Is there really such a concept as "Existence"?

[Roger Bissell]

POST DELETED

[Roger Bissell]

Rand was apparently confusing "Existence" with "existent."

Correct. Existents exist, but a phrase like "Existence exists" makes no sense. It's as absurd as saying "Hunger hungers" or "Love loves".

She made the same mistake with "Consciousness is conscious" btw. It's like saying "Thirst is thirsty."

This is a scrambled mess. None of your formulations is correct.

First, Existence. Rand's statement is not absurd. It is like saying "Hunger exists" or "Love exists." But as I'll explain, a better example would be: "Humanity exists."

It helps to recognize that, in a very important way, Existence is like humanity (or humankind). Both are collectives, totalities, and totalities do exist -- i.e., totalities are things that exist, just as are each of the individual things that comprise those totalities.

Humanity is the totality of existing human beings. Existence is the totality of existing things (including entities, attributes, actions, and relationships). Humanity exists, because the totality of existing human beings exists. Existence exists, because the totality of existing things exists.

That is why it is legitimate to say "Humanity (the totality of individual human beings) exists," just as "individual human beings exist" -- and "Existence (the totality of individual existents) exists," just as "individual existents exist."

Yes, it sounds tautological and not all that profound, once it's put in that form. But it's certainly not absurd either.

You might wonder: why did Rand use religious-like phraseology: "Existence exists," rather than "The totality of real, existing, individual things is itself a real, existing, individual thing." I suspect that it was to counterpose her view against the religionists believing that "God exists" as well as the Existentialists believing that "Nothing nothings" (Heidegger: "Das Nichts nichtet"). For Rand, it was neither God nor Nothingness (and for Sartre, consciousness was a form of Nothingness) that sets the terms, but Reality or Existence itself. For Rand, it was Existence, the totality of things that exist, that is Supreme and metaphysically potent, not some form of consciousness, either human or divine.

I think she got it somewhat wrong. It is not the ~totality~ of things that has metaphysical potency, but specifically ~entities~. Individual entities have causal efficacy and make things happen. Not their attributes, including consciousness, nor their actions, including conscious processes, nor their relationships, including cognitive relations between a knower and a fact of reality -- but existing individual entities that exercise their powers (attributes), engage in actions, and enter into relationships.

Of course, Rand expressed it in terms of Primacy of Existence. Existence, not consciousness, sets the terms of reality. Consciousness does not have the power to make facts other than they are, only the power to grasp those facts, to know them. And even this is somewhat of a misstatement. Consciousness is not a thing that engages in actions. Consciousness is a living entity's attribute or power to engage in certain actions, viz., cognition of reality, evaluation, self-awareness, imagination, etc. Consciousness is our power not to ~create~ reality, but to be aware of reality.

That is why she said "Consciousness is conscious." She meant, more fully, that consciousness is not the power to make reality, but simply to be conscious of reality. Reality is not subjective, the product of consciousness, but objective, the object of consciousness. Again, this is just another way of expressing her doctrine of the Primacy of Existence. (BTW, Aquinas and the Scholastics also acknowledged the Primacy of Existence, just not consistently. But then again, some might argue, looking at the trajectory of her personal life, that Rand did not either!)

So, it is not an error to say "consciousness is conscious." It is simply a sloppy way of saying a very important true thing: The power of conscious beings to be aware of reality (i.e., consciousness) is not the power to ~create~ reality, but the power to ~be conscious of~ reality. But it must also be pointed out and remembered that it is not attributes (including consciousness) that do things (including being conscious of existence), but entities (viz., conscious beings being conscious of existence). By virtue of our power to be aware of reality, our consciousness, we, living conscious entities, are conscious of existence.

Without this second, crucial insight, Objectivists and others slip into the error of reifying Existence and Consciousness, as though they were contending things vying for supremacy in the universe. The terms are just shorthand for what exists and the awareness of conscious beings of what exists.

[...] in the Western world, we don't even have a lexical equivalent for the Chinese term "qi" because it does not figure in our idea of reality. Trying to translate it witb 'energy flow' or 'élan vital' does not nearly cover it.

I personally have doubts that this "qi" even exists, but every doctor practising Traditional Chinese Medicine would tell me that I would not exist if I did not have it.

So here's an opportunity for those who believe in Rand's theory of concepts - which, let us not forget this premise - claims that (bolding mine) "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is an audiovsual symbol that denotes a concept, i. e. that stands for an umlimited number of concretes of a certain kind" (ITOE, p. 109) to demonstrate how it works:

My question: What are the unlimited number of concretes the audioviual symbol "qi" (denoting a concept) stands for?

To form a concept about ~anything~, you first have to have a mental file folder of awarenesses about that thing and its attributes, so that you can isolate a distinguishing characteristic and form a definition that is retained by a word or phrase (aka "audiovsual" aka "audioviual" symbol). If qi really exists in all human beings, just as rational consciousness exists in them, then in both cases there are an unlimited number of concrete instances of those attributes which the words "qi" and "consciousness" stand for. But in the absence of any demonstrable, (even introspectively) observable attributes of "qi," any assertions about its nature or existence are just as arbitrary as assertions about gremlins.

I would suggest reading or re-reading Rand's book on concept-formation (ITOE). It is really not difficult material, and I get insights and further understanding almost every time I delve into ITOE, but perhaps that's just me.

REB

[Xray]

This is a scrambled mess. None of your formulations is correct.

Roger,

I think the mess lies in Rand's sloppy formulations. You yourself, when commenting about "Consciousness is conscious" wrote about this being "a 'sloppy way' of saying a very important true thing". (RB)

I have read your # post with interest; it contains many statements on your part about what you think Rand meant, i. e. it is your interpretation of her message, with you trying to formulate your words clearer than Rand did.

You also see the problems, as shown in your initial post where you wrote:

RB: As for the concept of "the universe" or "Existence," I agree that the standard Randian treatment is not adequate.

and

RB: Rand was apparently confusing "Existence" with "existent."

...

"Existence (the totality of individual existents) exists," just as "individual existents exist."

Yes, it sounds tautological and not all that profound, once it's put in that form. But it's certainly not absurd either.

The problem does not lie in not understanding what Rand meant by "Existence exists" - just as one can understand what Heidegger meant by "Nothing noughts" (which is a sloppy (and logically wrong) formulation as well).

Rand was quick to ridicule Heidegger and to accuse him of the "reification of the zero" here, but isn't her "Consciousness is conscious" a reification as well? A reification not of the zero, but of an abstract noun which in itself can't be conscious. Only living beings can be.

So a satirist might use both Heidegger and Rand to create the sentence "Existence exists (or Consciousness is conscious) until it is noughted by Nothing". ;)

Again,your awareness of the problems is shown in the following quotes:

For Rand, it was Existence, the totality of things that exist, that is Supreme and metaphysically potent, not some form of consciousness, either human or divine.

I think she got it somewhat wrong. It is not the ~totality~ of things that has metaphysical potency, but specifically ~entities~. Individual entities have causal efficacy and make things happen. Not their attributes, including consciousness, nor their actions, including conscious processes, nor their relationships, including cognitive relations between a knower and a fact of reality -- but existing individual entities that exercise their powers (attributes), engage in actions, and enter into relationships.

But it must also be pointed out and remembered that it is not attributes (including consciousness) that do things (including being conscious of existence), but entities (viz., conscious beings being conscious of existence). By virtue of our power to be aware of reality, our consciousness, we, living conscious entities, are conscious of existence.

Without this second, crucial insight, Objectivists and others slip into the error of reifying Existence and Consciousness, as though they were contending things vying for supremacy in the universe. The terms are just shorthand for what exists and the awareness of conscious beings of what exists.

And didn't Rand herself too, in TVOS, comment on e. g. the collective noun "society" not being an entity?

It helps to recognize that, in a very important way, Existence is like humanity (or humankind). Both are collectives, totalities, and totalities do exist -- i.e., totalities are things that exist, just as are each of the individual things that comprise those totalities.

But since these totalities only refer to individual entities which exist, and since Rand elsewhere (e. g. in TVOS, p. 93) rejects the idea of attributing potency to those collectives, imo interpreting Rand as thinking of a totality of things as "supreme and metaphysically potent" is problematic because it contradicts what she said elsewhere.

Xray: [...] in the Western world, we don't even have a lexical equivalent for the Chinese term "qi" because it does not figure in our idea of reality. Trying to translate it witb 'energy flow' or 'élan vital' does not nearly cover it.

I personally have doubts that this "qi" even exists, but every doctor practising Traditional Chinese Medicine would tell me that I would not exist if I did not have it.

So here's an opportunity for those who believe in Rand's theory of concepts - which, let us not forget this premise - claims that (bolding mine) "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is an audiovsual symbol that denotes a concept, i. e. that stands for an umlimited number of concretes of a certain kind" (ITOE, p. 109) to demonstrate how it works:

My question: What are the unlimited number of concretes the audioviual symbol "qi" (denoting a concept) stands for?

If qi really exists in all human beings, just as rational consciousness exists in them, then in both cases there are an unlimited number of concrete instances of those attributes which the words "qi" and "consciousness" stand for. But in the absence of any demonstrable, (even introspectively) observable attributes of "qi," any assertions about its nature or existence are just as arbitrary as assertions about gremlins.

But Rand verbatim wrote that "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is an audiovisual symbol that denotes a concept, i. e. that stands for an umlimited number of concretes of a certain kind" (ITOE, p. 109)

So her premise of every word we use standing for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind implies that these concretes exist.

That is why she said "Consciousness is conscious." She meant, more fully, that consciousness is not the power to make reality, but simply to be conscious of reality. Reality is not subjective, the product of consciousness, but objective, the object of consciousness. Again, this is just another way of expressing her doctrine of the Primacy of Existence. (BTW, Aquinas and the Scholastics also acknowledged the Primacy of Existence, just not consistently. But then again, some might argue, looking at the trajectory of her personal life, that Rand did not either!)

"All theory, dear friend, is gray, but the golden tree of life springs ever green." (Quote by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

Edited October 31, 2010 by Xray

[Roger Bissell]

This is a scrambled mess. None of your formulations is correct.

Roger,

I think the mess lies in Rand's sloppy formulations. You yourself, when commenting about "Consciousness is conscious" wrote about this being "a 'sloppy way' of saying a very important true thing". (RB)

I have read your # post with interest; it contains many statements on your part about what you think Rand meant, i. e. it is your interpretation of her message, with you trying to formulate your words clearer than Rand did.

Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging what, for me, has been a 40-year mission: to clarify and/or correct Rand's more cryptic and sometimes downright wrong statements.

You also see the problems, as shown in your initial post where you wrote:

RB: As for the concept of "the universe" or "Existence," I agree that the standard Randian treatment is not adequate.

and

RB: Rand was apparently confusing "Existence" with "existent."

...

"Existence (the totality of individual existents) exists," just as "individual existents exist."

Yes, it sounds tautological and not all that profound, once it's put in that form. But it's certainly not absurd either.

The problem does not lie in not understanding what Rand meant by "Existence exists" - just as one can understand what Heidegger meant by "Nothing noughts" (which is a sloppy (and logically wrong) formulation as well).

Rand was quick to ridicule Heidegger and to accuse him of the "reification of the zero" here, but isn't her "Consciousness is conscious" a reification as well? A reification not of the zero, but of an abstract noun which in itself can't be conscious. Only living beings can be.

So a satirist might use both Heidegger and Rand to create the sentence "Existence exists (or Consciousness is conscious) until it is noughted by Nothing". ;)

Yes, Rand was reifying consciousness in her "consciousness is conscious" comment.

In general, attributes do not themselves possess the attribute. Redness is not red. Rationality is not rational. Etc. It is entities that possess attributes. Certain living entities are conscious. Certain entities are red. Human beings are rational.

But as I stated before, and I will try to say more clearly here, Rand's statement was elliptical (considerably abbreviated, actually), and ~really~ was trying to say: The power of consciousness possessed by certain living beings is ~not~ the power of those beings to ~create~ reality, but their power to ~be aware~ of reality.

Again,your awareness of the problems is shown in the following quotes:

For Rand, it was Existence, the totality of things that exist, that is Supreme and metaphysically potent, not some form of consciousness, either human or divine.

I think she got it somewhat wrong. It is not the ~totality~ of things that has metaphysical potency, but specifically ~entities~. Individual entities have causal efficacy and make things happen. Not their attributes, including consciousness, nor their actions, including conscious processes, nor their relationships, including cognitive relations between a knower and a fact of reality -- but existing individual entities that exercise their powers (attributes), engage in actions, and enter into relationships.

But it must also be pointed out and remembered that it is not attributes (including consciousness) that do things (including being conscious of existence), but entities (viz., conscious beings being conscious of existence). By virtue of our power to be aware of reality, our consciousness, we, living conscious entities, are conscious of existence.

Without this second, crucial insight, Objectivists and others slip into the error of reifying Existence and Consciousness, as though they were contending things vying for supremacy in the universe. The terms are just shorthand for what exists and the awareness of conscious beings of what exists.

And didn't Rand herself too, in TVOS, comment on e. g. the collective noun "society" not being an entity?

Yes, she in principle says we should not treat attributes as though they were entities. And she does hold that we should not treat collectives or totalities or sum totals as though they were metaphysically potent entities.

My approach, when reading her axiomatic statements about Existence and Consciousness, is to use the Principle of Charity, i.e., to interpret her (as I did above) in the way that makes sense ~and~ does not put her in the position of violating one of her important principles. (It's not always possible! For instance, in "Art and Cognition," she states that architecture is a form of art, that art is a re-creation of reality, yet architecture does not re-create reality. Tilt!! No way to charitably massage that one.)

It helps to recognize that, in a very important way, Existence is like humanity (or humankind). Both are collectives, totalities, and totalities do exist -- i.e., totalities are things that exist, just as are each of the individual things that comprise those totalities.

But since these totalities only refer to individual entities which exist, and since Rand elsewhere (e. g. in TVOS, p. 93) rejects the idea of attributing potency to those collectives, imo interpreting Rand as thinking of a totality of things as "supreme and metaphysically potent" is problematic because it contradicts what she said elsewhere.

Yes, that is the trouble with elliptical statements like "Consciousness is conscious." As stated, it appears to reify an attribute, and I am sure that Rand, if questioned, would have acknowledged that she meant to say something similar to my clarification offered above. Yet, many (too many) Objectivists see ~no~ problem with taking Rand's statements literally and contorting their minds to make the statement stick, even though, literally taken, it is obviously a fallacy, not an axiom.

Thanks for your insightful comments.

REB