Existence exists?

[tjohnson]

What is the A in "A is A" when A is constantly changing?

Like you alluded to, it's an invariance under transformation. Like a tornado, it changes continuously yet there is some invariant structure which, though dynamic, is still recognizable. The same is true of "matter", but it is not so obvious.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"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?

Xray,

Look up "sense of life." That is Rand's context and meaning (normative).

You keep asking around this issue as if it were a cognitive metaphysical statement of fact. It isn't.

Somehow I think you are going to say, "Yes it is," or something like that and continue misunderstanding.

Michael

[Xray]

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.

How do you get the idea I "trash" your native language? I love English! Im interested in languages in general - they're my hobby.

The well-known 'turnip' example is a humorous comment by the author to point out how strange the random distribution of the German grammatical gender can sound to foreign learners of the language.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Xray

[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?

Xray,

Look up "sense of life." That is Rand's context and meaning (normative).

You keep asking around this issue as if it were a cognitive metaphysical statement of fact. It isn't.

Somehow I think you are going to say, "Yes it is," or something like that and continue misunderstanding.

Michael

In Ayn Rand's eyes, those who let the vision of joy drown in the swamp of the moment's torture are traitors. That's a statement clear as a bell. I know what she means.

You keep asking around this issue as if it were a cognitive metaphysical statement of fact. It isn't.

So it is clearly a personal, subjective valuing action, right?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So it is clearly a personal, subjective valuing action, right

Xray,

A sense of life is a personal emotional outlook on life on the broadest level. In that personal sense it is subjective.

It is not an illusion. In that sense it is not subjective.

Michael

[Xray]

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.

"Chair" is a language symbol (in that case, an English language symbol), a linguistic sign combined of a sound chain (visually represented as chain of letters in writing) evoking the mental picture of objects belongig to a category. "Chair" alone always refers to category.

In some languages of people living in the polar regions, no language sign exists for the category "snow". For they differentiate so much between the various forms of the white stuff which falls from the sky that they have different categories for each.

But the specific relation of an individual is always to the finite object. One does not sit on "chair", one sits on "a" chair and that object again has its specific set of characteristics differentiating it from the other finite objects belonging to the category.

Important in that context: There are no objective criteria by which a category is constructed. It is purely a matter of use value. Its function depends on general agreement of the persons using the terms. We couldn't survive without categorizing.

The utility of the categorical term is dependent upon general agreement. It works quite well. It usually stops one looking for a pair of shoelaces in a bakery.

But for example, in a store, does an electric carving knife belong in the electrical appliance department, power tools, kitchen ware, etc.?

The shop owner decides in which departments he places this item, thereby 'categorizing' it.

Categores are groupings by similarities. The metallic object with tines used for eating belongs to the category "eating fork". But it could also show up in the catgeory metallic object, digging tool, household item, etc.

Categorizing is literally unlimited.

Why is the definiton and category issue is so important in the discussion of Rand's philosophy?

I understand the concept of each individual identity as being the real.

A subjectively created category is NOT the objective existent, but Rand treats it as such by applying the categorial label "man" as if it were an objective universal entity.

Edited May 12, 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

I'm sorry I was so short with you, Xray. I was trying too read too much too fast. I just got caught up on this thread now.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

"Chair" is a language symbol (in that case, an English language symbol), a linguistic sign combined of a sound chain (visually represented as chain of letters in writing) evoking the mental picture of objects belongig to a category. "Chair" alone always refers to category.

The word "chair" could mean at least 4 things;

1, the dictionary definition

2. the mental picture or image of an imagined chair

3. the mental picture or image of a perceived chair

4. the event independent of observer

The word "concept" most likely should be restricted to #2 but is often confused with #1, IMO. A "category" definitely belongs to #1. After perceiving a number of objects (#3) one makes a definition (#1) of a typical one. This definition then evokes a mental image (concept) of this type (category) of object.

[ginny]

Ian, I just peaked through this thread. Wilkommen. Ich bin auch Deutsch. Wie lange bist du in Amerika? Kann ich fragen wie alt due bist?

(Sorry, everyone else, just wellcoming a fellow kraut).

Ginny

[Dragonfly]

Ian, I just peaked through this thread. Wilkommen. Ich bin auch Deutsch. Wie lange bist du in Amerika? Kann ich fragen wie alt due bist?

(Sorry, everyone else, just wellcoming a fellow kraut).

Macht nichts, das ist für mich jedenfalls kein Problem...

[ginny]

Another one? Maybe we will take over the world. (But what would we do with it once its ours?)

Ginny

[Dragonfly]

Another one?

No, not a real one, just a neighbor.

[ginny]

A fake? Okay. But you write better than I do. I have to struggle.

Ginny

[BaalChatzaf]

"Chair" is a language symbol (in that case, an English language symbol), a linguistic sign combined of a sound chain (visually represented as chain of letters in writing) evoking the mental picture of objects belongig to a category. "Chair" alone always refers to category.

The word "chair" could mean at least 4 things;

1, the dictionary definition

2. the mental picture or image of an imagined chair

3. the mental picture or image of a perceived chair

4. the event independent of observer

The word "concept" most likely should be restricted to #2 but is often confused with #1, IMO. A "category" definitely belongs to #1. After perceiving a number of objects (#3) one makes a definition (#1) of a typical one. This definition then evokes a mental image (concept) of this type (category) of object.

How about 5: the solid thing on which you sit or sat when you typed your posting? I am afraid an image would not and never will keep your tush off the floor. Let you call the solid thing supporting your butt an event, I will remind you that events how only place and specific time, but no duration. I think the chair in front of your computer lasts longer than that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

OH OH! Alert to the world!

Teutonic actors speaking in tongues!

I guess I will dedicate this too a "sour kraut"!

What is this ...today Germany and a neighbor...

Tomorrow ze vorld!

Adam

[ginny]

Selene, it's Ba'al who's the sauerkraut. And forget about tomorrow ze world. Vat vould ve do vith ze mess, anyvay?

Edited May 10, 2009 by ginny

[tjohnson]

How about 5: the solid thing on which you sit or sat when you typed your posting? I am afraid an image would not and never will keep your tush off the floor. Let you call the solid thing supporting your butt an event, I will remind you that events how only place and specific time, but no duration. I think the chair in front of your computer lasts longer than that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

When I say 'event' I mean to include things such as processes. One can think of the chair's material structure as an ongoing event in space-time which we interact with.

[Selene]

GS:

OK. Assuming that we think in this Siddharthaian manner, e.g., "One can think of the chair's material structure as an ongoing event in space-time which we

interact with.",...

What does that matter to the technician sitting on the "in process 'chair'" in front of the computer terminal and pressing

the execute key that will give Israel the go code to turn all the nuclear bomb making facilities in Iran into burnished mirrors

that will eradicate the Iranian threat to global warming.

1) we will be reducing the growing carbon footprint that Iran is forcing on the world;

2) we will be creating the land mirrors that will reflect the evil warming powers of the sun back

into the malevolent universe; and

3) we will be saving the Maldives, an innocent Sunni-Muslim country of 1,200 coral atoll islands that have 349,000 global

citizens who will drown because of Iran's accelerating carbon footprint; [see Wanted: A New Home for My Country http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/magazine...t.html?emc=eta1]

I weep for the poor Maldivians who are being persecuted and threatened with extinction because of the Iranians!

So, GS, why does it matter?

Adam

[tjohnson]

So, GS, why does it matter?

Adam

Well, why does "existence exists" matter?

[Selene]

Gs:

To myself, it matters because it reinforces what happens every second of my existence which exists within the existence that exists.

Adam

[tjohnson]

Gs:

To myself, it matters because it reinforces what happens every second of my existence which exists within the existence that exists.

Adam

Well, the theory of 'multiple orders of abstraction' is an alternative to 'existence exists'. To me it performs a similar function.

[Selene]

GS:

I fully understand. Of course, you or I probably "experience" existence through both of those "gestalts" [just the word that stuck in my memory to describe what we are speaking about].

If you have ever gone through the new interactive real training that police teams utilize today, I was fortunate enough to "accompany" a client through it.

The intensity level is penetrating.

Visually, in many cases, your field of vision at some level narrows and slows down in "actual" visual time relative to the peripheral time visual you maintain which moves at the "normal" pace.

Very weird, but you function within it at various levels.

Therefore, are we not describing the same "territory" but with different maps?

Adam

[tjohnson]

Therefore, are we not describing the same "territory" but with different maps?

Adam

Precisely.

[Alfonso Jones]

Therefore, are we not describing the same "territory" but with different maps?

Adam

Precisely.

GS -

Do you speak in this fashion in ordinary life? In sharing tender thoughts with someone you care deeply about, do you "compare maps?"

Bill P

[tjohnson]

Do you speak in this fashion in ordinary life? In sharing tender thoughts with someone you care deeply about, do you "compare maps?"

Bill P

Not sure what you mean, Bill.