Selene Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Clearly, x-ray most cogent and clear post to date!Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Clearly, x-ray most cogent and clear post to date!AdamOH -- thanks for the compliment, Selene - I'm speechless - reading this coming from you, of all people! Bottom line: Never count your chickens before they are hatched, Selene. You're always jumping the gun with your comments, tsk, tsk. Edited June 26, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 "...jumping the gun..."You have sooo many issues.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 BTW Xray, we already have a lengthy thread on "existence exists" which Istarted, if you want to see what kind of arguments were used there. (GS)GS, You had written there: "Thought I'd better start a new thread. After considering this some more itseems to me that the statement "existence exists" means existence isundefinable. 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? Allof 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 phraseeven mean? It's almost as if you are defining 'existence' with the word'exists' which amounts to saying nothing." (GS from the thread cited).It is the last statement that corresponds to the point made in my post. Theterms, exist and existence, have no meaning unless and until an entity isreferenced. The words would not even been in a language system withoutreference to a claim of an entity and\or a relationship existing. "Existenceexists" as you say, "......amounts to saying nothing."Note that she keeps saying it. She has nothing to replace it with, only "Existence does not exist," the contradiction which really is saying nothing. She is merely trying to eschew metaphysics itself from the discussion but keeps getting hung up on the immutability of the (basic) axioms, one stated the other implied. The only alternative she has to Objectivism is semantical blabber.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) [General Semanticist] I will agree that I have to exist in order to discuss what 'existence exists' means. biggrin.gif However, if I find that it is poorly worded, simplistic, and ambiguous it does not mean I "deny existence".Good points, GS. Indeed it is poorly worded. "Existence exists" is wrong language use imo. What do you think? The same goes for Rand's writing about plants "seeking values". But plants can't attribute value. That's just plain absurd and, into the bargain, even contradicts Rand's own statement "values require a valuer". Other example of wrong language use: the alleged "selfless" man (like e. g. Jim Taggart (!) lol). Edited June 26, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Xray,When you are ready for the next baby-step in understanding Objectivism, mull over the fact that a conceptual referent does not have to be an entity (as you erroneously keep saying and/or implying).It merely has to be an existent...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginny Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Xray, das ist nicht unsinning. Du bist unsinning.Ginny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Xray, das ist nicht unsinning. Du bist unsinning.GinnyErklär doch mal, warum du den Satz "(Die) Existenz existiert" sinnvoll und grammatisch richtig findest. Ich bin ganz Ohr. (= How about explaining why you think the sentence makes sense and is grammatically correct. I'm all ears. ) Edited June 26, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Xray,When you are ready for the next baby-step in understanding Objectivism, mull over the fact that a conceptual referent does not have to be an entity (as you erroneously keep saying and/or implying).It merely has to be an existent...MichaelOnce more for the dull-witted. What is the difference? I looked up the word "existent". According to the dictionary it is something that exists independent of a perceiving entity. Something that exists on its own. Then I looked up "entity". The dictionary said and entity is something that exists. So what is the difference? Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Xray, das ist nicht unsinning. Du bist unsinning.Ginny, es heißt "unsinnig", nicht "unsinning". Das wäre Unsinn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 "Existenz existiert" oder "Die Existenz existiert" - Dragonfly, bist du auch der Meining, dass das total unsinnig klingt? Eben! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginny Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Dragonfly, you're the second person this week to correct my spelling. How embarrassing. I'll just hang my head for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Xray, das ist nicht unsinning. Du bist unsinning.Ginny, es heißt "unsinnig", nicht "unsinning". Das wäre Unsinn!Translation: "Ginny, it's "unsinnig", not "unsinning". That would be nonsense". [unsinnig = nonsensical] Diesen Rechtschreibfehler von Ginny habe ich übersehen. [= I've overlooked that spelling mistake by Ginny] Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Bob,Entity is a whole in itself. Existent can be merely a part or even a background. The color red for instance is an existent, but not an entity. A red apple is an entity.Rand is a bit fuzzy on the meaning of entity, but she was adamant about using the idea of entity in her epistemology. See the AR Lexicon entry on Entity to see what I mean. Since Rand was so vague, Peikoff tries has to expound, but when you look closer, he can't define what he means by boundary. He even admits he would need to point. For broad abstractions like all of existence, pointing is OK. There's no other way to do it. But when you talk about all individual things as single entities and you can only know (on a primary level) that they are entities with boundaries by pointing, that is way too vague for me to stop there as if this were properly explained.For example, when you have a chair with a cushion attached by Velcro, what is the cushion? Part of the chair, thus not an entity? And what is the cushion when you remove it from the chair? Still not an entity?That gets silly after a while.It is far easier to understand "living entity" than "inanimate entity" as used by Rand. If it's alive and wiggles, it's definitely an entity. If it dies, no more entity. The carcass may still be an entity for a while, but it eventually degrades into the vast unknown...This is one of the points in Objectivist epistemology that really needs a lot of work.btw - Because of all the interrelationships, I like the idea of "holon" to describe entities. A holon is a whole made up of parts, but at the same time it is a part of an even larger whole governed by a broader level of organization.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) [Dragonfly]: Eben!Thanks Dragonfly for your clear comment on this. Ginny et al, Dragonfly has confirmed that "Existence exists" (= (Die) Existenz existiert") sounds nonsensical when translated into German. In short, it sounds as nonsensical as in English. Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Xray,I suppose English sounds nonsensical to a monkey. He doesn't understand it.When you constantly judge something you have clearly proven that you do not understand as nonsensical... er... well, the impression is not flattering...But, carry on...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Your argument: "Several folks who agree with me agree that there is no such word or phrase in German that makes sense for what you stated therefore it is nonsense."There is always lots of linguistic leeway in my mind when I am speaking to a person in english, but there is virtually no excuse for this type of intellectually dishonest and illogical argument.Would you argue that:"Several folks who agree with me agree that there is no such word or concept in my language for unicorn...therefore not only is a unicorn nonsense, but even the concept unicorn is nonsense.Shameful.Adam Edited June 26, 2009 by Selene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Would you argue that:"Several folks who agree with me agree that there is no such word or concept in my language for unicorn...therefore not only is a unicorn nonsense, but even the concept unicorn is nonsense.Hmmm...how can a concept be part of a language?? Is a concept a word or not? If only we could eliminate this confusion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 GS,Well you could read ITOE to see what we are talking about...Just a thought...(PS - A word gives a concrete form to a concept so it can be perceived and handled easily. But it is not the same since the same concept can be represented by many different words in many different languages. There. Now you don't have to read it... )Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Xray,I suppose English sounds nonsensical to a monkey. He doesn't understand it.When you constantly judge something you have clearly proven that you do not understand as nonsensical... er... well, the impression is not flattering...But, carry on...MichaelMIchael, So I'm a 'monkey' who doesn't understand English?? Is that what you are suggesting? :shocked: Then how can it be that native speakers of English have come to the same conclusion re the statement "Existence exists" being nonsensical? So there must be a fallacy in your argumentation. Please "check your premises" (Rand). TIA. Edited June 26, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Xray,Where did I say that?All I suggested was to be careful with your image.You should learn something correctly before dismissing it as strongly as you do as nonsense. After all, this isn't rocket science and you show clearly that you don't understand it.But hey, that's me. I don't use a crystal ball to predict the future or read minds or tell me what to think about what I do not know...Maybe you have another system in Xray-think.Would you be willing to share it?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Your argument: "Several folks who agree with me agree that there is no such word or phrase in German that makes sense for what you stated therefore it is nonsense."You have completely missed the point. The exact opposite is the case: German has exactly such words and and phrases here as English, which is why the comparison was so interesting. English "existence" = "Existenz" in German.English "(to) exist" = "existieren" in German.Hope this helps. There is always lots of linguistic leeway in my mind when I am speaking to a person in english, but there is virtually no excuse for this type of intellectually dishonest and illogical argument.You clearly had no idea what the discussion was about. Edited June 26, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 "You have completely missed the point. The exact opposite is the case: German has exactly such words and and phrases here as English, which is why the comparison was so interesting.English "existence" = "Existenz" in German.English "(to) exist" = "existieren" in German.Hope this helps."You are seeing a whole team of therapeutic professionals...yes.I missed absolutely nothing. <<<<now ... what did I mean by that ...I guess breadcrumbs is the path to follow, but I prefer to use them on the tofu stuffing that I am making to go with the roasted pig.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 ... But it is not the same since the same concept can be represented by many different words in many different languages. There. Now you don't have to read it... )Yes, I agree so it's incorrect to refer a concept as part of a language like Selene did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Xray,Where did I say that?Youd didn't say it but may have been implying it. ;) No need to worry, Michael, my reply re the "monkey" was a mere tongue-in-cheek comment, part of the debate with the purpose of comic relief. The actual message was that "existence exists" sounds odd even to non-native speakers' ears, which is why e.g. GS started an extra thread on it a while ago. You should learn something correctly before dismissing it as strongly as you do as nonsense. After all, this isn't rocket science and you show clearly that you don't understand it.Rand's philosophy is no rocket science indeed. It is very simple. All her voluminous elaborations on epistemology don't distract from this fact. The key lies in checking her premises. But hey, that's me. I don't use a crystal ball to predict the future or read minds or tell me what to think about what I do not know...Let's leave crystal balls to those who believe in it. I'm interested in facts and want to examine Rand's statement "existence exists". Rand's use of language was incorrect here imo, but one can't leave it at that if if one wants to get to the core. So the question to ask is: What could she have meant by that? Could it be that she simply meant by the oddly worded statement "existence exists", that one is to accept as a "given" that we exist; that the world, that the universe actually exist? And that she wanted to take it from there? Maybe you have another system in Xray-think. Would you be willing to share it?Read my numerous posts on the subject - can you see any indicators that I was not sharing my views on the issue and my mode of thought? Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now