Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[Dirtydawg]

Here is the issue stated slightly different.

Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The point is that there is no purpose for being here, but we are here. There is no purpose behind existence. To ask what the purpose is assumes that there was CHOICE to have existence or nonexistence. To ask "what is the purpose of existence?" assumes that there is or must be, in fact, a purpose. Reason doesn't require there to be a purpose for existence since reason would lead one to recognize the axiom of existence.

However, since we exist, each individual faces the decision on whether he want to continue to live or to die.

Well, while we may not know if there was an initial choice between existence and non-existence, we certainly know that there is a choice between existence and non-existence. If you choose to continue to exist then you definitely don't choose to not exist. Knowing that choosing existence will inevitably lead you to non-existence, and as I said, a most probable painful decline towards non-existence why is it logical to choose to continute to exist?

Or do you claim that you have no choice over your continued existence? That you continue to exist simply because you exist?

[Guisslapp]

Well, while we may not know if there was an initial choice between existence and non-existence, we certainly know that there is a choice between existence and non-existence. If you choose to continue to exist then you definitely don't choose to not exist. Knowing that choosing existence will inevitably lead you to non-existence, and as I said, a most probable painful decline towards non-existence why is it logical to choose to continute to exist?

Or do you claim that you have no choice over your continued existence? That you continue to exist simply because you exist?

Ah, we are getting confused on our diction. I have been using existence (usually) to describe all of the universe, etc. Choosing to live or die is a personal choice. Individually, you can choose whether you want your consciousness to continue to exist or not. I see it has choosing between a positive, a zero, or a negative. Death is a zero. If the negatives outweigh the positives and there is no hope of returning to the positive, the zero may be the right decision for you. For me, the benefits of living outweigh the disadvantages. If I began to suffer so much pain that life was miserable and there was no hope getting of getting better, death may be the best option.

[Dirtydawg]

Ah, we are getting confused on our diction. I have been using existence (usually) to describe all of the universe, etc. Choosing to live or die is a personal choice. Individually, you can choose whether you want your consciousness to continue to exist or not. I see it has choosing between a positive, a zero, or a negative. Death is a zero. If the negatives outweigh the positives and there is no hope of returning to the positive, the zero may be the right decision for you. For me, the benefits of living outweigh the disadvantages. If I began to suffer so much pain that life was miserable and there was no hope getting of getting better, death may be the best option.

Okay, thanks for that clarification. I actually took the time to read back to see if something I was about to ask had already been addressed, and as far as I can tell it hasn't. It has to do with that clarification of your use of the term existence. Are you saying that all things in the universe exist just because they exist?

I'll address the rest of your post once I get clarification of what you're exactly calling existence.

[Abominable Gorilla]

Ha! I can PROVE that an infinite number of moments have occured since you started reading this very response. Moment 1 = half the time it took you to read the sentence. Moment 2 = half of the time of moment 1 preceding moment 1. Moment 3= half of the time of moment 2 preceding moment 2 ....to infinity.
Infinity can be both big an small.

All you are doing here is dividing a finite amount of time by infinity. There is never a number so small that you can't make it smaller. Since this is true, you can always divide by greater and greater numbers. You can therefore make the claim that any finite quantity is therefore infinity if you are willing to make smaller and smaller measurements. That said, I state that "I am infinitely tall" because I can take an infinity number of measurements of my height.

1. Existance exists
2. Because 1., consciousness exists
3. The law of identity

Then, this entire argument has been spun that assumes an omnipresence of "time" itself. I believe in God. This debate acknowledges that some believe in God. This debate does not seem to acknowledge that God is greater than time. I see creation and therefore assume a Creator. I see "time" as part of that creation. Time is a function of God and not God a function of time.

[randerizer]

Okay, thanks for that clarification. I actually took the time to read back to see if something I was about to ask had already been addressed, and as far as I can tell it hasn't. It has to do with that clarification of your use of the term existence. Are you saying that all things in the universe exist just because they exist?

I'll address the rest of your post once I get clarification of what you're exactly calling existence.

existence is all that is.

[randerizer]

Then, this entire argument has been spun that assumes an omnipresence of "time" itself. I believe in God. This debate acknowledges that some believe in God. This debate does not seem to acknowledge that God is greater than time. I see creation and therefore assume a Creator. I see "time" as part of that creation. Time is a function of God and not God a function of time.

I don't think this debate necessarily has to do with time. To ask for an origin, you are presupposing a timeframe, not the other way around. For what it is worth, I think of time as nothing but a measurement between points.

If you say that this is a creation, you are obviously going to lead yourself to the conclusion that there was a creator.

But the point is that there is no conceptual need for a creator. Further, a creator cannot exist, because if a creator exists that creates existence, the creator necessarily exists before existence, which is false.

If there is no conceptual need for a creator, then arguing that there is a creator is arbitrary (like the invisible gremlin). In this case, the creator is not only arbitrary but invalid.

[Dirtydawg]

existence is all that is.

Okay. Now let me see if I get this straight. I've taken a part from the first post of this thread as follows:

The base of Objectivism is explicit: "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

So, am I understanding correctly when I say that something can be said to exist because it is perceived as existing and one has consciousness of it? For example, I know that a car exists because I percieve it and have consciousness of it.

[randerizer]

So, am I understanding correctly when I say that something can be said to exist because it is perceived as existing and one has consciousness of it? For example, I know that a car exists because I percieve it and have consciousness of it.

You know the car exists because you can perceive it, that is correct. The fact that you can perceives it suggests that you are conscious of it (your consciousness exists), and the fact that you identify it as a car is a statement of the law of identity.

If you are going where I think you are going (a criticism of our ability to perceive), you might look into the "knowledge" thread as well. This is where we have been discussing the senses, perception, and concept formation from percepts. But I'm just guessing, as I am curious what you are going to get to with this.

[randerizer]

If you are going where I think you are going (a criticism of our ability to perceive), you might look into the "knowledge" thread as well. This is where we have been discussing the senses, perception, and concept formation from percepts. But I'm just guessing, as I am curious what you are going to get to with this.

^ at least the 3rd post in the knowledge thread should give you a suitable reference point to perception.

[Dirtydawg]

You know the car exists because you can perceive it, that is correct. The fact that you can perceives it suggests that you are conscious of it (your consciousness exists), and the fact that you identify it as a car is a statement of the law of identity.

If you are going where I think you are going (a criticism of our ability to perceive), you might look into the "knowledge" thread as well. This is where we have been discussing the senses, perception, and concept formation from percepts. But I'm just guessing, as I am curious what you are going to get to with this.

Nope, not going to criticize our ability to perceive. Actually, you'll have to be patient with me because I don't tend to think out my thoughts too far, so I tend to write in a stream of consciousness. I haven't really perused the knowledge thread yet. Even though I'm on here quite a bit, I really do have a limited amount of time and don't really have the time to fully contemplate these topics, but unfortunately, I've been sucked in on this one because something didn't make sense to me. Of course, I've forgotten initially what that was, so now I guess I'll get around to it eventually.

Okay, back to the point. Existence is simply existence, and a car exists because I can perceive it and have consciousness to perceive it, yet that car doesn't exist in and of itself without the creation of it. It doesn't just exist because of existence or perception. It came into existence due to creation yet continues to exist due to our perception and consciousness of it. How is it illogical to translate that known fact to the existence of the universe?

[randerizer]

Nope, not going to criticize our ability to perceive. Actually, you'll have to be patient with me because I don't tend to think out my thoughts too far, so I tend to write in a stream of consciousness. I haven't really perused the knowledge thread yet. Even though I'm on here quite a bit, I really do have a limited amount of time and don't really have the time to fully contemplate these topics, but unfortunately, I've been sucked in on this one because something didn't make sense to me. Of course, I've forgotten initially what that was, so now I guess I'll get around to it eventually.

Okay, back to the point. Existence is simply existence, and a car exists because I can perceive it and have consciousness to perceive it, yet that car doesn't exist in and of itself without the creation of it. It doesn't just exist because of existence or perception. It came into existence due to creation yet continues to exist due to our perception and consciousness of it. How is it illogical to translate that known fact to the existence of the universe?

it exists independent of perception, but you don't know it exists until you see it. So my mustang might exist, or it might not (I really don't have one, so in this case it doesn't.). But for me to say it exists without seeing it is arbitrary until I perceive that it exists.

[Dirtydawg]

it exists independent of perception, but you don't know it exists until you see it. So my mustang might exist, or it might not (I really don't have one, so in this case it doesn't.). But for me to say it exists without seeing it is arbitrary until I perceive that it exists.

Okay, clarify for me please, what you mean when you say arbitrary. I have an idea, but don't want to assume. Once again, I ask for your patience as I'm juggling this thread with Hannah Montana and my 4 year old.

[Guisslapp]

A statement is arbitrary when it is not based on perceptual data (and this is discussed quite a bit in the knowledge thread). It is neither a "truth" nor a falsehood. The idea of "truth" implicitly recognizes that someONE is able to determine that a proposition comports with reality.

[Guisslapp]

Okay, back to the point. Existence is simply existence, and a car exists because I can perceive it and have consciousness to perceive it, yet that car doesn't exist in and of itself without the creation of it. It doesn't just exist because of existence or perception. It came into existence due to creation yet continues to exist due to our perception and consciousness of it. How is it illogical to translate that known fact to the existence of the universe?

Just because something exists, doesn't mean that it was "created." Man and nature can shape materials to produce new objects of existence. But there is no reason that existence itself had to be created. In fact there are reasons that it couldn't have been.

(1) The laws of conservation of mass/energy tells us that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, no creation of existence (which includes mass and energy)
(2) It would be philosophically impossible for a consciousness to precede existence. A consciousness must be aware of SOMETHING - and it cannot only be aware of itself. For a consciousness to be aware of itself it must first recongize some object of existence, then it can recognize its "recognition" of the object (thus recognizing its consciousness).
(3) To create existence one must have knowledge of the objects one is creating. If existence did not precede consciousness, one would not have knowledge of anything to create existence with.
(4) Assuming that it would be possible to overcome the aforementioned problems with the creation of existence, it would still be arbitrary, at best, to state that some deity created existence.

[Spinoza]

I appreciate your candor/honesty......
And as suggested......
I cannot help but believe that the above post will PROVOKE/EXPAND this extremely interesting thread..... If any of "" the usual suspects" are still bothering to PAY ATTENTION.

SCREW POLORIZING......
"I know this all to well" from reading Emerson's "Self Reliance"...... When I was barely 17 and still content to illegally drink underaged american beer.

It may be difficult to "define yourself in terms of what you are not"....... But it is IMNHO incubent on ANY PHILOSOPHY to never lose sight of what may define any sincere reality in the heart of ANY OTHER MAN.

WHO I AM......
WHO YOU ARE......
WHO OTHERS MAY BE......
Are equally worthy of definition......
Unless you are willing to deny their WORTH and thereby acknowledge thier RIGHT to deny your worth.

See what I mean......
"I cannot help but believe that the above post will PROVOKE/EXPAND"...... And so forth!

It's been like trying to pull taut teeth through the eye of a narrow needle to get you fellows to first identify RAND...... And then "write freely" with nary a hint of any "DIVINE INSPIRATION".

Had you opted to keep trying to bask in the shadows of either obscure "CLOSET"......
I sincerely doubt that your noteworthy E and M threads would have found any dim light during any routine "dawg" day. But with Dirty and the Gorilla now added to the mix...... The real game is finally afoot.

However, I see a bit of a problem ahead.
Both the E-thread and the M-thread have become long and relatively unwieldy for common message board fare/consumption. And the significant content of each thread already far exceeds the usual trite/short/relatively mindless exchanges that typify this predominately quaint "communication" milieu.

May I suggest that having adequately defined your skeleton, and all the individual bones of serious note...... It may now be time to begin slicing the actual MEAT that all true carnivores more readily/easily understand and appreciate.

The relatively neglected JAZZ THREAD has always been the moment when any actual pedal hits any real metal...... NOT?

It would be my pleasure to now PROVOKE any such bottom-line philosophical endeavor further.

But that's the EASY PERT!

The truly difficult trail on this particular path will be for Gus and Randy TO NOT FLOOD THE LANDSCAPE...... Before most who frequent this board have a decent pilgrim's chance to enjoy both their stroll and their view.