|
|
| Author |
Message |
ragnar
|
|
Axioms on reality
| 
Nov 5 05:40 UTC 1991 |
All right, first things first. I will lay down my basic axiom about
reality, and try to explain it. Existence exists. That's it, looks both
simple and meaningless, but it's neither.
It means that I accept, straight up, that the objects and other
concretes I sense around me do exist, with no further explanation necessary.
There does not need to be any supernatural being or system thereof above them
to explain them, just as those who do believe there is one such being do not
expect any explanation for that being. I accept myself as product and part
of these things that exist, and believe that while I am conscious of other
things existing, my consciousness did not create there existence within my
mind, i.e. they would exist in the same way independent of my existence.
Now this is an axiom, not to be proven by any other principle, and
derived only inductively, so don't try to argue with me, just state your own
here as well, and we'll know where each of us stand.
|
| 85 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 1 of 85:
|
Nov 8 22:02 UTC 1991 |
So in other words you're what used to be called a "realist", as opposed
to what used to be called an "idealist". Nowadays you'd be called, well,
normal. I don't think many people seriously take the old idealist
position anymore, as irrefutable as it may be. I take Sam Johnson's
position: [md kicks a large rock] "I refute it *thus*!"
I realize that this is, among other things, the foundation stone of
Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I am known to have expressed
some nasty opinions about Objectivism, but I doubt if I will do so
here. In fact, there are plenty of things about Objectivism which
I agree with fully, and I'll try and emphasize those whenever they
are brought up. All I ask, ragnar, is that you state your opinions
to the best of your ability in your own words, which I believe you
have done above. Keep going...
|
ragnar
|
|
response 2 of 85:
|
Nov 9 04:22 UTC 1991 |
Thank you. I was surprised myself at the lucidity and understanding I had
(for once) in and of my own words.
Now, let's go round up some more thinkers (or anti-thinkers) for this place...
|
arthur
|
|
response 3 of 85:
|
Nov 11 04:32 UTC 1991 |
Hmmm. My impression is that some parts of the world -- the parts
that make up the 'physical world' -- do have some objective
existence. However, there are parts of the world that are
purely social constructs, which 'exist' only because people
have created them and believe in them.
|
ragnar
|
|
response 4 of 85:
|
Nov 11 06:16 UTC 1991 |
Abstracts, then?
If it only the belief in these constructs that keep them around, then they
do not fit my definition of existent.
|
tcc
|
|
response 5 of 85:
|
Nov 11 06:20 UTC 1991 |
Actions can come from ideas. Ideas can be formed combining totally
unrelated existents of reality. This causes contradictions that eventually
destroy those ideas. They don't stay 'purely social constructs' for long.
|
md
|
|
response 6 of 85:
|
Nov 11 16:58 UTC 1991 |
Careful, ragnar. You've just said, in response #4, that what you
entered in #0 doesn't exist. That is, the bytes on grex's hard disk
exist, and the words on my screen exist, but the ideas you express
in those bytes and words don't exist.
|
walker
|
|
response 7 of 85:
|
Nov 11 18:21 UTC 1991 |
There seem to be different qualities of "existence". The bytes on Grex's
hard disk may or may not exist at this moment. Certainly, since the
intensity of the magnetic flux that represents those bytes is continually
changing, they are not the "same" bytes that were written when #0 was
uploaded. The words on md's screen undoubtedly no longer exist. Even as
md was reading those words, they were constantly changing intensity and
shape, though that change may not have been readily perceptible. The
concepts that the words represent are also changing as each readers'
evolving experience gives them new meanings.
It seems to me that the incessant evolution of the universe makes it very
difficult to say that something does, or does not, exist -- in the common
sense that existence implies a state of being. By the time we can say
anything about "now", it has ceased to be. Human experience and the
"physical" universe seem to be a flux of becoming, rather than a state
of being. As such, what does "existence" mean?
|
danr
|
|
response 8 of 85:
|
Nov 11 23:38 UTC 1991 |
"Qualities" is an interesting way to describe it. I might say there
are different "levels." On one level, these things certainly do exist.
If they didn't, we as engineers could not manipulate them.
|
tcc
|
|
response 9 of 85:
|
Nov 13 03:37 UTC 1991 |
re 7; Then 'change' certainly exists, doesn't it?
|
ragnar
|
|
response 10 of 85:
|
Nov 13 05:20 UTC 1991 |
Re #6 - I didn't contradict myself, but I clearly wasn't slear enough.
I said that "if only the belief in these constructs keeps them around, then
they do not exist by my definition." I was refering to the exeistence of the
social constructs themselves, not the idea of or belief in them.
Just today, I explored during a leaf clean-up (boring work leaves the mind
open for many things) the antithesis of my axiom, and ended up refering to
another axiom from which Objectivism is based on, and simultaneously realized
why it must be an axiom. The antithesis of my axiom in #0 is to say, "Exis-
tence does not exist." Now, I reject this (and the existentialism resulting)
based on this sentence being a contradiction, simple enough. Then I noticed
that I had rejected that statement based entirely on some other rule, not from
observation. I had used one of the fundamental rules of what we call logic,
that rule which prohibits contradiction. Add two this one the law of iden-
tity, and to the best of my knowledge you have the complete basis for logic
in two rules.
|
wizard
|
|
response 11 of 85:
|
Dec 27 14:41 UTC 1991 |
Interesting.
|
frf
|
|
response 12 of 85:
|
Jan 4 15:42 UTC 1992 |
-- Order, unity and continuity are human inventions,
Just as catalogues and encyclopiedias --
Bertrand Russell
Einstein's space is no closer to reality than Van Gogh's sky.
The Glory of science is not in a truth more absolute than the truth of
Bach or Tolstoy, but in the act of creation itself. The scientist's
discoveries impose his own order on chaos, as the composer or painter
imposes his.
An order that always refers to limited aspects of reality, and is
based on the observer's frame of referance, which differs from period to
period as a Rembrandt nude differs from a nude by Manet.
We must avoid here two complementary errors: on the one hand that
the world has a unique, intrinsic, pre-existing structure awaiting our
grasp; and on the other that the world is in utter chaos.
The first error is that of the student who marvelled at how astronomers
find the 'Real' names of galixies. The second is that of Lewis Carroll's
Walrus who grouped shoes with ships and wax, with kings and cabbages.
|
ragnar
|
|
response 13 of 85:
|
Jan 8 23:24 UTC 1992 |
Existentialism lives on strong...
|
frf
|
|
response 14 of 85:
|
Jan 9 05:38 UTC 1992 |
heh.
|
goddess
|
|
response 15 of 85:
|
Jan 16 21:30 UTC 1992 |
OK... I know I'm a little late (a lot, in fact), but I just wanted to respond
to this "existence" philosophy.....
I believe that everyone that I can actually contact does exist, and
everything around me exists, also. Because if you were just figments of
my imagination, then you wouldn't exist and therefore could not contact
me in any way, shape, or form.
And if everyone was a figment of your(whoever is reading this post)
imagination, then I wouldn't exist... therefore nothing in this universe
would exist. (Everyone would cancel everyone else out of existence). And
if everything was a figment of my imagination, wouldn't I be able to control
these figments? If I could, I would most assuredly be with Mel Gibson or
maybe someone even better. :)
So...what I believe is that this universe, everyting in this universe, a
and everything making-up this universe, is most assuredly real and would
exist even if I did not. Now, that doesn't mean that I would still exist
as myself if my mother or grandmother, etc, were never born. Then I suppose
that I would still exist but have a different body and mind.
I guess that's all I'll say for now, but I just wanted to get my version
in before it became to late to post it.....
Ren (Goddess)
|
frf
|
|
response 16 of 85:
|
Jan 17 09:59 UTC 1992 |
Shhh! Don't say that to loud, You'll wake up Brahma.
|
goddess
|
|
response 17 of 85:
|
Jan 18 06:00 UTC 1992 |
OK... first of all..I'm not a Hindu. Second of all... I don't believe in the
Trinity. And I also believe that the Creator is eternal not just existing for
an eon (which is almost eternity). And as far as Brahma playing a large part in
the Hindu religi on.. (sorry abt that) .... it doesn't. It's part is
practically nonexistent in today's Hinduism. - Ren (Godddess)
|
frf
|
|
response 18 of 85:
|
Jan 18 13:28 UTC 1992 |
Huh? I was talking about the big, ugly bull hiding in your closet.
|
ragnar
|
|
response 19 of 85:
|
Jan 27 03:44 UTC 1992 |
Is the creator an existent itself or the source of this existence?
The question then arises, is there another source to the creators super-
existence? There could be an infinite chain or a terminus in the chain of
creators. I choose to deal soley with the single set of existents we call the
universe.
|
arthur
|
|
response 20 of 85:
|
Feb 2 06:12 UTC 1992 |
What creatrix? The universe is eternal.
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 85:
|
Feb 3 00:48 UTC 1992 |
Nah, the universe was created by a Big Bang involving a Creator and
a Creatrix...
|
arthur
|
|
response 22 of 85:
|
Feb 3 02:10 UTC 1992 |
Huh? I thought it was from a bored Creatrix looking for some
stimulation.
|
remmers
|
|
response 23 of 85:
|
Feb 4 17:23 UTC 1992 |
That was part of it too...
|
love
|
|
response 24 of 85:
|
Mar 22 19:39 UTC 1992 |
LOVE!
|