A primer on dialectics


heusdens

Recommended Posts

Objectivism starts out with a basic premise (or axiom) for their Philosophy: Existence exists.

As it is said, one cannot refute this axiom, without using it. But yet, what is said, the truth that it reveals is something as of yet purely abstract. It is not even with a real existing world in mind that this is already true! (since it is more or less the same to say that the abstract proposition A=A is essentially the same).

At some level of (philosophical) understanding, this notion will do to avoid thinking otherwise, but for the more philosophically engaged people around, it might not hurt to see what kind of truth is beneath it.

First of all, let us ask us the question as to what exists, and what we mean with existence.

If we take in mind some determinate something (something with distinguishable feautures), for instance my coffee cup, let us see what defines this to be existent instead of inexistent. First of all let us consider that whatever feature this coffee cup has (colour, size, material, etc.), if I just imagine that one or more features were different, this would then merely alter the identity of the coffee cup, but would not matter for it's existence whatsoever. So existence is unrelated to any feature this coffee cup has.

To know what it means for this specific coffee cup to exist, let us see in what way does it differ if it were not existent. Again, this also is some purely abstract thought. Now if we imagine this same cup (with the same identity), but then as inexistent, it is as if all distinct feautures that identify that same cofee cup were still there, just that this same coffee cup does not exist, instead of exists.

This is to merely say that existence and non-existence are the same, since all distinguishing features I can ever think of or distinguish that form this identity of this coffee cup, remain the same, were it existent or not existent, since they differ in nothing. So, in the abstract sense existence and non-existence are exactly the same. So I can conclude than that it not only is true that existence exists but also that existence is equal to non-existence. At the same time however it is true that existence ought to differ with non-existence, since existence is not equal to non-existence, but exactly the opposite thereof!

Whatever we make of this, the truth is that even in the most abstract treatment of identity, we naturally arise (just by thinking out the very concepts of identity and difference) with a contradiction.

Edited by heusdens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

... it is as if all distinct feautures that identify that same cofee cup were still there, just that this same coffee cup does not exist, instead of exists. This is to merely say that existence and non-existence are the same, since ...

You can claim to be Rob Heusdens, but I think you must be Juergen Heusdens, my professor of philosophy from Cleveland State. Philo 453: Advanced Modern Metaphysics was pretty hard. We all failed the midterm. Our options might have been broader if the class had been about Free Will, but as it was, we felt at once constrained and yet condemned to be free.

About two weeks before the end of the semester, we all just ignored him. As far as we know, he ceased to exist. That would have been a problem for the registrar, but we all agreed that we had earnd A grades for the semester, thereby establishing a different social reality.

I think that we should establish some kind of prize for the best ending to "I understand Objectivism, but ..."

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cute, but non-existence is a parasitical concept. It only exists epistemologically with no referents. Non-existence doesn't exist. You can't find it anywhere but in your mind as an idea that you can't even visualize.

Existence refers to everything that physically exists. The two concepts are "exactly the same" only in that they are both concepts.

--Brant

Objectivism starts out with a basic premise (or axiom) for their Philosophy: Existence exists.

As it is said, one cannot refute this axiom, without using it. But yet, what is said, the truth that it reveals is something as of yet purely abstract. It is not even with a real existing world in mind that this is already true! (since it is more or less the same to say that the abstract proposition A=A is essentially the same).

At some level of (philosophical) understanding, this notion will do to avoid thinking otherwise, but for the more philosophically engaged people around, it might not hurt to see what kind of truth is beneath it.

First of all, let us ask us the question as to what exists, and what we mean with existence.

If we take in mind some determinate something (something with distinguishable feautures), for instance my coffee cup, let us see what defines this to be existent instead of inexistent. First of all let us consider that whatever feature this coffee cup has (colour, size, material, etc.), if I just imagine that one or more features were different, this would then merely alter the identity of the coffee cup, but would not matter for it's existence whatsoever. So existence is unrelated to any feature this coffee cup has.

To know what it means for this specific coffee cup to exist, let us see in what way does it differ if it were not existent. Again, this also is some purely abstract thought. Now if we imagine this same cup (with the same identity), but then as inexistent, it is as if all distinct feautures that identify that same cofee cup were still there, just that this same coffee cup does not exist, instead of exists.

This is to merely say that existence and non-existence are the same, since all distinguishing features I can ever think of or distinguish that form this identity of this coffee cup, remain the same, were it existent or not existent, since they differ in nothing. So, in the abstract sense existence and non-existence are exactly the same. So I can conclude than that it not only is true that existence exists but also that existence is equal to non-existence. At the same time however it is true that existence ought to differ with non-existence, since existence is not equal to non-existence, but exactly the opposite thereof!

Whatever we make of this, the truth is that even in the most abstract treatment of identity, we naturally arise (just by thinking out the very concepts of identity and difference) with a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe what heusdens is referring to is that in order to establish that a certain set of stimuli belongs to a certain category we go through the same process. In the crime shows they always want you to identify the body and you have to look for enough identifiable characteristics to to say "yes, it's my son", or whatever. It's the same process to establish existence as non-existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of existence does not denote a 'something' in the way the concept of coffee-cup does. Existence denotes the existence of an idea. It denotes the idea which subsumes the existence of everything. On the other hand: Non-existence is the idea which subsumes the existence of nothing.

By this construct; the definition of existence is considered to have been rationally constructed where the definition of non-existence is considered to have been absurdly constructed.

Coffee-cup is a metaphysical concept where existence is an epistemological concept and where non-existence is a mystical concept. Coffee-cup denotes a physical existent where existence denotes intelligence and where non-existence denotes ignorance.

The consequence resulting from acting metaphysically is called survival. The consequence resulting from acting intelligently is called happiness. The consequence resulting from acting mystically is called death.

Beasts survive by acting instinctively. Humans earn happiness by acting properly. Terrorists deserve death by acting evilly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
Cute, but non-existence is a parasitical concept. It only exists epistemologically with no referents. Non-existence doesn't exist. You can't find it anywhere but in your mind as an idea that you can't even visualize.

Existence refers to everything that physically exists. The two concepts are "exactly the same" only in that they are both concepts.

--Brant

No referent? How about a 4 sided triangle?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Verily nothing exists ever when there is the dicotomy between the positive or negative both and or neither being real for any moment at a given thought.

Why would these diacriticals even produce a quality in thought creation where ever they go they are undermined by theoretical beings while knowing nothing at all.

Speaking for myself in tandem to the foreknowledge of temperaments, we will not know who we are with out being what we are.

Dialectical fractures of time/space only persist as a memory of what is that could add to the effect of thinking soundly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cute, but non-existence is a parasitical concept. It only exists epistemologically with no referents. Non-existence doesn't exist. You can't find it anywhere but in your mind as an idea that you can't even visualize.

Existence refers to everything that physically exists. The two concepts are "exactly the same" only in that they are both concepts.

--Brant

Brant,

You say: "Existence refers to everything that physically exists." There are things which exist which are not physical, although I concede that in order for them to "be" that something physical needs to exist, which makes them somewhat "derivative."

I am referring in particular to "consciousness" as one example and here I hasten to add that it is clear that there is no such thing as a consciousness existing independent of a physical body of some sort of animal. I don't believe in "ghosts" or "souls." When believers in such things as a "soul" entering a fertilized ovum at the moment of conception, that presupposes that this "soul" existed independently in this or some other "realm" before it "took possession."

Another example of a nonphysical entity, whose existence is certainly so, but which in itself is not physical, as far as we know, would be what is referred to as a "field of gravity" or just "gravity." I believe that Newton himself found the concept to be, and here I am not sure what concept to use, inconceivable or unbelievable or mindboggling or incomprehensible. After all he was realizing that the sun is able to exert an influence across tens of millions of miles on a physical body that far away without any physical connection between them. Although we can calculate the strength of such forces and write formulas to characterize it still it is impressive to behold, witness an entire galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars with their entourage of planets and comets measuring hundreds of millions of light years across whirling through "space" whatever that is.

OT www.campaignforliberty.com membership 11AM 19 Jan 99774

gulch

Edited by galtgulch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verily nothing exists ever when there is the dicotomy between the positive or negative both and or neither being real for any moment at a given thought.

Why would these diacriticals even produce a quality in thought creation where ever they go they are undermined by theoretical beings while knowing nothing at all.

Speaking for myself in tandem to the foreknowledge of temperaments, we will not know who we are with out being what we are.

Dialectical fractures of time/space only persist as a memory of what is that could add to the effect of thinking soundly.

Please, give it up.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verily nothing exists ever when there is the dichotomy between the positive or negative both and or neither being real for any moment at a given thought.

Why would these diacriticals even produce a quality in thought creation where ever they go they are undermined by theoretical beings while knowing nothing at all.

Speaking for myself in tandem to the foreknowledge of temperaments, we will not know who we are with out being what we are.

Dialectical fractures of time/space only persist as a memory of what is that could add to the effect of thinking soundly.

Please, give it up.

--Brant

Why.,?(give it up?) because, I do when, I need to., although right now, with that as my first post in the Meta-Objectivist forum and here it is the second, I find that it is either .,

A: You are mocking me, (this is most likely the case,) with the number of posts you have on you collar you would probably mock Ayn Rand's first post here as well.

B: You would like an explanation of it, (most likely not the case,) but IT, the fracture of time/space's persistence in our memory that effects rational thought processes, is nonetheless useless in the creation of structured informations that would be processable by an average sentient individual.

C: Was I using the words dichotomy and dialectical in opposition to one another (incorrectly)?: and yet all this is from the creative thought/thoughts of this morning at the time of the post.

D: If this were to become another flame war for you to increase the "number of posts you have" by non-engaged discussions that you might like to do, then it is a sad day with the objective to be sentient and rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verily nothing exists ever when there is the dichotomy between the positive or negative both and or neither being real for any moment at a given thought.

Why would these diacriticals even produce a quality in thought creation where ever they go they are undermined by theoretical beings while knowing nothing at all.

Speaking for myself in tandem to the foreknowledge of temperaments, we will not know who we are with out being what we are.

Dialectical fractures of time/space only persist as a memory of what is that could add to the effect of thinking soundly.

Please, give it up.

--Brant

Why.,?(give it up?) because, I do when, I need to., although right now, with that as my first post in the Meta-Objectivist forum and here it is the second, I find that it is either .,

A: You are mocking me, (this is most likely the case,) with the number of posts you have on you collar you would probably mock Ayn Rand's first post here as well.

B: You would like an explanation of it, (most likely not the case,) but IT, the fracture of time/space's persistence in our memory that effects rational thought processes, is nonetheless useless in the creation of structured informations that would be processable by an average sentient individual.

C: Was I using the words dichotomy and dialectical in opposition to one another (incorrectly)?: and yet all this is from the creative thought/thoughts of this morning at the time of the post.

D: If this were to become another flame war for you to increase the "number of posts you have" by non-engaged discussions that you might like to do, then it is a sad day with the objective to be sentient and rational.

Your post was pretentious and incoherent. This one is a little better. I now think English is not your first language. If so, I may be wrong about "pretentious." You are wrong about A, B and D. I have no opinion about C.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verily nothing exists ever when there is the dicotomy between the positive or negative both and or neither being real for any moment at a given thought.

Why would these diacriticals even produce a quality in thought creation where ever they go they are undermined by theoretical beings while knowing nothing at all.

Speaking for myself in tandem to the foreknowledge of temperaments, we will not know who we are with out being what we are.

Dialectical fractures of time/space only persist as a memory of what is that could add to the effect of thinking soundly.

Does it hurt your brain to type something like that?

Bill Parr (smiling)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think:

Listen I have this simple game for you, I have three cards and two are black and one is red, I move them around on this table, right in front of you after showing you which on is the red card and then you bet and pick one of the three cards.

It's kind of in line with Monte Python, I think it might even have been named in honor of him.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great! Brant feel better, already. about the Object of your post "give it up" not being A or B or D and my brain ,Bill P, was more a hallucinatory envelope of undefined hologram matrices when that was typed rather then having any kind of pain in it. Why do you ask,? did it hurt to "think" along those lines for yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great! Brant feel better, already. about the Object of your post "give it up" not being A or B or D and my brain ,Bill P, was more a hallucinatory envelope of undefined hologram matrices when that was typed rather then having any kind of pain in it. Why do you ask,? did it hurt to "think" along those lines for yourself?

My response was based on what I will term the incoherence of your post. My observation - if you are thinking along those lines, you must be in pain. THat you will definitely need to work hard to express yourself if your goal is to be understood.

I urge you - place a priority on clear communication. Rand was a master of it.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think,

That's quite a lot of jargon and I suspect your meanings are different than the ones posters here would use.

Can you give a simple explanation of what you are getting at without a high saturation of 65 dollar words and with correct use of grammar and syntax, like question mark usage, etc.?

You made your splash. (I personally think it was kinda cool, at least colorful, despite being, er... different...) Now lets look at your ideas in terms we all can understand.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verily nothing exists ever when there is the dicotomy between the positive or negative both and or neither being real for any moment at a given thought.

Why would these diacriticals even produce a quality in thought creation where ever they go they are undermined by theoretical beings while knowing nothing at all.

Speaking for myself in tandem to the foreknowledge of temperaments, we will not know who we are with out being what we are.

Dialectical fractures of time/space only persist as a memory of what is that could add to the effect of thinking soundly.

Does it hurt your brain to type something like that?

Bill Parr (smiling)

One simply uses the bullshit generator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One simply uses the bullshit generator.

Ted,

Just so others know, you made reference to a very recent post of mine:

Web 2.0 Bullshit Generator

This thing performs exactly as it says it does. If you need an expert-sounding description on your Web 2.0 site or Web 2.0 article, just click the "make bullshit" button over and over until you see BS that does it for you. Here are some phrases I came up with:

incentivize A-list feeds

disintermediate authentic networking

reinvent user-contributed web services

design rich-client widgets

beta-test standards-compliant mashups

Poof!

Push the button and instant BS out of thin air.

:)

But there is something far, far better.

Postmodernism Generator

Communications from Elsewhere

This thing is hilarious. Once you read the essay (and it sounds just like some academics I have read), do not forget to go all the way to the bottom under the footnotes for the explanation. If you don't like the essay, simply click the link and get a new one.

:)

Michael

You can also refresh the page for a new article, too.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-writ.php

Ok, this is my favorite.

But, you know, It might take three monkeys a typewriter and a elephant under the weather to create a unique Dialectic to explain the obvious but I will remind you that would leave a mess behind for cleaning up.

(babble babble babble.,) (starts a babble thread in the forum of non-sense) I think you call it the outer limits section possibly or am I wrong again?

--------------------------

I would rather be wrong then right because with being wrong I can learn from the mistake, improve and grow. Bill N.

Edited by think
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism starts out with a basic premise (or axiom) for their Philosophy: Existence exists.

As it is said, one cannot refute this axiom, without using it. But yet, what is said, the truth that it reveals is something as of yet purely abstract. It is not even with a real existing world in mind that this is already true! (since it is more or less the same to say that the abstract proposition A=A is essentially the same).

At some level of (philosophical) understanding, this notion will do to avoid thinking otherwise, but for the more philosophically engaged people around, it might not hurt to see what kind of truth is beneath it.

First of all, let us ask us the question as to what exists, and what we mean with existence.

If we take in mind some determinate something (something with distinguishable feautures), for instance my coffee cup, let us see what defines this to be existent instead of inexistent. First of all let us consider that whatever feature this coffee cup has (colour, size, material, etc.), if I just imagine that one or more features were different, this would then merely alter the identity of the coffee cup, but would not matter for it's existence whatsoever. So existence is unrelated to any feature this coffee cup has.

To know what it means for this specific coffee cup to exist, let us see in what way does it differ if it were not existent. Again, this also is some purely abstract thought. Now if we imagine this same cup (with the same identity), but then as inexistent, it is as if all distinct feautures that identify that same cofee cup were still there, just that this same coffee cup does not exist, instead of exists.

This is to merely say that existence and non-existence are the same, since all distinguishing features I can ever think of or distinguish that form this identity of this coffee cup, remain the same, were it existent or not existent, since they differ in nothing. So, in the abstract sense existence and non-existence are exactly the same. So I can conclude than that it not only is true that existence exists but also that existence is equal to non-existence. At the same time however it is true that existence ought to differ with non-existence, since existence is not equal to non-existence, but exactly the opposite thereof!

Whatever we make of this, the truth is that even in the most abstract treatment of identity, we naturally arise (just by thinking out the very concepts of identity and difference) with a contradiction.

Entities either exist or they don't. Existence is not an entity but a reification of the existential quantifier.

A solopsist could say: "I exist" but that is rather trivial. To say "something exists" makes more sense. To make a stronger statement "something other than myself exists" makes even more sense. To say "the cosmos exists independent of my consciousness and will" makes the most sense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now