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.

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...

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...

   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.  

Abstracts, then?
If it only the belief in these constructs that keep them around, then they
do not fit my definition of existent.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

re 7;  Then 'change' certainly exists, doesn't it?

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.  

Interesting.

        -- 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.

Existentialism lives on strong...

heh.

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)

Shhh! Don't say that to loud, You'll wake up Brahma.

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)

Huh? I was talking about the big, ugly bull hiding in your closet.

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.

   What creatrix? The universe is eternal.

Nah, the universe was created by a Big Bang involving a Creator and
a Creatrix...

   Huh?  I thought it was from a bored Creatrix looking for some
stimulation.

That was part of it too...

LOVE!

Goddess, what constitutes "you" if you could exsist, but with an different 
mind or body?

IMHO reality consists of flux and change.  There is no constant reality.
We can play a part in that change through our ideas, but we can't control it.
Go with the Flux, man.

Reminds me of Schumpeter's "creative destruction."   All creation
ultimately results from the destruction of the past. Schumpeter's
 
argument was economic:  that new wealth could only be generated 
by innovation, and that innovation could only be generated by
those who were challenging the status quo (ie-entreprenuers that
were not already established).
 
Go with the Flux!

Mother may be the necessity for invention, but invention/creation is
necessity for expansion, thus a creative destruction model. 
  
Walker (#7), the flaw that I see ist hat at first you consider that there
is no time, and then, argue that since there is time/chanage, that
existence can't exist because there is time and change. A "state
of being" needs to have a time associate with it. You and I "exist" for
a time (span). The pyramids exist for a time span. Eventually
there will be no me and no you and no pyramids. Then there will be
new eitities and structures existing. neither situation denies the
reality of the existence - during a time span - of you and I and the
pyramids. 

Re #27:  What are the limits of the time span of the existence of a 
pyramid?  At what moment does it begin to exist?  What change marks the 
end of its existence?

Questions of eternal controversy ... Totally depends on the scale
used and precision requested. Apply those questions to ourselves
and you'll get a Supreme Court decision,  which is still under
contention.
  
Actually,  we don't have a specific "span" for the existence of
a pyramid. We know, approximately when each was constructed, and
could possibly extrapolate wear-n-tear for a few centuries more
of their existence. Further, the "beginning" could be argued with
the "first shovel of dirt moved for the project, or the first block
moved into position, or, even, the day and hour and minute when
the last, cap-block was finally positioned and at rest."
  
Maybe the end will be with the sand finaly blows over the last
visible block, never to be observed again except by an archeological
dig. Possibly, Pompei "exists" again, having been unearthed. PErhaps
not.
  
If the precision of dating is in centuries, it's a fairlly easy
process, at least easier than dating by month or week, or day/hour/etc.

Re #29:  If we can't say whether the pyramid does -- or doesn't --
exist, what is the "reality" of such an existence?

   As a friend of mine argued recently, a pyramid only
has a reality for certain humanly-defined purposes.  In some
societies, pyramids would not exist. (I guess they'd just be
piles of rock.  Unless piles of rock have no meaning to
that society either.)  I have a lot of trouble with this approach,
so don't expect me to defend it, but it's interesting
to consider.  It's also (supposedly) what Feuerabend and
Richard Rorty claim is true of the world.

Ummmmm, walker, (#30), I think that my thoughts were more aligned
with "when/how long" the pyramids exist, not whether-or-not they
exist. The reality of their existance could be as simple as; "well,
I'll either have to travel around it, or climb over it, or tunnel
through it 'cause it is +there+, in front of me." Aside from that
level of existance, the reality of the pyramids links something
from the past into the present (perhaps the future). 
  
The reality allows connection and communication (broad conotation)
beyond the bounds of your and my existance, as well as a test
question for 6th graders World History exams ....
  
And that part of their reality fits (strangely) with arthur's friend's
argument, "certain humanly-defined purposes." But that reality
must include, beforehand, some degree of value on an arranged pile
of rocks, which is another description of ancient Egyptian tombs, which
is also another description equally valid with any of the above. 
  
Perhaps Feuerabend and Rorty (whom I've never heard of, btw) are
using a "value-attached" version of reality - no value, no reality.
  
I know some people who operate that way, however, and their "value"
will not be realized until they fertilize some flowers from the
grassroots' POV - alas, I digress.

(hmm...)

(my personal stance is that I have no way of proving what is "real" and
what isn't by any sort of definition that can be agreed on by all, so
I simply redefine "real" to mean whatever I consider to exist. I can't
prove it, but I don't have to. I have faith instead.)

Yeah, but it's fun to argue about it.

(true, but not here. This is the item where you let everyone know where
you stand, and if you change said stance.)

(at least that's how I interpreted it, and you know how interpretations go...)

what?  (i admit, i hit q l <enter>)

(try a "r 2" instead.)

well, it came up because you responded.  maybe i'll read it later.  i'm
too tired now

I think the fact that people need to spew forth such ludicrous babble trying to
figure out what existence means doesn't say much for society.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss