Existence exists?

[Xray]

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.

It would interest what exactly Ayn Rand stated about the connection of A=A to Aristotle.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

Xray,

Bill's post 247 did it better than I could.

I refuse to discuss further such silliness. You are acting as if metaphors suddenly no longer exist.

Michael

[Xray]

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

Xray,

Bill's post 247 did it better than I could.

I refuse to discuss further such silliness. You are acting as if metaphors suddenly no longer exist.

Michael

But this does not answer the question as to WHO is the volitional entity proclaiming that "joy is the goal of existence"? In the book it is Hank Rearden, mirroring, it is logical to assume in a novel of this type (novel of ideas) the author's belief.

So am I correct in assuming that "Joy is the goal of existence" is Rand's own doctrine?

And she is saying more than merely "we are all striving for what we individually perceive as joy". She says "it has to be achieved" and that it is "treason" to let the "vision [of joy] drown in the swamp of the moment's torture".

These are all very strong subjective value judgements imo.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[thomtg]

[...]

It would interest in[sic] [one to know] what exactly Ayn Rand stated about the connection of A=A to Aristotle.

Sometime ago in my local discussion group, we transcribed the final few audio minutes of Ayn Rand's review of J. H. Randall's book Aristotle at which she personally commented on Aristotle the philosopher himself, apart from the book, and specifically on "A is A." (Note: The statement is "A is A," not "A = A.") You can browse our transcription here.

[Selene]

"So am I correct in assuming that "Joy is the goal of existence" is Rand's own doctrine?"

YES

[Selene]

[...]

It would interest in[sic] [one to know] what exactly Ayn Rand stated about the connection of A=A to Aristotle.

Sometime ago in my local discussion group, we transcribed the final few audio minutes of Ayn Rand's review of J. H. Randall's book Aristotle at which she personally commented on Aristotle the philosopher himself, apart from the book, and specifically on "A is A." (Note: The statement is "A is A," not "A = A.") You can browse our transcription here.

Thom:

Thank you so much for that audio clip! I never heard it, but boy did it bring me back to how powerful her "voice" was. I had mentioned a while back about how I thought she was such an awful public speaker and Bill P. brought me to bear on that comment and he was correct.

I was judging from my memory of her thick accent and even that was based on her later audio statements after the split.

I had forgotten how genuine and real her "voice" really is.

"Goodbye ladies and gentlemen, and good premises."

What a great coda also.

Thank you again.

Adam

[Xray]

"So am I correct in assuming that "Joy is the goal of existence" is Rand's own doctrine?"

YES

And those who "let its vision drown in the swamp of the moment's torture" are traitors in her eyes?

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[...]

It would interest in[sic] [one to know] what exactly Ayn Rand stated about the connection of A=A to Aristotle.

Sometime ago in my local discussion group, we transcribed the final few audio minutes of Ayn Rand's review of J. H. Randall's book Aristotle at which she personally commented on Aristotle the philosopher himself, apart from the book, and specifically on "A is A." (Note: The statement is "A is A," not "A = A.") You can browse our transcription here.

Thanks for the interesting link.

So Rand said:

"It was a later scholar or scholars who gave the algebraic formula of “A is A” to the law of identity. Aristotle did not formulate it in that particular manner, but he is the first philosopher who identified the law of identity and established human knowledge and reason from then on." (Rand)

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Aristotle did not formulate it in that particular manner, but he is the first philosopher who identified the law of identity and established human knowledge and reason from then on.

Not sure what this means, he did not formulate it yet he identified it??

[Selene]

Yes as in a chair cannot be both a chair and a non-chair at the same time.

[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?

If you wish to trash my native language, in order to deliberately misunderstand Rand, I can trash yours. Turnabout is fair play.

Ian.

[BaalChatzaf]

I had forgotten how genuine and real her "voice" really is.

"Goodbye ladies and gentlemen, and good premises."

What a great coda also.

Thank you again.

Adam

I would have loved to hear Rand and Kotzybski (who also had a thick accent) in a one to one head to head debate.

[Selene]

A heavenly concept for a rhetorician like me.

[Ian]

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

Ole!

Ian.

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes as in a chair cannot be both a chair and a non-chair at the same time.

A quantum chair? Schroedinger's Chair? What about a chair in the process of disintegration. At some intermediate instant it is and at a nearly following instant it is not. Only a persistent object chair cannot be a non-chair at the same instant it is a chair.

What about a virtual particle. It is a transient thing. Here and not here so quick it cannot be established to exist yet it exists (at least according to the theory). What about a theoretical Minkowski Event a "point" in Minkowski Space (the four d space in which the equations of special relativity may be expressed)? An event has zero duration yet it is. It happened at some instant of time. Such transients contribute to a persistent effect, which is why we have Dirac Functions which are not really functions but distributions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Yes and therefore your point is that an instantaneous unmeasurable event, by our normal sensate existence, means it was at the same exact infinitely divided instant a particle and not that particle at that same precise moment - then we disagree, but I do not think that is what you are arguing.

[tjohnson]

I would have loved to hear Rand and Kotzybski (who also had a thick accent) in a one to one head to head debate.

My, my that would have been interesting! Especially since general semantics begins with the denial of the is of identity and objectivism begins with the law of identity.

[Selene]

Yep and that is what makes a great debate!

[tjohnson]

Yes as in a chair cannot be both a chair and a non-chair at the same time.

The only 'chair' can be is a word. The word represents a process which is never identical to itself.

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes as in a chair cannot be both a chair and a non-chair at the same time.

The only 'chair' can be is a word. The word represents a process which is never identical to itself.

An ever changing thing cannot be identical to itself over extended time. So what is permanent. We look for properties of the process that do not change instantaneously with the process, i.e. time invariant relations. And example: a ballistic mass (ignore stuff like air resistance) on a ballistic trajectory in a uniform gravitational field. The motion of the mass satisfies a least action principle over it entire trajectory. The missile always moves, its position changes yet its total energy is conserved. Science deals with the invariants and conservation laws pertaining to changes of state. That is how change and constancy are reconciled.

The Greek philosophers pondered the problem of change and motion. Some concluded ironically that motion is an illusion. For example Zeno, warrior philosopher. Heriklites pondered the river into which he could not step twice. Yet, what is it, then, that is called a river? Plato concluded that Real Stuff are The Forms which never change. Only the illusion they project on our consciousness changes. Like a motion picture film. Each frame fixed and constant, yet in sequential projection what is seen is a state of motion and change. That is how Zeno viewed the flying arrow. At each instant dead still yet over an interval in motion. Plato view our perceptual reality like a motion picture theater in his parable of the cave (-Republic-, Book VII).

I am not sure if or where Rand specifically addressed this question and justified her Axiom of Identity. What is the A in "A is A" when A is constantly changing? This is one of the Eternal Questions that will occupy philosophers, sophomores and philosophy board participants ad infinitem.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

"it" is "a constantly changing A" Therefore, it cannot be a constantly changing A and a non-changing A at the same time.

[tjohnson]

On sub-microscopic levels, ‘iron’, or anything else, means only a persistence for

a limited ‘time’ of certain gross characteristics, representing a process (structurally a

four-dimensional notion involving ‘time’), which becomes a question of structure.

With the 1933 known unit of the world called an ‘electron’, which appears as an ‘energy’ factor, the relative

persistence or invariance of dynamic sub-microscopic structure gives us, on

macroscopic levels, an average, or statistical, persistence of gross macroscopic

characteristics, which we label ‘iron’.

[Selene]

correct - iron cannot be iron and not iron at the same instance.

[tjohnson]

correct - iron cannot be iron and not iron at the same instance.

What debating technique is that when you agree with something like totally opposite of what was said?

[Selene]

a good one - I am talking to the judges out there - in other words the people with judgment

you repeat your argument

and I repeat mine

since we don't share a common definition of anything under your interpretation of the Count,

we will leave it to the listener.

Adam