Existence exists?

[Xray]

The title of this thread is "Existence exists?" After 221 posts we still don't know?

--Brant

It looks like the discussion has run a bit off topic. It often happens when someone brings up an aspect which opens the door to a new topic and the discussion has run off track before you realize it.

General Semanticist started the thread with this post:

Thought I'd better start a new thread. After considering this some more it seems to me that the statement "existence exists" means existence is undefinable. So we must accept this term and move on but I cannot do this. Let me ask you this, do atoms exist? Do quarks exist? Do tachyons exist? All of a sudden 'exists' is not so cut and dried is it? No, this term 'exist' or 'existence' is way too vague to be axiomatic. In fact, what does this phrase even mean? It's almost as if you are defining 'existence' with the word 'exists' which amounts to saying nothing.

Imo the sentence "Existence exists" makes as much or little sense as saying "Life lives".

[P.S. Bill P: I'm looking g for a more suitable thread to contiue the discussion with you. Can you think of one which would fit?

Thank you for the tip btw regarding the thread title I could choose for the Atlas Shrugged discussion]

Edited May 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Achtung!

The German Dominatrix has spoken.

You vill all line up and get back on topic!

Schnell!

Adam

[Xray]

Sorry Selene if my post sounded impolite. I have edited and corrected it - "schnell".

As for the sentence "Existence exists" imo it makes as little sense as saying "Life lives", "Love loves", "Hate hates".

Edited May 6, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

I am just amused at how human language is embedded with edges, innuendos, sub-texts, connotative and denotative definitions.

Our use of language tends to control our actions which is one of the major reasons why Rand made so much sense to me at 14 and even more so now with another 4 + decades with the human race.

Moreover, you have mentioned the language issue, in so far as English is not your native language, and I am a great believer in certain elements of Herbert Marshall McLuhan's theory of media, language etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

Gutenberg revolutionized the world by mass producing the Bible. Led to reinforced the linear, sequential, logical, Aristotelian manner of "learning" through language.

The telephone and the radio radically altered the manner that humans communicated and learned as it was a "hot" medium which definitionally fills one senses fully.

The television was another exponential leap in how we learn and absorb content. Television/computers are "cool" mediums wherein more than one sense is involved in how you input reality. It is argued that TV/computer screens are "tactile" in that you actually "touch" the image in sensate ways.

It has also been argued that because of this multiple sensation created, there is a narcotizing effect of television which has to do with the manner in which the subconscious segments of the brain become "lulled" by the "invisible" dots that are speeding across the screen and forcing your senses to complete the image into a coherent tactile picture which would be Jack Baur on 24 about to remove a suspected terrorist eyeball with the point of scalpel.

My kind of surgery, lol.

Adam

Post script: And I had a nice yahoo emoticon of a dominatrix on her knees with a riding crop in her hands and a mask on that would have been even more amusing, but I am to inept at importing images onto this forum. It is a task that I have not devoted enough time to and it is probably really simple, but I am missing it. I will have to do my due diligence, as you are attempting to do with Rand, and go into the tutorials that Michael and Kat have established.

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry Selene if my post sounded impolite. I have edited and corrected it - "schnell".

As for the sentence "Existence exists" imo it makes as little sense as saying "Life lives", "Love loves", "Hate hates".

"Existence exists" is merely a way of indicating an axiom. Since we can't go outside existence for proof of existence we make a self-referential statement to indicate where the epistemological launching pad is. This is the same as saying "A is A." If you have a better way of indicating this, please share.

--Brant

[Xray]

xray:

I am just amused at how human language is embedded with edges, innuendos, sub-texts, connotative and denotative definitions.

Our use of language tends to control our actions which is one of the major reasons why Rand made so much sense to me at 14 and even more so now with another 4 + decades with the human race.

Regarding the use of language, in what way exactly does Rand make so much sense to you?

Moreover, you have mentioned the language issue, in so far as English is not your native language, and I am a great believer in certain elements of Herbert Marshall McLuhan's theory of media, language etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

Marshall McLuhan was a most influential figure in that field, no question. .

I was quite dumbfounded though when reading in the link you gave that he resorted to the Virgin Mary for intellectual guidance (!) :

McLuhan was devout throughout his life, but his religion remained a private matter.[13] He had a lifelong interest in the number three[14] - the trivium, the Trinity - and sometimes said that the Virgin Mary provided intellectual guidance for him.[15]

Has anyone ever asked MML what intellectual advice he got from the Virgin Mary? That would interest me immensely.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Sorry Selene if my post sounded impolite. I have edited and corrected it - "schnell".

As for the sentence "Existence exists" imo it makes as little sense as saying "Life lives", "Love loves", "Hate hates".

"Existence exists" is merely a way of indicating an axiom. Since we can't go outside existence for proof of existence we make a self-referential statement to indicate where the epistemological launching pad is. This is the same as saying "A is A." If you have a better way of indicating this, please share.

--Brant

Don't get me started on Rand's use of the word "existence". In her mind, existence is also a goal-seeing entity:

"Joy is the goal of existence".

Can existence have goals? How's that?

Edited May 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

"Regarding the use of language, in what way exactly does Rand make so much sense to you?"

What do you mean by the question?

What I meant is that woman is a beautiful writer of fiction who can weave an image that can bring me to tears. The logical concepts upon which she generates those tear of anger when a certain character lays dying in another characters arms, the tears of passion that she allows to be created in your mind, the ability to make an image of a steel mill or a quarry come alive in your mind and create a logical admiration of the achievement of a Henry Ford, a Nicola Tesla or a Jonas Salk.

What keeps you blinded to her writing? I have a theory.

Adam

[Xray]

xray:

"Regarding the use of language, in what way exactly does Rand make so much sense to you?"

What do you mean by the question?

You wrote (bolding mine):

"Our use of language tends to control our actions which is one of the major reasons why Rand made so much sense to me at 14 and even more so now with another 4 + decades with the human race." (end quote)

I was interested in the language aspect and the connection you made to Rand.

What I meant is that woman is a beautiful writer of fiction who can weave an image that can bring me to tears. The logical concepts upon which she generates those tear of anger when a certain character lays dying in another characters arms, the tears of passion that she allows to be created in your mind, the ability to make an image of a steel mill or a quarry come alive in your mind and create a logical admiration of the achievement of a Henry Ford, a Nicola Tesla or a Jonas Salk.

Ah, that's what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.

What keeps you blinded to her writing? I have a theory.

I could ask you the same question "What keeps you blinded to her writing"?

But feel free to share your theory as to why you think I'm "blinded".

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray

"But feel free to share your theory as to why you think I'm 'blinded'."

Nope.

You already confirmed it with your answer.

Whatever you let them do to you under the guise of Catholicism

does not allow you as an individual

to use your victim status to irrationally

criticize.

I suggest you do some self reflecting on how powerful you make the church with your hatred of it.

In Yiddish, you are schlepping your past. Schlepping makes what you carry heavier.

Put down the steamer trunk and Break Free, hmmm some Canadian dude wrote something about that, but he

probably was blind also.

Adam

Post Script: There are none so blind as those who do not see.

[Ian]

Don't get me started on Rand's use of the word "existence". In her mind, existence is also a goal-seeing entity:

"Joy is the goal of existence".

Can existence have goals? How's that?

I thought I clarified that for you.

Or perhaps, the whole country of Germany thinks young women are sexless:

Gretchen: „Wilhelm, wo ist die Rübe?“

Wilhelm: „Sie ist in der Küche.“

Gretchen: „Wo ist das vielseitig gebildete, schöne englische Mädchen?“

Wilhelm: „Es ist in der Oper.“

http://german.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite...%2Dsprache.html

Ian.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Ian

[Ian]

But imagine a mother who has lost her husband and all her children in an earthquake. If one told such a mother: "Joy is the the goal of existence" - how would that ring in her ears?

This mother may not be able to feel joy anymore because the pain is so overwhelming that she wishes to die too. Again, all remains subjective choice.

The mother you describe already knows that joy is the goal of her existence. She went for it. She achieved it, in having her husband and children. And, is suffering now because she lost them. Telling her "Joy is the goal of existence," at that point would be rubbing in her loss. It would be like telling her that her husband and children are dead, and they're not coming back, ha, ha.

I suppose you would prefer to tell her: "Joy is not for the likes of you. Look what happened when you tried for it. Give up. Live a grey life, without joy, if you can stand it. Or, jump off that bridge over there, if that's your subjective choice, since there is, after all, no objective difference between wanting to live and wanting to die."

I think any words, at that point would ring hollow. The best one could do is show her that joy is still possible, by means of any acts of kindness one could think of.

Ian.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think any words, at that point would ring hollow. The best one could do is show her that joy is still possible, by means of any acts of kindness one could think of.

Ian.

Joy may be the goal, but grief is always possible. That is the way things are.

Fecum sunt. (Sh*t happens - sometimes).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

xray

"But feel free to share your theory as to why you think I'm 'blinded'."

Nope.

You already confirmed it with your answer.

Whatever you let them do to you under the guise of Catholicism

does not allow you as an individual

to use your victim status to irrationally

criticize.

I suggest you do some self reflecting on how powerful you make the church with your hatred of it.

In Yiddish, you are schlepping your past. Schlepping makes what you carry heavier.

Put down the steamer trunk and Break Free, hmmm some Canadian dude wrote something about that, but he

probably was blind also.

Adam

Post Script: There are none so blind as those who do not see.

I have never felt as a victim of the catholic church, despite this institution's efforts to tell their members what to believe.

As a kid, I really liked the Doubting Thomas, who asked for physical proof. Right up my alley.

Do you have a theory as to why Rand felt it necessary construct the opposition "Joy is the goal of existence" vs "life as a vale of tears/man as a "sacrificial animal"?

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I thought I clarified that for you.

Or perhaps, the whole country of Germany thinks young women are sexless:

Gretchen: „Wilhelm, wo ist die Rübe?“

Wilhelm: „Sie ist in der Küche.“

Gretchen: „Wo ist das vielseitig gebildete, schöne englische Mädchen?“

Wilhelm: „Es ist in der Oper.“

http://german.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite...%2Dsprache.html

Ian.

That's the well-known 'turnip' example.

You are confusing natural with grammatical gender.

In German, the turnip is grammatically a "she", ("Die Rübe"), whereas the girl grammatically is an "it" ("Das Mädchen").

May sound strange to non native speakers of German, but does not sound strange at all to native speakers of the language.

But what does the distrubution of the grammatical gender in the German language have to do with the discussion of Rand's work?

So to get back to Rand:

Claiming that "joy is the goal of existence", the question to ask is who sets that goal?

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The mother you describe already knows that joy is the goal of her existence. She went for it. She achieved it, in having her husband and children.

Pure speculation, since this mother may never have shared Rand's doctrine on that.

I suppose you would prefer to tell her: "Joy is not for the likes of you. Look what happened when you tried for it. Give up. Live a grey life, without joy, if you can stand it. Or, jump off that bridge over there, if that's your subjective choice, since there is, after all, no objective difference between wanting to live and wanting to die."

That's Rands "vale of tears" counterworld. Irrelevant for those who don't share this view. I don't share it.

I think any words, at that point would ring hollow. The best one could do is show her that joy is still possible, by means of any acts of kindness one could think of.

It's called empathy.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry Selene if my post sounded impolite. I have edited and corrected it - "schnell".

As for the sentence "Existence exists" imo it makes as little sense as saying "Life lives", "Love loves", "Hate hates".

"Existence exists" is merely a way of indicating an axiom. Since we can't go outside existence for proof of existence we make a self-referential statement to indicate where the epistemological launching pad is. This is the same as saying "A is A." If you have a better way of indicating this, please share.

--Brant

Don't get me started on Rand's use of the word "existence". In her mind, existence is also a goal-seeing entity:

"Joy is the goal of existence".

Can existence have goals? How's that?

Please quote the book and the page or you're just pumping out uselessness. I'm not saying she didn't say this. I'm saying no particular reference equals garbage. I'm trying to decide whether gold long is better than T-bills short. I'm not going to spend two days digging this out of the Objectivist catechism. And I don't give a good God-damn if you came with the reference three posts ago.

--Brant

Edited May 10, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Don't get me started on Rand's use of the word "existence". In her mind, existence is also a goal-seeing entity:

"Joy is the goal of existence".

Can existence have goals? How's that?

Please quote the book and the page or you're just pumping out uselessness. I'm not saying she didn't say this. I'm saying no particular reference equals garbage. I'm trying to decide whether gold long is better than T-bills short. I'm not going to spend two days digging this out of the Objectivist catechism. And I don't give a good God-damn if you came with the reference three posts ago.

The source of the quote has been referred to several times here on this thread.

It is from Hank Rearden's inner monologue in Atlas Shrugged, which Bill P posted in # 201. Further reference to the quote including bolding in post # 208. Hope this helps.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"Existence exists" is merely a way of indicating an axiom. Since we can't go outside existence for proof of existence we make a self-referential statement to indicate where the epistemological launching pad is. This is the same as saying "A is A." If you have a better way of indicating this, please share.

--Brant

A = A refers Aristotle's "law of identity".

A = A is a tautology, however, with the assertion that "A" (a specific) is implied to exist. Absent the identification of A as an entity or relationship, it is meaningless and non informative.

"Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned."

"To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities."

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Meta...s_Identity.html

Therefore equating "Existence exists" with A = A goes to the claim of a specific entity. But where is the specific entity to give the term "existence" definite meaning?

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

A = A refers Aristotle's "law of identity".

FYI, apparently this "law" has been attributed to Aristotle but no one has been able to show this.

http://www.geniebusters.org/915/04e_ex01C.html

At any rate is only applies in mathematics, not real life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don't get me started on Rand's use of the word "existence". In her mind, existence is also a goal-seeing entity:

"Joy is the goal of existence".

Can existence have goals? How's that?

Xray,

Did you understand the context and meaning of what you read?

Quoting out of context to present a false meaning in order to bash is a trick as old as human history.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Don't get me started on Rand's use of the word "existence". In her mind, existence is also a goal-seeing entity:

"Joy is the goal of existence".

Can existence have goals? How's that?

Please quote the book and the page or you're just pumping out uselessness. I'm not saying she didn't say this. I'm saying no particular reference equals garbage. I'm trying to decide whether gold long is better than T-bills short. I'm not going to spend two days digging this out of the Objectivist catechism. And I don't give a good God-damn if you came with the reference three posts ago.

The source of the quote has been referred to several times here on this thread.

It is from Hank Rearden's inner monologue in Atlas Shrugged, which Bill P posted in # 201. Further reference to the quote including bolding in post # 208. Hope this helps.

Xray -

Here's a bit of the context, for discussion. Rearden is thinking to himself...

"You've never suffered, the eyes were saying with self-righteous scorn—while he remembered the sensation of proud chastity with which he had fought through those moments, refusing to surrender to pain, a sensation made of his love, of his loyalty, of his knowledge that joy is the goal of existence, and joy is not to be stumbled upon, but to be achieved, and the act of treason is to let its vision drown in the swamp of the moment's torture."

Please answer in a straightforward fashion: Do you really read that paragraph (and the surrounding information) and conclude that existence is being personified? If so, I am absolutely amazed.

If you read "the goal of a game of football is to score more points than the other team" do you conclude that the writer is saying that the football game is sentient, and has intentions and goals? Or do you realize that the writer is speaking of the goal of the players in the game?

If this is how you read and interpret what people around you write and say, I would guess that you have lots of communication difficulties where people can't figure out how on earth you would think they mean something you have just imputed to them.

Bill P

[Xray]

Don't get me started on Rand's use of the word "existence". In her mind, existence is also a goal-seeing entity:

"Joy is the goal of existence".

Can existence have goals? How's that?

Xray,

Did you understand the context and meaning of what you read?

Quoting out of context to present a false meaning in order to bash is a trick as old as human history.

Michael

"Joy is the goal of existence" this is what one can read verbatim in Hank Rearden's inner monologue. See post # 201.

Please point out where you think I presented a "false meaning" and present what you think is the correct meaning.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

Rand was an intelligent individual human being, yes...

Rand did not mean that "existence" was a conscious entity that could have a goal, yes...

Therefore, the phrase "Joy is the goal of existence" most probably referred to the goal of conscious, rational human beings, yes...

Adam

[Xray]

"You've never suffered, the eyes were saying with self-righteous scorn—while he remembered the sensation of proud chastity with which he had fought through those moments, refusing to surrender to pain, a sensation made of his love, of his loyalty, of his knowledge that joy is the goal of existence, and joy is not to be stumbled upon, but to be achieved, and the act of treason is to let its vision drown in the swamp of the moment's torture."

Please answer in a straightforward fashion: Do you really read that paragraph (and the surrounding information) and conclude that existence is being personified? If so, I am absolutely amazed.

If you read "the goal of a game of football is to score more points than the other team" do you conclude that the writer is saying that the football game is sentient, and has intentions and goals? Or do you realize that the writer is speaking of the goal of the players in the game?

And who sets the goals of a football game? A group of people who have agreed on those goals. So "goal" requires a volitional entity.

Goal is and end to be achieved. As for "joy is the goal of existence" - who is the volitional entity setting the goal "joy" as an arbitrary end/aim /purpose for all "existence"?

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray