Existence exists?

[Selene]

"Bullet is bullet" is a tautology.

You think Rand meant "Existence exists" in a tautological sense too: "Existence is existence", so to speak?

No she did not in my opinion.

"In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary or unessential (and usually unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing twice (often originally from different languages). It is often regarded or thought of as a fault of style and was defined by Fowler as "saying the same thing twice." It is not necessary or essential for the entire meaning of a phrase to be repeated. If a part of the meaning is repeated in such a way that it appears as unintentional, clumsy, or lacking in dexterity, then it may be described as tautology. On the other hand, a repetition of meaning which improves the style of a piece of speech or writing is not usually described as tautology."

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Actually your comment shows one of the problems when the context part of a concept is excluded from word usage.

In the manner I was using it, "bullet is bullet" is not a tautology. It is a quip based on a famous saying. Humor is an intimate part of my meaning, but humor is excluded when you discard the phrase as a "tautology."

The same goes for "existence exists."

A lot of the concept gets left out with that highfalutin "tautology" brush-aside.

Like the song says, maybe the words get in the way...

Incidentally, I have never seen that "tautology" observation posted without an accompanying attempt to denigrate Rand's phrase as "trivial" or "without meaning" or something like that (usually with a further insinuation that the person is a far superior intellect than the person he/she was talking to). I couldn't tell if any of this was the cases in your case. If that was not your intent, it would be a first for me. Just by asking, that in itself was a first for me.

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Actually your comment shows one of the problems when the context part of a concept is excluded from word usage.

In the manner I was using it, "bullet is bullet" is not a tautology. It is a quip based on a famous saying.

I'm from Germany and no native speaker of English - what is the famous saying?

Humor is an intimate part of my meaning, but humor is excluded when you discard the phrase as a "tautology."

I wasn't discarding the phrase. A tautology is a fairly complex language phenomenon, open to interpretation. For example, It can be used for reasons of emphasis.

The same goes for "existence exists."

A lot of the concept gets left out with that highfalutin "tautology" brush-aside

.

What exactly of the concept was left out?

As for "brush-aside", this is not my cup of tea at all. On the contrary, I'm a 'leave no stone unturned' type and want get to the bottom of things.

"Existence exists" is on the same level as e. g. saying "Live lives". So if anyone here wrote "Life lives", would you think they used a correct phrase?

Incidentally, I have never seen that "tautology" observation posted without an accompanying attempt to denigrate Rand's phrase as "trivial" or "without meaning" or something like that (usually with a further insinuation that the person is a far superior intellect than the person he/she was talking to).

A phrase is always with meaning to the person who uses it, however "nonsensical" it may sound to others at first glance. Clarifying avoids misunderstandings.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm from Germany and no native speaker of English - what is the famous saying?

Xray,

"A is A." It's from Atlas Shrugged.

Germany? That's cool.

What exactly of the concept was left out?

Humor.

In Objectivist epistemology, concepts are mental identifications and integrations (categorizations) of things. These things are called referents and concepts stand for them. We slap a word (or even a phrase) on a concept as a label so we can mentally handle it more easily and communicate it to others. That's why the concept of "chair," for instance, is the same in all languages, but the word for it is different (same concept, different label). That's also why most words have more than one definition (same label, different concept).

Once you start understanding more of Rand's ideas, you will understand that "existence exists" is more than a tautology since the "exists" part includes (by being a verb and by the phrase being a proposition) an active consciousness that can exist or not as part of the concept. This is not implied in the simple word "existence."

"A is A" is another manner of stating the law of identity and how a consciousness should identify referents (i.e., with consistency).

I probably came off a little unfriendly in the above post, but you wouldn't believe the viciousness that some people use to attack Rand and people who like her ideas. It often starts with the "tautology" thing. I see that you were just seeking information. Sorry for the gruffness.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

So, MSK, if I get this right, it would be within the confines of "Objectivist Humor" <---blatant oxymoron

if I go ahead and put out a ladder for you to walk under, replete with banana peel, have the black cat run across on cue, then hook you from stage left?

rde

People like simple gags.

[Selene]

Rich:

Just to amuse me, can you tie the broken glass from a mirror to the cat's tail, gently of course, just to piss off PETA [People Eating Tasty Animals].

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

Rich:

Just to amuse me, can you tie the broken glass from a mirror to the cat's tail, gently of course, just to piss off PETA [People Eating Tasty Animals].

Adam

I'd probably pay money to see that. It's fun (sometimes) to get under PETA's skin. Most people are oblivious to humor in the context of their beliefs.

One of the many reasons I love comedians like Dave Chappelle. His humor is pure genius. I'd post probably one of his best skits (the one with the blind KKK leader that's black, but he doesn't know it) as an example, but I'm at work.

~ Shane

Sorry for this thread going off-course yet again

[Xray]

Rich:

Just to amuse me, can you tie the broken glass from a mirror to the cat's tail, gently of course, just to piss off PETA [People Eating Tasty Animals].

Adam

Watch out - I happen to be member of PETA and will protect that cat.

But the cat won't need protection when I think about it - it would fight back enough if you tried to tie anything to its tail ...

Edited April 13, 2009 by Xray

[anonrobt]

Rich:

Just to amuse me, can you tie the broken glass from a mirror to the cat's tail, gently of course, just to piss off PETA [People Eating Tasty Animals].

Adam

Watch out - I happen to be member of PETA and will protect that cat.

But the cat won't need protection when I think about it - it would fight back enough if you tried to tie anything to its tail ...

A PETArd among our midst.... for shame...

[Xray]

A PETArd among our midst.... for shame...

I that the first time one has shown up here?

Edited April 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"Objectivist Humor" <---blatant oxymoron

Good one!

[Flagg]

Maybe there is supernatural being who questions whether or not 'existence exists', does he exist?

This is a stolen concept. I did not say "maybe" and I did not say "supernatural being."

Let's take this to the personal level: You (GS) have to exist in order to question whether existence exits.

If you (GS) don't exist, you can't say anything, much less question something specific. That is where existence an axiomatic concept instead of an assumption.

I do agree that your "maybe" and your "supernatural being" are assumptions. I do not agree that your existence is an assumption, at least not so long as you post here. smile.gif

... there is only "to the best of our knowledge right now"

In relation to what? What determines best and worst? What standard do you use to make this measurement?

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.

Not quite. The first axiom is better stated "Something is." Now, in this order of precedence, it is implicit what "is" i.e. "exists" means, but this is not explicitly outlined until later down the axiomatic chain. To exist means to have an identity, a nature, a set of quantifiable qualities. So putting it all together, it means that there exists identity or identities, as opposed to no identity or identities. Rand's presentation is rough, admittedly, but the fact of the matter is that it is axiomatically valid.

[tjohnson]

To exist means to have an identity, a nature, a set of quantifiable qualities.

I don't agree. We attribute properties or characteristics to objects through our abstraction process. "Greeness" is not a property of grass it is a label of a feeling inside our nervous system that results when light of a certain frequency hits our eyes, etc.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Do you believe that there can really be "light of a certain frequency," or is that also "a label of a feeling inside our nervous system"?

In fact, from that view, isn't living itself just "a label of a feeling inside our nervous system"?

(Being that, of course, "our nervous system" has to be alive in the first place, but who's quibbling?... Our nervous system itself might be "a label of a feeling inside our nervous system"..., including the feeling...)

Michael

[tjohnson]

Do you believe that there can really be "light of a certain frequency," or is that also "a label of a feeling inside our nervous system"?

Both 'green' and 'light of a certain frequency' are formulations but the latter one is verifiable by other observers, so it holds more weight. This is how we move from subjective to objective - by formulating in terms that are subject to observation. After all, something may appear green to one observer but not to another whereas using an instrument they should both find a similar wavelength.

[tjohnson]

I believe objectivism has its roots in naive realism. From wikipedia;

The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following 5 beliefs:[3]

1. There exists a world of material objects.

2. Statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.

3. These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent.

4. These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent.

5. By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified.

[Brant Gaede]

I believe objectivism has its roots in naive realism. From wikipedia;

The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following 5 beliefs:[3]

1. There exists a world of material objects.

2. Statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.

3. These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent.

4. These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent.

5. By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified.

Because I am "naive" I don't step in front of buses.

This is a subtle form of argumentum ad hominem and argument from authority: you're naive; I'm sophisticated.

--Brant

Edited April 15, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

Becuse I am "naive" I don't step in front of buses.

Hey, I didn't pick the name.

[Selene]

Now that was hilarious Brant!

I guess I am really naive, I only play Russian roulette with a revolver with all six (6) chambers empty and the firing pin removed this way I can non-existentially blow my brains out so I no longer have to read this thread, lol.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Becuse I am "naive" I don't step in front of buses.

Hey, I didn't pick the name.

Hey, I didn't build the Trojan Horse: I just brought it inside.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

This is a subtle form of argumentum ad hominem and argument from authority: you're naive; I'm sophisticated.

I believe the word 'naive' was chosen to contrast another philosophical outlook called 'scientific realism'.

[Brant Gaede]

This is a subtle form of argumentum ad hominem and argument from authority: you're naive; I'm sophisticated.

I believe the word 'naive' was chosen to contrast another philosophical outlook called 'scientific realism'.

Yes. It's a putdown. Actually both are firmly rooted in the idea of reality extant from human knowing, but GS seems to want to muddy the issue by riding the horse of tentative knowledge right into the heart of reality itself by substituting metaphysical/epistemology for epistemology/epistemology axiomatically. That would make science unworkable because it would just be self-referential.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If we take the two concepts as a package it's acceptable and valuable as long as we jettison GS. Too many ignorant people think they know what they don't or pretend that they do.

--Brant

Edited April 15, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

When I used "GS" in my previous posts I did not mean "General Semanticist" but "General Semantics."

--Brant

[tjohnson]

When I used "GS" in my previous posts I did not mean "General Semanticist" but "General Semantics."

--Brant

Well, I'm glad I'm not getting jettisoned.