Hello -- introducing myself

[heusdens]

Hello to all,

I am relatively "new" to Objectivism as a Philosophy, although I understand the basic concepts of it.

Two points worth crediting Objectivism for is that it:

a. Is a rational Philosophy.

b. Takes the right philosophical position in what is Primary.

The only point I think I have some different opinion on is that in Objectivism that what is primary is denoted as "existence" (which denotes both material/objective existence and the conscious form of existence ie. human thought) while I am used to denote that (that which is primary) as matter. That what exists primary is matter in motion, which is both uncreatable and indestructable, but can be transformed from one form into other forms (like mass into energy and vice versa). Space and time denote the "mode of existence" of matter. Consciousness is only a secondary feature of matter in a specific arrangement, in the form of the human organism and the material brain as a product of billions of years of evolution.

[ And by the way matter is historical, there is what one can call material evolution. The clearest way of determining this is by considering that most of the contents of the current observable universe consisted primarily in the form of Hydrogen and in lesser extend Helium and Lithium, and that all other chemical elements were formed in the interior of stars. ]

So the position that Objectivism takes, which claims that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary is somewhat obfuscating since existence denotes both the objective/material form of existence and the conscious form of existence. So which form of existence is primary? Matter or consciousness?

I don't know why these axioms are worded exactly this way, since a more proper way to express it is to say that matter (all that which exists independent, outside and apart from consciousness) is primary. That is the only right way to express the position in this philosophical issue.

And worth noting, it can be argued that there are basically only two metaphysical positions: Materialism (primacy of matter) or Idealism (primacy of conscioussness).

(see also this article that explains this: http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/poe.html)

By wording this as Primacy of Existence (while existence itself is both material/objective and the consciouss form) it doesn't make it any clearer imho.

Basically, the outlook of Objectivism on these philosophical issue is the same as Materialism. Both argue for the meta-physical position that the objective material world (in whatever form it existed) was there before consciousness, and that matter itself is not dependent on consciousness. So matter is primary. It is at least more precise to say that matter is primary, since we know that before there was humanity and before there were even life forms, there was a material reality.

However, Objectivism itself claims to be NOT in one of either camps (Materialism vs. Idealism) but to be in it's own camp. Which is quite puzzling because Objectivist claim there are only two camps! And if there are only two camps, and Objectivism is not in the Idealist camp, then Objectivism is in the camp of Materialism.

Perhaps anyone can explain why that is or not is the case? Historical or political reasons perhaps?

So this explains one aspect of Objectivism, that it is somewhat unclear on it's philosophical position.

The second point of consideration is about the axiom of existence and the axiom (or law) of identity.

They are what one calls tautological truths.

For the materialist position, it is expressed not only that matter exists, but also that motion (or change) exist, and that matter is in motion always. Wherever one sees matter there is motion and vice versa.

Although matter itself is eternal and infinite, all existence forms of matter are in motion always. Anything, everywhere and anytime.

If we were to apply the law of identity on the real world of matter in motion however, it would mean that everything would always be equal to itself, and consequently everything would be motionless. Nothing would change whatsoever! So the reality of the world of matter in motion means in fact that there is no possible way in which the law of identity can be true! If and since all things do change, it means that something is at some point in time not equal to itself, since if it were, at all time all places and all circumstances, it would not change.

This is however not to say that the law of identity is useless or without application. The law of identity is a usefull tool, but is limited to the world of abstract thought and reasoning only!

[Rich Engle]

Hello

You will find many people here with whom you can discuss your questions in a friendly manner.

I don't spend an inordinate amount of time with technical philosophy, I can follow it better than I can make it.

Only from my standpoint, to address some of your askings:

1. Objectivism is a rational philosophy for living on the earth, as it is said. For the most part, it works very well. The idea of value-for-value exchange (capitalism, really) is wonderful, it keeps the playing field fair and even. Deeper, it can empower a person (like how so many including myself began to experience life after reading Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead). Rand's work has a great deal to do with the fundamental right of a human being to exist on their own terms, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others so doing. (That's a paraphrase, but it's solid). For me, this part of it has always been the core, but I speak only for myself. I do know that, on the whole, the main thing I have heard over the years from people reading the novels is an experience of liberation. Deeper, I believe it involves self-affirmation. Deeper yet, self-esteem, as Nathaniel Branden's work carved out. I truly believe almost all roads lead to self-esteem, as he defined it (self-worth, efficacy)

2. You have seen in it, it appears, a division, dichotomy between the internal domain and the external domain. I happen to agree, and mostly consider it to be an integration issue, as well as some things involving psychology, to put it in a very gross fashion. One thing that gave me a better view was to look at Ken Wilber's "AQAL" model ("All Quadrants/All Levels). Wikipedia has a good breakdown here:

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

Now, I'm pretty sure Wilber himself wouldn't admit to a perfect model, because it was a first stab, one that he later changed a bit. He is an integrator, and not in the sense, I guess, that it is talked about in Objectivist circles, mostly. It's just another view, there are many others.

Well, that's enough from ME, other than to say welcome. I'm sure our landlord will say hi...

best,

Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

heusdens,

Welcome to OL. This is a good discussion for the metaphysics or epistemology sections. I suggest making a slightly altered versions of this and starting a thread there.

I hope you enjoy yourself around here. Make yourself at home.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Welcome; I will tell you I am not that much into technical philosophy but not everyone is interested in the same thing. Welcome! Enjoy!