induction is consistent with the constraint that all existents named/claimed in the induction must actually exist in objective reality.
ReplyDeleteI see; so the entire worldview is inductively inferred? Then there is no certainty in it—induction is an informal fallacy. And am I to take it that "existence exists" is also implicitly making some kind of statement about the nature of existence? Ie, an objective world outside our senses exists? That seems to be implied, but I'm not sure. If it is, that too is an unjustified presupposition, assuming we're interested in philosophical rigor.
Many systems are founded on axioms that do not except objective reality
This statement does seem to support my suspicion that "existence exists" is more than a trivial existential statement. In fact, "existence" seems to be synonymous with "an external world". I'd have expected you to point this out if it was the case, since obviously the reformulation that "everything which exists exists" is not actually an accurate representation of this axiom. While every worldview necessarily presupposes that "everything which exists exists", not every worldview presupposes that "an external world exists". These are not similar statements. And, as I've pointed out, starting out with the axiom that an external world exists is illicit.
Religious systems, for instance, are founded on "God Is" which has nothing to do with reality, but upon which vast systems are made.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement. On the one hand, I don't know of any religious system which takes "God is" as a first principle. On the other, the axiom that "God is" isn't in any way at odds with the axiom that an external world exists. You need to clarify what you mean by the word "founded".
Rand finds it necessary to set a simple declaration of objective reality at the root of her system as a stop sign to invalidate any such attempts.
Hang on, so now "existence exists" actually means "the physical universe only exists"? How much more metaphysical baggage can two words carry? The whole system seems to be a house of cards. What are these metaphysical commitments based on? Pure speculation?
John said..."Dr. Vallicella has so far declined to respond to my non-long counter to his objection at his blog."
ReplyDeleteWell, he is a very smart man. Have you ever debated a Randroid, er, Objectivist?
John said..."Meanwhile here we have . . . a "hack" smear"
I thought it was an instance of the law of identity. Would 'sloppy amateur' work better?
Others,
Regarding existence existng, I'm inclined to say that it is not a property that belongs but is a belonging of a property. Entering into a relationship of predicate exemplification. Thus 'existence exists' is true because at least one thing has entered into exemplification or predication relationships. Speaking of contingent existents.
Vallicella writes,
‘Existence itself
exists of absolute metaphysical necessity and the contingent exists in virtue of its
dependence on self-existent existence.’ (p. xi)
For two more level-headed analysis of existence existing see:
http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/10/j-p-moreland-reviews-my-book.html
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/vallicella.htm
Induction is not a fallacy. The results of induction are fallible, yes, but the goal is to deploy reason with greater and greater precision until a given proposition/claim achieves a position of "true" and "certain" within the context of human knowledge. At all times, 'reason' includes logic AND facts.
ReplyDeleteThe Axiom of Existence does not have to be specific about the 'nature of existence'; that is redundant. It only sets the foundation that anything claimed by anyone in any part of knowledge must actually exist, that is not be imagined or outside reality.
If you require skepticism about the existence of something real, as you last sentence implies, for "rigor", the burden is on you to show how that produces anything other than nihilism.
"... starting out with the axiom that an external world exists is illicit."
Assuming the possibility that you are making everything up in your mind is illicit.
---------------------------
"..."existence" seems to be synonymous with "an external world""
It is true that "not every world view presupposes that "an external world exists". As you are aware, Objectivism calls this Primacy of Consciousness. Luckily, Objectivism does not have to refute these systems or contend with them philosophically. Anyone proposing there is something like a "non-external world" which is anything more than the psychology of the individual so claiming, bears the burden of demonstrating how this can be totalized into a philosophical system with objective truth validation.
---------------
If "God Is" is NOT the axiom of religion, what is? Doesn't the bible even say it nearly word for word? "I am that I am." If you say religion has NO axiomatic belief, then you have proven that it is just another fantasy of each person believing in it. Just a psychological state.
On the other hand, if religion admits that (in your words, not mine) there is an external world, then it begs the question....Is God part of that external world? If so, what is the objective identity of God.
------------
Objectivism is a house built on a simple but solid bedrock: the existents of reality. Only they exist. Objectivists, and I would argue everyone, bears the burden of identifying them and not going into denial that certain things do not exist nor inventing things with no identification and taking them seriously. Meanwhile, any system that claims truth for anything -- external or internal -- that has no identity, is solely responsible for validating the truth of their existence. And good luck with that.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Induction is not a fallacy.
ReplyDeleteSurely you aren't serious. Induction is an informal fallacy—it is a kind of logically invalid inference which may nonetheless yield true results. To wit:
In logic, a type of nonvalid inference or argument in which the premises provide some reason for believing that the conclusion is true. Typical forms of inductive argument include reasoning from a part to a whole, from the particular to the general, and from a sample to an entire population. Induction is traditionally contrasted with deduction. Many of the problems of inductive logic, including what is known as the problem of induction, have been treated in studies of the methodology of the natural sciences. (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 'induction'.)
You then say,
The results of induction are fallible, yes, but the goal is to deploy reason with greater and greater precision until a given proposition/claim achieves a position of "true" and "certain" within the context of human knowledge.
But what you're describing here—"greater and greater precision"—is characterized by deduction. Induction works in the opposite direction: from greater precision and certainty towards less and less of the same. How can you not be familiar with the problem of induction (cf Hume)? How can you not be aware that "truth" and "certainty" are impossible given inductive inference? Could it be because all you've ever read is Rand? That does seem consistent with your ignorance of basic logical concepts. Next time, take a Logic 101 course and read some introductory philosophy before you head out into the real world and try to pontificate on a blog published by people who have a clue and can call your bluff. You're just embarrassing yourself. (In that vein, also bemused by your couching this in terms of "the context of human knowledge". What other context is there with regards to epistemology?)
The Axiom of Existence does not have to be specific about the 'nature of existence'; that is redundant.
It's only redundant if you're presupposing something about the nature of existence. Otherwise, all you are saying is that for every thing which exists, that thing exists. ∀x∃x. Not exactly a revelation.
It only sets the foundation that anything claimed by anyone in any part of knowledge must actually exist, that is not be imagined or outside reality.
Well, that's another truism—but whether or not it's the case isn't implied by ∀x∃x. You'd have to assume something about the nature of existence (N) first, such that ∀x∃x → N(x); thus ¬(N)x → ¬∃x. So where's your justification?
If you require skepticism about the existence of something real, as you last sentence implies, for "rigor", the burden is on you to show how that produces anything other than nihilism.
If you're interested in vindicating Randian Objectivism from my observation that it's built on unjustified metaphysical assumptions, you'll have to do better than that. You can argue that the existence of an external world is self-evident and does not require justification, but the statement "existence exists" doesn't achieve anything towards that goal. And even if I accept that it's reasonable to assume the existence of an external world without additional justification (which I don't; yet I'm not a skeptic since I base my epistemology on objective revelation), that says nothing about the possible nature of the external world. Even if I go so far as to grant you that "existence exists" means "the external world as we perceive it exists", that doesn't gain you any traction whatsoever in rejecting the claims of Christian theism. To get from the existence of the external world to the non-existence of God looks just like an argument from ignorance.
Assuming the possibility that you are making everything up in your mind is illicit.
I agree, since I was speaking in terms of building a workable worldview, which requires an information-rich starting premise. You haven't defended your claim by burning a strawman.
It is true that "not every world view presupposes that "an external world exists". As you are aware, Objectivism calls this Primacy of Consciousness. Luckily, Objectivism does not have to refute these systems or contend with them philosophically. Anyone proposing there is something like a "non-external world" which is anything more than the psychology of the individual so claiming, bears the burden of demonstrating how this can be totalized into a philosophical system with objective truth validation.
"Luckily"? If "luck" takes the form of question-begging ad hoc stipulations, I guess. Of course, I can stipulate, ad hoc, that we should only eat ostriches. Does that make it true? That said, an ostrich may stipulate, ad hoc, that anyone proposing to eat it bears the burden of having to visually prove their presence first. Doesn't stop it from tasting delicious. Cf the arguments from reason.
If "God Is" is NOT the axiom of religion, what is? Doesn't the bible even say it nearly word for word? "I am that I am." If you say religion has NO axiomatic belief, then you have proven that it is just another fantasy of each person believing in it. Just a psychological state.
The Bible also says that "Jesus wept" and "Cain spoke to his brother Abel". Should either of those be considered the axiom of religion qua religion? Are you even thinking before you type? Mind you, from a Christian perspective those are certainly axiomatic propositions—because the Christian starts with the axiom that the Bible is the word of God. What other religions might say doesn't interest me, and I don't make the mistake of assuming all religions are created equal.
On the other hand, if religion admits that (in your words, not mine) there is an external world, then it begs the question....Is God part of that external world? If so, what is the objective identity of God.
I think you'll need to actually explain how that is begging the question. Yes, God is part of the external world. The objective identity of God is...God. What, do you want an exhaustive list of his attributes? Isn't a name sufficient any more? Or are you asking for something more like coordinates in spacetime?
What about Anton Thorn at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Thorn2.html? He has been mentioned here at Triablogue only a few times. Is he even more of a philosophical lightweight than Bethrick?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how all this talk about how "existence exists" interplays with Paul's blog Tinkerbell Exists!
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/tinkerbell-exists.html.
Here Paul interacts with the following Clarkian statements:
"Everything exists. Trees exist. Rocks exist. Unicorns exist. Minds exist. Dreams exist. Atheists exist. God exists. Hallucinations exist. A term that is predicable of everything, however means nothing. ...[E]xistence is indistinguishable from nothing." - John Robbins, Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System, 1997, p.87
"Being and reality are so universal as to be meaningless. A word that is applicable to everything is applicable to nothing. if trees exist and are real, so do dreams exist and are real. Hallucinations are real hallucinations" - G.H. Clark, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, 410
I await all your comments. :-))
Dominic Bnonn Tennant are you a Clarkian Scripturalist? You've made some comments that a Clarkian would make. For example:
ReplyDelete"An epistemological first principle needs to function as the foundational proposition of the entire worldview it supports; namely the rest of the epistemology itself, its accompanying metaphysical and ethical theories, and so on. A first principle is only useful and workable if you can deduce the rest of the worldview from it."
and
"I agree, since I was speaking in terms of building a workable worldview, which requires an information-rich starting premise."
and
"Mind you, from a Christian perspective those are certainly axiomatic propositions—because the Christian starts with the axiom that the Bible is the word of God."
It seems to me that the Triabloggers, along with Aquascum (http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/) have effectively refuted Clarkian and Cheungian Scripturalism. Though, I tend to agree that on non-theistic grounds, induction cannot lead to certainty for all the reasons that Clarkians have pointed out.
Btw, you didn't seem to call induction a formal fallacy (as many Clarkians have done in the past). Instead you called it (properly) and informal fallacy. So, I'm not sure now.
Mr. Tennant,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your revealing post. There is no need to continue. You are a theist and all else follows from that. It is regretful you stooped so low in your attempted shaming and ridicule.
To any other Objectivist reading this, you are witnessing the twisted system necessary to make room for "objective revelation".
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Hi Annoyed Pinoy, no, I'm not a Clarkian scripturalist—at least, not as I understand the term. Scripturalists like Clark and Cheung seem to object to any knowledge-claims not derived from the Bible. I do take a strong foundationalist approach to epistemology, so I believe that the only justified true belief is found in the propositional content of Scripture and what can be deduced from it. But I don't deny that other knowledge sources provide warranted beliefs. That said, I'm still relatively unstudied in epistemology, so I wouldn't want to have to say that I hold to any particular position too dogmatically.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Bnonn
John said,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your revealing post. There is no need to continue. You are a theist and all else follows from that. It is regretful you stooped so low in your attempted shaming and ridicule.
To any other Objectivist reading this, you are witnessing the twisted system necessary to make room for "objective revelation".
Egad! The You're A Meanie defense! Woe—a devastating debate tactic; I am undone. If only I had seen it coming, I could have countered with the So's Your Face technique—but now it's too late. Still, no sense crying over spilled milk, eh. I must man up and do what a gentleman must do. Sir, you are the better man. Your studied, paternal sadness at my abject condition, and your earnestly hen-like concern for other Objectivists has convinced me that Christianity is false. I will rename my blog, purchase all of Rand's works, and embark upon an epic philosophical journey to enlightenment, spreading the news of my newfound freedom from epistemological rigor far and wide, throughout this fair series of inter-connected tubes—until they resound with the tinny echoes of my battlecry: existence exists!
Hey Mr Tennant,
ReplyDeleteI kicked all this off with a post at my blog
http://ocham.blogspot.com/2009/01/ayn-rand-and-wikipedia.html
and an email to Bill. I was going to follow up with a post on the numerous fallacies that could be found in the 'existence exists' argument. But you seem to have beaten me to it. Oh well I may plagiarise it anyway.
And I have indeed plagiarised it here
ReplyDeletehttp://ocham.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-was-going-to-follow-up-previous-post.html
Sheesh, so I miss a day and Bnonn goes on a rampage.... >:-D
ReplyDeleteTo add a bit more in layman's terms(although I doubt John's still reading):
The Law of Identity (expressed as "A is A") is necessary for logic to begin, but it doesn't tell us anything about the attributes of what exists. In other words, let's stick with A is A for a moment (although all of this could easily apply to "existence exists" too).
What is A? It could be anything.
And here's where Randians smuggle in tons of baggage without bothering to substantiate any of it. For example, The Ayne Rand Institute: Essentials of Objectivism proclaims:
"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality (italics original).
Everything is fine up until the "Thus" statement. That A is A DOES NOT MEAN THAT A CANNOT BE SUPERNATURAL.
If A is supernatural, then A is supernatural. You cannot rule out the supernatural by saying "A is A."
The assumption being made is that only the natural world exists; but this is an assumption that must be argued for. It is not enough to say, "A is A, therefore no there is no supernatural." That's irrational and incoherent.
As such, Randians push the Law of Identity far beyond what is warranted. And this easily comports back to the notion of "existence exists" too. For if a supernatural being exists, then supernatural existence exists too.
Finally, not to pile too much on, the above article also goes on to quote Rand as saying:
"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge" (italics mine).
Of course, I merely point out that the last sentence is obviously absurd. We can aquire factual knowledge in an unreasonable manner. For instance, someone could "reason", "All dogs are mammals; all cats are mammals; therefore, all cows are mammals." This is irrational. The conclusion is still factually true. Even using faulty reasoning, you've come to acquire knowledge.
Finally, the above Rand quote also suffers from the fact that it's a faith-statement. Rand just asserts that man's reason can tell us all there is to know about reality. I just ask how it's possible to use reason to figure out quantum truth, where the law of non-contradiction itself seems "bent." As Bohr is attributed to saying, anyone who thinks he's understood quantum mechanics hasn't understood it.
So again, as was my original point, Randian philosophy is "less-than-rigorous." There's too much smuggled in without justification.
I offered my own arguments against Randroid understandings of "existence exists" and "the argument from the primacy of existence over consciousness" as well as their claims about physicalism and materialism etc., here:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/bethrick-burner.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"""Physicalist Donald Davidson writes, “"[M]ental characteristics are in some sense dependent, or supervenient, on physical characteristics. Such supervenience might be taken to mean that there cannot be two events alike in all physical respects but differing in some mental respect, or that an object cannot alter in some mental respect without altering in some physical respect."
ReplyDeleteIs Davidson therefore a Randian materialist? Either way, physicalism (and Rand might be read as physicalist, however crude her formulations might be), either reductive , or-not-so reductive does have a certain force: one reason, for, like DUI laws as well (some Geist if a few shots of tequila render it unfit to drive).
I suggest the theologians are, as per usual, not really arguing against physicalism per se, but doing the usual veiled aesthetics that clergymen specialize in: Rand? Objectivism? Rah-thur. Ghastly. Dreadful.
Bethrick has finally chimed in with a response to Maverick Philosopher in the comments section here:
ReplyDeletehttp://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2009/01/do-objectivists-try-to-define-god-out.html
Even in the original article (responding to me), Bethrick equivocates like never before:
"At least David seems to get the argument which I presented in my blog. That’s good! Logically, then, David should have no problem with the assessment that his theism conceives of the world subjectively, for this is a direct outcome of theism. As Paul Manata once conceded, “reality is subjective” because it’s “based on the divine mind.” This statement invites problems of its own, of course, since it can only suggest that the “divine mind” on which “reality” is “based” could itself not be part of reality, which would mean that it’s not real."
re MavP's point on "Fragility": "Fragile" describes something in nature. Glass is not disposed to be fragile: the physico-chemical structure of glass (ie solidified silicon) and specific design makes it "fragile", according to human sensibility--but there's no disposition or attribute "fragility" along with the silicon atoms. Disposition sounds a lot like anthropomorphism (aka the Aristotelian-cause papist-nostalgia trip).
ReplyDeleteThat said, yes Rand's point--the que sera sera meme!--may be stated crudely and reductionist as usual, but I think she was attempting to discuss something like determinism: and in that case, even Rand's billiard-ball material determinism superior to theological spooks of various sort (tho I am one who contends Aristotle was empirical-materialist anyways: more early biologist than metaphysician. See the Categories). Rand's sort of like Spinoza for dyslexic, agnostic republicans (tho, even Randianism is thankfully free of the spinozaistic substance, perfection, yada yada).
Few would doubt determinism and newtonian mechanics holds in physical realm (notwithstanding a few quantum anomalies). Pendulums and guillotines work identically each time--at least on earth-- unless something went wrong at human level (or they wore out).
Does determinism hold at level of human decisions? More likely than not, though some compatibilism (ie recognizing liberty, choice, as well as bio-physical cause) seems difficult to ignore, even if only a useful illusion. Yet if determinism does hold, Rand's heroic Reason also an illusion. What is Reason if one must do something.....
I don’t know If I said it already, but this so good stuff keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part 2012 Movie Free Download just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteBest regards
Seo Motivation automotive