reification and negation

[Karl]

But if the child never had any candies and you tell them that they will not be getting any zero will never equal one.

 

You can't get something from nothing, no matter how hard you try. Just as useless an effort as trying to get blood from a beet.

Absolutely. However, If you were a subjectivist then there is no existence as such, because of primacy of consciousness. As existence is secondary then identity is impossible. Therefore the sweets and lack of sweets are simply the same illusion.

 

The simple structure 'existence is identity and consciousness is identification' makes it all clear for an objectivist. Simplicity prevails. Things are what they are, existence exists, A is A and consciousness is the faculty to grasp it.

 

There can be no identity without there first being existence because consciousness would be a nothingness nothing. This is what subjectivists are intent on trying to prove in a myriad of different ways-the latest being quantum theory.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Karl

[Apech]

You can't get something from nothing.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

[Marblehead]

Absolutely. However, If you were a subjectivist then there is no existence as such, because of primacy of consciousness. As existence is secondary then identity is impossible. Therefore the sweets and lack of sweets are simply the same illusion.

I'm pretty sure you don't believe that bullshit.

 

The simple structure 'existence is identity and consciousness is identification' makes it all clear for an objectivist.

You almost lost me with that one but I managed to pull through.

 

Simplicity prevails. Things are what they are, existence exists, A is A and consciousness is the faculty to grasp it.

Yep.  Short, sweet, and simple.

 

There can be no identity without there first being existence because consciousness would be a nothingness nothing. This is what subjectivists are intent on trying to prove in a myriad of different ways-the latest being quantum theory.

Obviously subjectivists are having problems facing reality as perceived by our human senses.

[Marblehead]

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

 

I did not accept that from Stephen the first time it aired on TV and I still do not.  It is a direct contradiction of the law of Conversation of Energy.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Marblehead

[Karl]

I'm pretty sure you don't believe that bullshit.

 

 

You almost lost me with that one but I managed to pull through.

 

 

Yep.  Short, sweet, and simple.

 

 

Obviously subjectivists are having problems facing reality as perceived by our human senses.

 

Obviously I don't believe the BS :-)

 

Subjectivists don't accept the premise that we can know existence and believe that identity is an illusion of consciousness. There are so many forms of this that it can masquerade as everything from religion to science. Empiricism and nominalism are two forms of subjectivism that aren't immediately apparent. In politics it is facism and socialism, both forms of collectivism which deny the individual indent its for a greater good -state, society or King it doesn't really matter.

[ilumairen]

Karl and MH, can you explain to me how the positions you have set forth are not reification?

[ilumairen]

Well, in the forceful manner that it is presented, it does have the marks of reification. If the phrasing around it were altered to sound more descriptive than prescriptive, it'd work without reification.

 

It is the forceful manner that I am taking issue with. I'm not looking for agreement, but I am requesting enough openness that individuals don't feel shut down before they even type a word.

 

In a fundamental way, the Randian treatment of consciousness is one of the few which is void of reification; it is not an abstract thing un-experienced. It is, instead, exactly what is experienced with no further qualification.

 

 

[Karl]

 

Karl and MH, can you explain to me how the positions you have set forth are not reification?

 

If you can explain where you think reification occurred ? I will probably just repeat myself here, so if this doesn't answer your question it would help to narrow down the specific area.

 

Existence and consciousness are axiomatic corollaries. Without consciousness existence cannot be perceived, without existence there can be nothing for consciousness to be conscious of. This is why existence defines identity and consciousness defines identification.

 

It's worth pointing out that this does not mean the concepts generated from the perceptions are necessarily free of error. Reason and logic are required to get as close as possible to the truth, sometimes our reasoning is faulty, but this doesn't mean our perceptions are wrong, it's our understanding that is faulty.

 

 

[Karl]

It is the forceful manner that I am taking issue with. I'm not looking for agreement, but I am requesting enough openness that individuals don't feel shut down before they even type a word.

 

 

I did attempt to lay out the differences between the subjective and the objective philosophical view points.

[Marblehead]

Subjectivists don't accept the premise that we can know existence and believe that identity is an illusion of consciousness.

I just missed a program on our Public Television that I think spoke to this.  I'll have to watch for a rerun.

[Marblehead]

Karl and MH, can you explain to me how the positions you have set forth are not reification?

Karl has already spoken to this more effectively than I will.  However,

 

I was reified.  The universe already existed before I was born (reified).  My eventual consciousness took note of the existence of many things.  The universe really didn't need me to make it real.  I couldn't have anyhow, of course.

 

The fact that I saw this one special tree today that I had never seen before doesn't mean that it didn't exist prior to my observing it.  It may have already been in existence for a hundred years.

 

That my consciousness recognizes certain things in nature is purely biological.  Nothing special.  All other animals have consciousness to some degree.

[Marblehead]

I did attempt to lay out the differences between the subjective and the objective philosophical view points.

There's a tree.  Objective

 

That tree is pretty.  Subjective

[Apech]

There's a tree.  Objective

 

That tree is pretty.  Subjective

 

 

That tree's ugly - Objectionable.

[Karl]

There's a tree.  Objective

 

That tree is pretty.  Subjective

 

Even that is objective. Beauty has specifics and it is an objective truth that you find the tree beautiful and everyone else agrees that you find the tree beautiful. From that I deny subjectivity completely.

 

The subjective we are talking about here is philosophical. Existence itself is in doubt and not simply the aesthetics of personal choice. Reality cannot be known as it is in flux so no identity is possible. Consciousness is the generator of reality so it's all illusion.

[Marblehead]

Even that is objective. Beauty has specifics and it is an objective truth that you find the tree beautiful and everyone else agrees that you find the tree beautiful. From that I deny subjectivity completely.

That's okay, but we will always disagree about that.

 

The subjective we are talking about here is philosophical. Existence itself is in doubt and not simply the aesthetics of personal choice. Reality cannot be known as it is in flux so no identity is possible. Consciousness is the generator of reality so it's all illusion.

And we will disagree about this too.

 

Consciousness does nothing but perceive or imagine reality.  Reality existed before man evolved into the confused mess it is today.

 

There are many animals on the planet that perceive reality pretty much as humans do.  Did none of them exist prior to man first seeing them and putting labels on them?

[Karl]

That's okay, but we will always disagree about that.

 

 

And we will disagree about this too.

 

Consciousness does nothing but perceive or imagine reality.  Reality existed before man evolved into the confused mess it is today.

 

There are many animals on the planet that perceive reality pretty much as humans do.  Did none of them exist prior to man first seeing them and putting labels on them?

 

I'm giving you the subjectivist view not mine which is firmly objectivist.

 

Do you disagree that there are certain things such as symmetry and proportion which are commonly regarded as beautiful ? That perhaps you prefer a contrasting sky than one which is dull and monotone, that a field of emerald grass looks prettier than one of uniform Tarmac ?

[Marblehead]

I'm giving you the subjectivist view not mine which is firmly objectivist.

Well, no wonder I couldn't understand you.

 

Do you disagree that there are certain things such as symmetry and proportion which are commonly regarded as beautiful ? That perhaps you prefer a contrasting sky than one which is dull and monotone, that a field of emerald grass looks prettier than one of uniform Tarmac ?

But that's all subjective, IMO.  My mind, the subject, has perceived X, an object, and have formed a concept (subjective) of what it perceived.

 

Let's don't put too much importance on the human animal.  We really aren't all that significant when considering the totality of the universe.

[ilumairen]

Thanks for the clarification of your positions.

 

My primary point of interest lies in our relationship with ourselves, and our relationship(s) with others.

[Marblehead]

I think it is necessary that we assume that we exist.  And if we are conscious that it is our consciousness that allows us to perceive the world around us. 

 

Accepting that I exist and if I have no internal (mental) conflicts with my lifestyle I would be able to come to peace with my inner self.

 

Being at peace we should be able to relate with most "others".  Some more openly and warmly than with others.

 

But, with consciousness follows awareness.  I think that speaking of awareness is of more value than speaking of consciousness.  If we can have a thought we are conscious.  Yes, even in thought-dreams there is a form of consciousness.

[Karl]

Well, no wonder I couldn't understand you.

 

 

But that's all subjective, IMO.  My mind, the subject, has perceived X, an object, and have formed a concept (subjective) of what it perceived.

 

Let's don't put too much importance on the human animal.  We really aren't all that significant when considering the totality of the universe.

 

Its an objective concept that is perceived even if it is erroneous. You cannot possibly hold a subjective concept otherwise it wouldn't be a concept at all. You would have rejected it. Either it is something or it isn't. There is no doubt about it. First you must know a rope and a snake in order that you could mistake one for the other. That rope and snake exist as objective concepts. You do not hold that a woman is subjectively beautiful, she is beautiful to you and you must hold certain concepts relating to beauty first before you could identify a beautiful woman.

 

I struggled with this for several months it isn't easy. The last remnants of subjective philosophy are hard to wash away.

 

We are, individually, the most significant thing in the totality of the universe. We have free will and we have the faculty of reasoning.

[Karl]

Thanks for the clarification of your positions.

 

My primary point of interest lies in our relationship with ourselves, and our relationship(s) with others.

 

We are ourselves. We have free will and the capacity to reason. Some things are absolutes and some things we can choose.

 

We have all got the same faculties of sense and consciousness. We live in an existent world of concretes and can know them directly. We develop rules to deal with this concrete world in order that we can take actions to improve or hold our current condition relating to our happiness/survival. Our happiness is best achieved by mutual, voluntary cooperation. In order that we do that, then those we cooperate with must share our values to a lesser or greater extent. It is no good to pair an honest man with a thief, only a thief voluntary cooperates effectively with another thief.

 

 

[Marblehead]

I struggled with this for several months it isn't easy. The last remnants of subjective philosophy are hard to wash away.

I would guess there are very few, if any, who have totally escaped the subjective.

 

We are, individually, the most significant thing in the totality of the universe. We have free will and we have the faculty of reasoning.

Well, if you say so.  But I still have my doubts.

[Karl]

I would guess there are very few, if any, who have totally escaped the subjective.

 

 

Well, if you say so. But I still have my doubts.

If you capable of proving it, then you can prove it. If you believe everything is subjective then you have denied you ever had, or ever will have that faculty. You are therefore an agnostic at best-Unable to prove and unable to believe you can prove.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Yep.  I am a Materialist (Objectivist) but I still think subjectively most (maybe I should have said "all" instead of "most") of the time after observing the objective.

[Karl]

Yep.  I am a Materialist (Objectivist) but I still think subjectively most (maybe I should have said "all" instead of "most") of the time after observing the objective.

 

You realise this is just another version of subjectivism ?

That you actually accept what you described as BS, but you just don't happen to like that particular version because it didn't make sense to you. So you found one that you preferred.

 

If you doubt you can know, then by inference you can't know. You have closed out the question, by begging the question. This is because you asked 'why?' Before 'what?' The why is in consciousness, the what is existence. In other words you have created a loop in which it is actually the primacy of consciousness that powers your philosophy, but you have chosen not to see it that way.

 

You believe existence exists but you don't believe you can know it. Therefore you do not believe what you claim to believe. You cannot prove to yourself beyond all doubt that existence is primary, because you don't believe you have the faculty to know. That is pure faith and not reason.

 

Yours is the hardest of prisons, the highest and thickest of all walls.