Your right. Rand's English was terrible. She has some of the worst composition ever! For instance, she uses "He was" 5 times in a paragraph, which is unacceptable in academia.
@shiningturtle I meant that as sarcasm towards AR. I admit that I did like Anthem a little, but that's about it. Couldn't get past Fountainhead or Atlas. I just though they were piss poor sci-fi books waffling the same message over and over and over. Bradbury, Orwell, Dick, Heinlein, Clark, Wells and Huxley wrote better dystopian works.
@CosmoShidan All right, sorry for being rude. However, you shouldn't read AR for the fiction it provides, as the sci-fi and dystopia traits of (I've only read AS) it aren't really important to her message. Instead, what I got from it was the ideas like "A is A" and to hold your own perception and reasoning over what people tell you to think - no matter what. I'm not so much for the laissez-faire and anti-socialist political philosophy but she has several other great points.
@shiningturtle No problem. Her Aristotelian ideas really don't work for me, after all, I think Socrates, Plato, Epictetus and Epicurus are more logical and superior to Aristotle. While the idea an object being an object because its appearance I find very unrealistic since everything is made out of atomic structures. BTW I highly recommend reading Heinlein, who more or less took inspiration from Rand, except he stated that self-deception is the "root of all evil".
@CosmoShidan A.R.'s messages generally aren't explicit until the end of Atlas or Fountainhead. Your criticism that her books repeat the same message over and over again and your criticism that they are poor science fiction give away that you couldn't have have read past page 100 in either book. That's fine, but why do you feel compelled to criticize a book you haven't read?
@clemonsx90 I've read Anthem from beginning to end; but I felt that the story could've had the hero fight a bear or pack of wolves or sent an army of soldiers to demonstrate his strength and independence. Also there's no back-story to how the world came to resemble the middle ages. Finally, why didn't Liberty's friends rat him out? There you have my complaints on the fiction side, as for the themes, last time I checked, don't humans need each other to build civilization?
@CosmoShidan As for Atlas and Fountain, the theme of when someone takes your idea and profits from it and then you fight the system and start your own company is unbelievable. In the novel Door into Summer by Robert Heinlein, which is similar but realistic, has the protagonist Dan Davis simply get a job at a car crushing company, and invent a new idea and crosses over to another company.
So making a statement like "Existence exists", is like saying "Runners run" and "Swimmers swim". It's a waste of breath and pretty much a waste of time to discuss. It's self-explanatory what "existence", "runners" and "swimmers" do, so why say "something somethings" just to sound intelligent. People who come up with statements like that, in my opinion, do not understand the meanings of the words that they are using.
"Whistle whistle" is avian for, "existence is a noun, dumb ass."
To put it in a way you'll likely understand, think of the word, "juxtaposition." In a literary sense, Juxtapose is a verb that indicates dissimilarity by implied or direct comparison. That which juxtaposes is juxtaposition. This noun form serves two purposes:
1) to point out what is specifically juxtaposing, e.g. 2 sentences &
2) more generally, to give a name to the concept of juxtaposing
I think you're misunderstanding the scope of what "existence exists" means. It is not simply saying "things that are real, are real"- which would indeed be redundant and meaningless. Rather, it is asserting that there IS something that is real. This is why the statement would not be true if there were nothing existing. The axiom is the statement that there ARE things that exist.
The argument that the phrase is poor English does not apply, since Objectivism makes clear that it is using the word "existence" as a noun in this sense- not as a verb such as "jumping." Here is how Leonard Peikoff presents the idea, with the parenthetical statement being his own:
"In Ayn Rand's words: existence exists. ('Existence' here is a collective noun, denoting the sum of existents.)"
Your whole argument against Objectivism is reduced to a poorly played game of semantics on your part. You attempt to remove the argument form the ontological/metaphysical and play it up as a grammatical error uttered by Rand/Objectivists. You and other YouTube atheists claim to be "open minded" about philosophical issues, but are unwilling to accept anything absolute. You retreat back into the comfortable fog of subjectivism, and claim that neither you nor anyone has a grasp on "truth."
My dear Azrienoch, "existence" is a noun. It is used to describe all that which is. It is not a verb, and neither neither is "jumping." "Existing" and "jumping" are gerunds, not verbs. Existence exists as an objective absolute, with the only "alternative" being non-existence. For a phenomenon to exist, it has to exist as SOMETHING, which is to say that it has an identity.
Existence: everything that ever WAS, IS and WILL BE or more simple,
the universe (space) with all of it ( material objects, men, animals, plants and all other physical phenomena like gravity and electro-magnetism ).
Existence exists is an expression for:
ONLY what was described above under 'existence' IS and nothing else, in contrast to claims e.g. that there is an afterlife or that there are other dimensions.
I think you've misunderstood what you're talking about here. You're besacally saying Objectivism is deduced from a truism. However if you read Objectivist litterature you'll find that is not what they're arguing for. Existence exists is the argument saying basically that what's in front of your eyes is there, and if you want to start thinking about if there's something other than that behind something even more "real" then you would have to fand an argument for it starting with what you see.
I saw on another website that this axiom can be re-phrased to "there is something, rather than nothing." I believe this is what the heart of it means... That the universe is not a void; that there is something in it. But it really doesn't go on to make any claims about anything other than that. You can't use it to prove that something specific exists, because it doesn't state what it is that exists. Does this make sense?
'jumping jumps' is possible in the sense that the unidentified agent will be jumping over some 'jump-like things'. Q: What are you doing? A: (I am) Jumping (over) jumps. This retains a coherent (albeit odd) meaning, and one which (should you ever be in the process of, or planning to be, jumping jumps) is probably a whole lot more useful than 'existence exists'.
Furthermore (and without wanting to get into some sort of pedantic rant), 'jumping' can work as a transitive verb. Put very simply, a verb is transitive if it can be followed by 'something' (an object): to buy something, to eat something, or to jump something. You cannot 'exist something'. The difference between 'existence' and 'a jumper' is that something which jumps is very real and could take all manner of forms, whereas 'existence' cannot really be directly attributed to anything form-like.
I am interested in the jumping example. There's a very implicit metaphysics going on when we deny an independent status to "jumping" and claim that it must attach itself (virus like) to a noun bearer.
I think this is at the heart of the cogito, when Descartes denies that there can just be a "thinking" (or doubting) without a noun bearer (thinker).
Actually, "existence exists" is just a way to express a general form of realism. You have to remember that an alarming percentage of people on this planet imagine that only their imaginings and perceptions form reality.
The better way to understand the phrase is to complete it, e.g. "Existence exists independent of humanity; it is the task of humans to discover it."
I believe that Rand makes this point quite clear in her exposition of the phrase.
It doesn't really matter what it's for, how serious it is, or whatever. It's incorrect. I realize aside from it, there's no way to indicate that realism except through implication, and even that implication is sketchy because it could imply anything, but alas, the limitations of language.
It's also interesting, if she never intended people to lean on it, how hard the Objectivists lean, isn't it? Hell, it's interesting to see how hard SHE leaned on it!
1. Is the phrase "existence exists" a good way to express realism? - i.e. the assertion that an independent reality exists. For me, this is just a matter of taste.
2. Is it correct to attempt to found a philosophy upon this principle? You decide.
It is important to point out that *realism* as such has played a very important role in the development of science. For example, Einstein relied very heavily upon such principles, and was very influential with them.
Oh, I don't know about that. Realism as we know it didn't come about until logical positivism was nearly dead, as the realists and anti-realists started taking sides on issues of logic before issues of epistemology. But Einstein? No more a realist than anyone else of his time or before him. And the quantum mechanics that followed aren't anti-realist, just... less rigid than we thought matter was going to be.
Well let's not split hairs. *Realism* is whatever the *realists* say it is. I'm talking about the basic idea. However, since you bring up QM, it is worth noting that a lot of physicists tried to throw away the concept of *physical* realism this century. People were saying "Is the moon really there when nobody looks?" and such nonsense.
Rand's re-affirmation of the basic concept of science and reason is not meaningless. Her phraseology (and subsequent deductions) are something else entirely.
@physphys existence does not exist without consciousness because conscious beings are the ones that are there to say things exist when in reality they dont. We perceive billions of vibrating particles and create an image IN our brains not out there inside. If there are NO conscious beings there is only an endless superposition of particles that will never become anything because no one is taking the frequencies of there vibrations and creating stuff from it.
I think is a great explanation, I think Az knows better how lots of people try to use fancy words and sentenses to sounds smarter, but they are not, and reasoning like that make us open the eyes and be more critic with anything we see and hear Thanks Az
"Society". Sorry, doesn't exist. "The environment". Sorry, also, doesn't exist. "Black/Hispanic/Women's equality". Also, no existence there.
All are just concepts, meant to get something (money, control, power) for nothing. All true - multiple people, trees, and non-white men exist - but in reality, in meaning, only individual humans exist.
Your actual point was poking fun at me based on the silliness of "At its root, existence is a word." Since I didn't say that, you made no point worth addressing.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my video. It's not a matter of philosophical classification, but of grammatical classification. And I don't know if you've read linguists of the past to compare to linguists of the present, but they're not much worth listening to. Maybe come back when the gin has worn off and we'll talk again.
That's my point. If everything is a matter of grammatical classification, nothing is a matter of philosophical classification.
And then you're safe. You can say whatever you want, pierce whatever you want, and it's all just a matter of opinion - all just a matter of how someone, somewhere decided upon something - and has nothing to do with your actual life...
... with the actual value of your heavily-edited Youtube ramblings.
I don't know how much baseball you watch, but they throw more people out from left field than from right. It's because most people are both right handed and pull hitters.
What? WHAT issue? You need to get this through your head: either I do not understand you, or I do and you're not saying anything significant. Like, so insignificant that I don't know WHAT to say to it. It's like finding a little dust on the sidewalk.
I'm not belittling it. I'm just unable to pay attention to it. Maybe if the dust made itself more significant, like turning purple, then I could say, "Oh, look, purple dust."
Dust turning purple so that it will be paid attention to - even though it's still dust. Thanks. I'll think of that whenever I come across one of your videos in the future.
Obviously he doesn't edit much. He doesn't edit you, he doesn't edit me (much) he dose not edit anyone really.
Look - Rand appeals to the desperate. And I understand what it means to be desperate. I'm not going to try to sell you on something or the other. But if you act like a thug then you'll get treated like one.
The tautology had roots in the Mosaic revelation of God's proper name: "I am that I am". Scotus had revised this to "existence exists" in the 1200's to secure an at least potential mode of existence for God. Leibniz updated it to A=A in the principle of identity.
To me its just an abstractionist's (read philosopher's) response to the facticity of being. Presented with dumb reality, the philosopher stutters in his account.
Existence exists *snickers*. Almost identical to saying "it is what it is". Sounds more like an admission of defeat. If the art of making toast was chalked up to "toast toasts" we would never have toasters, and worse yet, the invention of peanut butter could have been at risk. I can understand the absence of existence, but the non existence of peanut butter would be a travesty to humanity. Although making a singular word plural isn't really an axiom, I simply had no resistance to resist. o_O
"It is what it is" the most trite shrug of the shoulders ever uttered, We, the people who love words have an obligation to the rest of the world to end the craptastic phrases that offend the ears. I'm not saying, I'm just saying... :P
@ThePunkReturns What! Say it not not so. No way will I not think not this. This is not meaningless but meaningful not. If you are going to be an objectivist, I must one better you and become a born again christian. Try to top that huh...
I don't know what you mean by that. A potentially meaningful axiom, i.e. axioms of the second sense, can be anything. I can start a logic proof with the axiom, "I ate bread," or "Socrates is a man." They aren't tautologous. I don't know what this "stay within the bounds" bit means.
I was just trying to avoid getting into things like Gettier counterexamples.
I understand that you believe tautologous axioms are meaningless. And, I agree. But, I want to know how we can have any sort of meaningful axioms. So, what do you mean by potentially?
Tautologies are meaningless because they offer no new information. "It will rain today, unless it doesn't," doesn't tell us anything. "I eat bread," tells us something. Axiom, meaning the initial lines in a logic proof, is a technical term.
1. If p then q.
2. p
3 Therefore q.
Lines 1 and 2 are axioms and they could be meaningful. They are assumed propositions. Axioms as tautologies are not necessarily axioms, the initial lines in a proof.
Are you reading what I said? I said I wanted to avoid Gettier. But, I want you to tell me what you mean by they COULD be meaningful. Or, what sorts of judgements are you putting on qualifiers like could?
Yes, I am trying to drag you away from the original point in the video.
Yes, I'm reading it. Avoiding Gettier means he's still pertinent. That's why I said run away. I was joking.
As for how an axiom could be meaningful, this is the third time I'll say it. There are two senses of the word "axiom". Axiom (1) is tautologous, and never meaningful. Axiom (2) is the presumed proposition of a logic proof, and it is meaningful when the axiom (2) is not an axiom (1). E.g. "I eat bread" may serve as an axiom (2), and that's a meaningful, non-tautology.
Sounds like someone is trying to hammer home how the premise of an argument is never agreed upon, or rather how tenets can be infinitely regressed.
I've never known Jeff to run from an "argument", but I'd just like to point out that you've shifted your original question from "Can meaningful axioms exist" to the semantic definitions underpinning the rationale of his position.
A tad confusing, really. Perhaps you'd best be served making a video response if you have tangential questions.
I dont think my original question changed just the way I asked it changed. However, I will agree a video response was probably more fitting for such a question, but I dont really ever make videos. You are right in what I was trying to get at. Or, trying to get an explanation for.
Oh, I'm running scared from another stupid question! You've asked me a lot of different questions, and I've answered them all. Now you want to know what "may" means, instead of "may" in the context of what I'm saying. If you're allowed to ask me random and irrelevant questions, do I get to give you random and irrelevant answers? I won't--yet. "May" means "perhaps."
Let me get this straight: you ask me what "may" means, even though you know perfectly well. You ask me when an orange is just an orange fruit, even though nothing else is implied by "orange". And these questions are somehow more serious than a person's health? These questions are somehow serious at ALL??
Well, the orange question wasn't serious. But, the answer could have been tangerine or various other orange colored fruits. I'm trying to get you to understand how difficult axioms are to talk about. If you are going to say things like axiomatic logical proofs can be meaningful, then you have to explain the wiggle word (can). Otherwise, your rhetoric is just as meaningless as the person you responded to. And, yes that is fucking important. Comparing it to a yeast infection is a poor comparison.
That's ridiculous. If I say that axioms of logic proofs, a technical term, can be meaningful, I don't have to explain "can." I have to explain why the "can" is there, because any confusion to a native english speaker won't be about "can", but the context. And that's the answer I gave you. You want axioms, of the tautological sense, to be difficult to talk about. I know this because you keep confusing the two senses of "axiom," as if I said tautological axioms can be meaningful. I didn't.
Hehe. You know, Jeff has extensive knowledge of both Russell & Wittgenstein's views on axioms. It'll be interesting to see how far this goes, but I've got to go to bed.
I do think, though, that ol' Witty had it right (and Russell conceded as much, incidentally).
Ah...one more test, then I'm free for a few weeks.
If you think I'm talking about tautological axioms, you're mistaken.
It isn't ridiculous to make you explain can. For example if I were to say., "My dog can be mean." Most people would probably expect me to explain when, for what reasons, and how my dog can be mean. Any dog can be mean, but usually for different reasons, etc. So, just saying that my dog can be mean is meaningless.
Wow, you are throwing around words like you don't care about them. I'm not sure why you won't accept the explanations I gave you the first time around, that axioms are meaningful when they aren't tautologous. At the time, you said you were asking for something else. Now you're asking for this answer again. Make up your mind and stop pretending I haven't answered you.
And your dog example is rubbish. It covers one context, and assumes all others require it to be meaningless.
Dude, since you answered my first question I haven't been talking about tautologous axioms. All my other questions have been relating to what you call logical proofs.
This isnt really getting anywhere, so I give up.
The az philosophy "Certain things can be meaningful." The end.
Oh, yes, criticize me for your inability to be clear. I explained the meaninglessness of tautologies well enough in the video. I explained what determines the meaningfulness of axioms of logical proofs. What the hell more do you want from me?
When I said that if an axiom in a logic proof is a tautology, it's meaningless, you said you wanted a different answer, that it wasn't the question. But here you are, saying, "The az philosophy 'Certain things can be meaningful.' The end." WHAT EXPLANATION IS MISSING???
awerner, get back here and explain yourself. You have an obligation to the discussion--you started it, and you've done damned little to finish it. If you don't, as far as I'm concerned you're just a troll trying to rile me up with irrelevant trivialities and I'll block you.
Don't block me :(. Sorry, I can't be at my computer all day. No, point in getting riled up about that. Sorry, if I'm not really being clear, but I guess I just don't find your explanations adequate. I just want to know you're criteria for what is meaningful and what is not. Ruling out tautologies which is reasonable doesn't do that except in one situation.
You mean aside from tautologies in general? So not even necessarily pertaining to axioms of logic proofs? Geeze, man, say that. Sentences are meaningless when they have no use in ordinary language. Not something you can really apply a rule to (critera), but it is something you can investigate after it is said.
Well, how do you find a set of lost car keys without a set of rules? We may have methods and routines for finding lost keys, or we may not. We can try different approaches to finding the keys. There are no rules here. The closest thing is that we find the lost keys, which we really don't even have with investigations into meaningfulness. It's more like asking whether our keys are lost or not. Something makes us suspicious, and we look.
I'm finishing a small, short book I started about a year ago. The working title is, "You're Stupid." How to Argue Effectively. I'll put it out on Lulu when it's done and make an announcement.
I was so happy to see a video of yours attached to Gratex's. You don't use your philosophy channel enough IMHO
Your point sounds a bit like Arthur Fine's NOA...
Naturalistic Ontology Attitude...Or maybe I just thought I heard you making that point because it's one that I would favor as a resolution to the debate over scientific 'realism'.
I don't know about NOA. I think it's incorrect to say existence exists and jumpers jump in the same way it's incorrect to say, "No we bowl isn't eaten for." That is, we don't say it in ordinary language (except as perhaps a joke where we make light of not knowing what a word means definitively, though we can use it correctly in a sentence, such as, "What is cunnilingus? It's... cunnilingus") because it has no practical use as a tool or instruction of any sort. It's... meaningless.
I think it's incorrect to say such things as "existence exists or jumpers jump" not because the sentences are themselves nonsensical, as you seem to implying in your examples, but because such sentences are trivial tautologies. If a person or [a kangaroo for that matter] is jumping then of course he can be said to be a jumper...BUT the sentence adds no new information. To say that existence exists is even more trivial.
As to your second point, sometimes a cunnilingus is just a cunnilingus...
OK have to add all this just seems to be a rephrasing of Aristotle's law of identity which says something like an entity without an identity cannot exist because it would have no specific attributes and therefore ultimately have no existence. To exist is to exist AS something...So, yes, of course, A = A but that existence is dependent on the identity in question having specific attributes...
The phrase "Existence exists" is MEANT to sound profound...But it's actually a very trivial use of the WORD "existence" as a word alone and not as a concept...IOW in order to speak of existence as a concept, it is necessary to speak about it's qualities or attributes. It's easy to fool the gullible with these kinds of word plays.
I guess in my convoluted way I'm agreeing that the flaw IS grammatical, as you point out, but the reasons for the flaw are deeper than mere grammar
Daniel Dennett mentioned this in his recent talk »The Evolution of Confusion«. Folks commit this sort of error so often that Dennett just puts "UME" (for "use mention error") in red in the margin.
did an objectivist get a little too pissed off and punch u in da mouth?
i have to be a prick and make one last lame joke: whats with the fangs? what u forgot to evolve, and are still in need of penetrating deep into an animal's skin?
Both the latter are incorrect as well, for the same reason. They're tautologous and grammatically improper. Just because you've got a noun in the noun place and a verb in the verb place, and even adjectives in their places, doesn't mean you've got a proper sentence. ("Proper" in the sense that it's likely to be corrected by a native English speaker.) E.g. "Bushy water counts euphemisms." That sentence makes no sense in English, even though it uses English words and English grammar.
Well, I think the latter two are restrictedly correct as a way to introduce either part of the phrase to someone who doesn't know the word:
"- Then I tried counting sheeps going over a fence... er what do you call that which the jumping things do?
- Jumping things jump."
(the jumping example may sound weird for its simplicity, but one can more conceivably think of names of trades and profession: "otorinholaryngologists examine ears, nose, and throat")
This kind of redundant phrasing is useful for this kind of linguistic groundwork, however, I agree that it may not be part of a meaningful conversation - which language teaching is not. So I think that such sentences are devoid of meaning, but can still be correct for other reasons.
I love how impressed some non-philosophers are at the apparent "strength" of tautologies. Theists, for example, practically jizz their collective pants for the self-affirming truth that God is wholly good because God is the objective standard of goodness (and vice versa).
I guess dismissing Kant as a "jerk" without ever having read him has the added benefit of allowing Objectivists to say things he refuted 200 years ago.
Your right. Rand's English was terrible. She has some of the worst composition ever! For instance, she uses "He was" 5 times in a paragraph, which is unacceptable in academia.
CosmoShidan 3 months ago
@CosmoShidan Criticizing somone's English is always done best by beginning with "Your right."
shiningturtle 3 weeks ago
@shiningturtle I meant that as sarcasm towards AR. I admit that I did like Anthem a little, but that's about it. Couldn't get past Fountainhead or Atlas. I just though they were piss poor sci-fi books waffling the same message over and over and over. Bradbury, Orwell, Dick, Heinlein, Clark, Wells and Huxley wrote better dystopian works.
CosmoShidan 3 weeks ago
@CosmoShidan All right, sorry for being rude. However, you shouldn't read AR for the fiction it provides, as the sci-fi and dystopia traits of (I've only read AS) it aren't really important to her message. Instead, what I got from it was the ideas like "A is A" and to hold your own perception and reasoning over what people tell you to think - no matter what. I'm not so much for the laissez-faire and anti-socialist political philosophy but she has several other great points.
shiningturtle 3 weeks ago
@shiningturtle No problem. Her Aristotelian ideas really don't work for me, after all, I think Socrates, Plato, Epictetus and Epicurus are more logical and superior to Aristotle. While the idea an object being an object because its appearance I find very unrealistic since everything is made out of atomic structures. BTW I highly recommend reading Heinlein, who more or less took inspiration from Rand, except he stated that self-deception is the "root of all evil".
CosmoShidan 3 weeks ago
@CosmoShidan A.R.'s messages generally aren't explicit until the end of Atlas or Fountainhead. Your criticism that her books repeat the same message over and over again and your criticism that they are poor science fiction give away that you couldn't have have read past page 100 in either book. That's fine, but why do you feel compelled to criticize a book you haven't read?
clemonsx90 3 weeks ago
@clemonsx90 I've read Anthem from beginning to end; but I felt that the story could've had the hero fight a bear or pack of wolves or sent an army of soldiers to demonstrate his strength and independence. Also there's no back-story to how the world came to resemble the middle ages. Finally, why didn't Liberty's friends rat him out? There you have my complaints on the fiction side, as for the themes, last time I checked, don't humans need each other to build civilization?
CosmoShidan 3 weeks ago
@CosmoShidan As for Atlas and Fountain, the theme of when someone takes your idea and profits from it and then you fight the system and start your own company is unbelievable. In the novel Door into Summer by Robert Heinlein, which is similar but realistic, has the protagonist Dan Davis simply get a job at a car crushing company, and invent a new idea and crosses over to another company.
CosmoShidan 3 weeks ago
Existence = All that exists
So making a statement like "Existence exists", is like saying "Runners run" and "Swimmers swim". It's a waste of breath and pretty much a waste of time to discuss. It's self-explanatory what "existence", "runners" and "swimmers" do, so why say "something somethings" just to sound intelligent. People who come up with statements like that, in my opinion, do not understand the meanings of the words that they are using.
Shogun2k7 11 months ago
If existence is a verb, it exists.
gklr 11 months ago
ok then.. lets get it all right and straight... "EXISTENCE DOESNT EXIST"(period) Happy now?^,^
qwinkssify 1 year ago
ok then.. lets get it all right and straight... "EXISTENCE DOESNT EXIST"(period) Happy now?^,^
qwinkssify 1 year ago
ok then.. lets get it all right and straight... "EXISTENCE DOESNT EXIST"(period) Happy now?^,^
qwinkssify 1 year ago
,liked the action!^,^ song is jsut right^,^ great jobdude.. just like a pro.!! loved it for real..=)
qwinkssify 1 year ago
Comment removed
fatfist 1 year ago
Nose ring exists.
Ataensic 1 year ago
"Whistle whistle" is avian for, "existence is a noun, dumb ass."
To put it in a way you'll likely understand, think of the word, "juxtaposition." In a literary sense, Juxtapose is a verb that indicates dissimilarity by implied or direct comparison. That which juxtaposes is juxtaposition. This noun form serves two purposes:
1) to point out what is specifically juxtaposing, e.g. 2 sentences &
2) more generally, to give a name to the concept of juxtaposing
Existence is the concept of existing.
eyeammi 1 year ago
Tautologies Don't prove ANYTHING outside of themselves.
So keep using them, it'll be Funny =^_^=
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
Your voice turns me on
wsmkthtksh 1 year ago
Existence in this case refers to all that which exists. If you're having trouble replace the phrase with 'reality is real.'
As long as people understand that there is an external world, a world outside of our minds, that we can know, that's all that needs to be understood.
Ataensic 1 year ago
...(continued from last comment)
I think you're misunderstanding the scope of what "existence exists" means. It is not simply saying "things that are real, are real"- which would indeed be redundant and meaningless. Rather, it is asserting that there IS something that is real. This is why the statement would not be true if there were nothing existing. The axiom is the statement that there ARE things that exist.
Chimneyfish00 1 year ago
The argument that the phrase is poor English does not apply, since Objectivism makes clear that it is using the word "existence" as a noun in this sense- not as a verb such as "jumping." Here is how Leonard Peikoff presents the idea, with the parenthetical statement being his own:
"In Ayn Rand's words: existence exists. ('Existence' here is a collective noun, denoting the sum of existents.)"
(continued in next comment)...
Chimneyfish00 1 year ago
"verbs dont verb. they link themselves to something."
but linking is a verb! therefore, verbs DO verb!
semantics!
Klekticist 1 year ago
Your whole argument against Objectivism is reduced to a poorly played game of semantics on your part. You attempt to remove the argument form the ontological/metaphysical and play it up as a grammatical error uttered by Rand/Objectivists. You and other YouTube atheists claim to be "open minded" about philosophical issues, but are unwilling to accept anything absolute. You retreat back into the comfortable fog of subjectivism, and claim that neither you nor anyone has a grasp on "truth."
bma051000 1 year ago
My dear Azrienoch, "existence" is a noun. It is used to describe all that which is. It is not a verb, and neither neither is "jumping." "Existing" and "jumping" are gerunds, not verbs. Existence exists as an objective absolute, with the only "alternative" being non-existence. For a phenomenon to exist, it has to exist as SOMETHING, which is to say that it has an identity.
bma051000 1 year ago
Comment removed
bma051000 1 year ago
Existence: everything that ever WAS, IS and WILL BE or more simple,
the universe (space) with all of it ( material objects, men, animals, plants and all other physical phenomena like gravity and electro-magnetism ).
Existence exists is an expression for:
ONLY what was described above under 'existence' IS and nothing else, in contrast to claims e.g. that there is an afterlife or that there are other dimensions.
TOMsReason 2 years ago
continued:
- in contrast to claims that 'nothingness' actually could exist and be treated like an object.
But there is nothing 'beyond' existing space, matter and physical phenomena, there is nothing 'outside' the universe.
- also directed against claims that what has been described under existence, alledgedly does not exist and 'IS NOT' ;
- against the claim that things are 'not real', 'do not exist', against claims like 'there is no reality' , 'nothing is real'.
TOMsReason 2 years ago
would existence be a gerund?
Spalg 2 years ago
I think you've misunderstood what you're talking about here. You're besacally saying Objectivism is deduced from a truism. However if you read Objectivist litterature you'll find that is not what they're arguing for. Existence exists is the argument saying basically that what's in front of your eyes is there, and if you want to start thinking about if there's something other than that behind something even more "real" then you would have to fand an argument for it starting with what you see.
Virtueman1 2 years ago 6
I saw on another website that this axiom can be re-phrased to "there is something, rather than nothing." I believe this is what the heart of it means... That the universe is not a void; that there is something in it. But it really doesn't go on to make any claims about anything other than that. You can't use it to prove that something specific exists, because it doesn't state what it is that exists. Does this make sense?
rabcarl 2 years ago
Poop poops.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
does not
BombdePlume 2 years ago
i think youre trying to say that even though an argument is logically valid, the validity it has does not make it truth.
punkrockal 2 years ago
'jumping jumps' is possible in the sense that the unidentified agent will be jumping over some 'jump-like things'. Q: What are you doing? A: (I am) Jumping (over) jumps. This retains a coherent (albeit odd) meaning, and one which (should you ever be in the process of, or planning to be, jumping jumps) is probably a whole lot more useful than 'existence exists'.
dirtrail 2 years ago
But you're using 'jump' as 'jumping', which is an intransitive verb so you've got: (verb phrase)IntransitiveVerb(preposition)Noun or IV N
'Existence Exists' is: Noun TransitiveVerb
I think that 'existence' is just the agentive inflection for 'to exist'. What jumps? Jumpers. What exists? Existence.
It is a meaningless thing to say. Is she just using it to restate A=A?
BombdePlume 2 years ago
'To exist' is not a transitive verb. Do you understand basic grammar?
dirtrail 2 years ago
Furthermore (and without wanting to get into some sort of pedantic rant), 'jumping' can work as a transitive verb. Put very simply, a verb is transitive if it can be followed by 'something' (an object): to buy something, to eat something, or to jump something. You cannot 'exist something'. The difference between 'existence' and 'a jumper' is that something which jumps is very real and could take all manner of forms, whereas 'existence' cannot really be directly attributed to anything form-like.
dirtrail 2 years ago
You're right. I mixed up in-/transitive verbs. Sorry.
Anyways, why aren't we talking about 'jumps jump' as an equivalent to 'existence exists'?
BombdePlume 2 years ago
P.S. Have you ever done any stand up?
Shestumbledin 2 years ago
reality is SO real!
TheAist 2 years ago
Forgive me, make more videos that are philosophical.
Protagorist 2 years ago
Make more philosophical videos.
Protagorist 2 years ago
I am interested in the jumping example. There's a very implicit metaphysics going on when we deny an independent status to "jumping" and claim that it must attach itself (virus like) to a noun bearer.
I think this is at the heart of the cogito, when Descartes denies that there can just be a "thinking" (or doubting) without a noun bearer (thinker).
threeofwands 2 years ago
what the hell was that whistle? it' scared the shit out of me. it was so loud i couldn't tell if it was in the video or someone whistling behind me.
fede2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my comment will be short
Your awsome.
cravenxv 2 years ago
Actually, "existence exists" is just a way to express a general form of realism. You have to remember that an alarming percentage of people on this planet imagine that only their imaginings and perceptions form reality.
The better way to understand the phrase is to complete it, e.g. "Existence exists independent of humanity; it is the task of humans to discover it."
I believe that Rand makes this point quite clear in her exposition of the phrase.
BTW, I am not an objectivist.
physphys 2 years ago 8
It doesn't really matter what it's for, how serious it is, or whatever. It's incorrect. I realize aside from it, there's no way to indicate that realism except through implication, and even that implication is sketchy because it could imply anything, but alas, the limitations of language.
It's also interesting, if she never intended people to lean on it, how hard the Objectivists lean, isn't it? Hell, it's interesting to see how hard SHE leaned on it!
azrienoch 2 years ago
I guess there are two points here.
1. Is the phrase "existence exists" a good way to express realism? - i.e. the assertion that an independent reality exists. For me, this is just a matter of taste.
2. Is it correct to attempt to found a philosophy upon this principle? You decide.
It is important to point out that *realism* as such has played a very important role in the development of science. For example, Einstein relied very heavily upon such principles, and was very influential with them.
physphys 2 years ago
Oh, I don't know about that. Realism as we know it didn't come about until logical positivism was nearly dead, as the realists and anti-realists started taking sides on issues of logic before issues of epistemology. But Einstein? No more a realist than anyone else of his time or before him. And the quantum mechanics that followed aren't anti-realist, just... less rigid than we thought matter was going to be.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Well let's not split hairs. *Realism* is whatever the *realists* say it is. I'm talking about the basic idea. However, since you bring up QM, it is worth noting that a lot of physicists tried to throw away the concept of *physical* realism this century. People were saying "Is the moon really there when nobody looks?" and such nonsense.
Rand's re-affirmation of the basic concept of science and reason is not meaningless. Her phraseology (and subsequent deductions) are something else entirely.
physphys 2 years ago
pp: I suppose at that point it's always a good idea to ask oneself- "independent of what'?
There's always a hoodlum in the backgroud trying to make reality dependent upon himself.
A principle is dependent upon what one finds "evident". Fools find foolish things evident. It's a difficult matter.
threeofwands 2 years ago
@physphys existence does not exist without consciousness because conscious beings are the ones that are there to say things exist when in reality they dont. We perceive billions of vibrating particles and create an image IN our brains not out there inside. If there are NO conscious beings there is only an endless superposition of particles that will never become anything because no one is taking the frequencies of there vibrations and creating stuff from it.
TheTheKRIT 1 week ago
Albert is adorable. I'd love to see him more often.
SkittlesLoli 2 years ago
Good to see you have made a return to doing philosophy vids! I miss watching you take down arguments with Wittgenstein-esque arguments.
evileinstein 2 years ago
When can we meet Albert? I hear him a lot on your video's and would like to see a video with him in. Please....
kingjon81 2 years ago
watch?v=OQMSPZfIPic
azrienoch 2 years ago
I think is a great explanation, I think Az knows better how lots of people try to use fancy words and sentenses to sounds smarter, but they are not, and reasoning like that make us open the eyes and be more critic with anything we see and hear Thanks Az
elAsra 2 years ago
Dude. Verbs definitely verb.
bendymind 2 years ago
existence is existly
nathanjonessr 2 years ago
Logic exists!
StrangeGlobal 2 years ago
"Society". Sorry, doesn't exist. "The environment". Sorry, also, doesn't exist. "Black/Hispanic/Women's equality". Also, no existence there.
All are just concepts, meant to get something (money, control, power) for nothing. All true - multiple people, trees, and non-white men exist - but in reality, in meaning, only individual humans exist.
Damn.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
"At it's root 'existence' is a word." lol! no wonder you get so many hits on your channel...
In other words: at it's root, existence is the minds and tounges of other people.
"Entertain, before explain" Laying in bed at night, does that sound familiar?
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
You're funny. I said "verb," not "word."
azrienoch 2 years ago
Care to address my actual point?
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Your actual point was poking fun at me based on the silliness of "At its root, existence is a word." Since I didn't say that, you made no point worth addressing.
azrienoch 2 years ago
"At its root, existence is a verb, not a noun."
In other words: at it's root, existence is an action, not a thing.
Humans act, existence is an action, therefore existence is whatever human action decides it to be.
Or, maybe, you think it's a 'natural action.' I've got news: the better philosophers, before your time, classified those as verbs too.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
shit, they classified those as NOUNS TOO. (I've had gin)
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Flushed you out of there, did we?
Even so, nice to see who's making the mean spirited troll remarks.
Trollschool 2 years ago
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my video. It's not a matter of philosophical classification, but of grammatical classification. And I don't know if you've read linguists of the past to compare to linguists of the present, but they're not much worth listening to. Maybe come back when the gin has worn off and we'll talk again.
azrienoch 2 years ago
That's my point. If everything is a matter of grammatical classification, nothing is a matter of philosophical classification.
And then you're safe. You can say whatever you want, pierce whatever you want, and it's all just a matter of opinion - all just a matter of how someone, somewhere decided upon something - and has nothing to do with your actual life...
... with the actual value of your heavily-edited Youtube ramblings.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Yeah, you really need to lay off the sauce. This is all coming completely out of left field.
azrienoch 2 years ago
I don't know how much baseball you watch, but they throw more people out from left field than from right. It's because most people are both right handed and pull hitters.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
I don't know much about baseball. I just know how to use the phrase.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Why don't you just admit that I've touched on the issue which you're afraid to acknowledge?
I'm just a drunk who frequents Youtube, afterall.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
What? WHAT issue? You need to get this through your head: either I do not understand you, or I do and you're not saying anything significant. Like, so insignificant that I don't know WHAT to say to it. It's like finding a little dust on the sidewalk.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Who are you to belittle dust on the sidewalk?
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
I'm not belittling it. I'm just unable to pay attention to it. Maybe if the dust made itself more significant, like turning purple, then I could say, "Oh, look, purple dust."
azrienoch 2 years ago
Dust turning purple so that it will be paid attention to - even though it's still dust. Thanks. I'll think of that whenever I come across one of your videos in the future.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Obviously he doesn't edit much. He doesn't edit you, he doesn't edit me (much) he dose not edit anyone really.
Look - Rand appeals to the desperate. And I understand what it means to be desperate. I'm not going to try to sell you on something or the other. But if you act like a thug then you'll get treated like one.
Trollschool 2 years ago
Rand was a character in "Breath of Fire" for the SNES. I thought that I should pass on this valuable information :3
logicaust 2 years ago
Existence is relational rather than an object itself.
ExistentialExistent 2 years ago
The tautology had roots in the Mosaic revelation of God's proper name: "I am that I am". Scotus had revised this to "existence exists" in the 1200's to secure an at least potential mode of existence for God. Leibniz updated it to A=A in the principle of identity.
To me its just an abstractionist's (read philosopher's) response to the facticity of being. Presented with dumb reality, the philosopher stutters in his account.
Trollschool 2 years ago
Rand also liked "A = A."
I think Albert's an Objectivist and he was trying to throw you off.
In the ad ticker running at the bottom there was the item: "Dr. Seuss meets Ayn Rand." Green eggs and ham exist!
StevenErnest 2 years ago 2
Existence exists *snickers*. Almost identical to saying "it is what it is". Sounds more like an admission of defeat. If the art of making toast was chalked up to "toast toasts" we would never have toasters, and worse yet, the invention of peanut butter could have been at risk. I can understand the absence of existence, but the non existence of peanut butter would be a travesty to humanity. Although making a singular word plural isn't really an axiom, I simply had no resistance to resist. o_O
crazycat1984 2 years ago 2
"It is what it is" the most trite shrug of the shoulders ever uttered, We, the people who love words have an obligation to the rest of the world to end the craptastic phrases that offend the ears. I'm not saying, I'm just saying... :P
Shestumbledin 2 years ago
Agreed! :D
crazycat1984 2 years ago
I have to be honest here and say that you lost me towards the beginning of the video. I'm going to give you 5 stars for confusing the fuck out of me.
kokohawk 2 years ago
Stupidity exists.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Albert thinks ure full of it obviously ^^
Mazoni 2 years ago
The commercial banner under this video said something about "Dr Seuss meets Ayn Rand" . For some reason it seemed appropriate.
JimmerSD 2 years ago
hehehehehehe
azrienoch 2 years ago
All matter matters to matter.
;-)
PaiSand 2 years ago
But does the Existence of Existence exist as well?
mbruck77 2 years ago
The fucking fuck! Yay, I must be an objectivist now. Now where is my Rand cape?
ThePunkReturns 2 years ago
@ThePunkReturns What! Say it not not so. No way will I not think not this. This is not meaningless but meaningful not. If you are going to be an objectivist, I must one better you and become a born again christian. Try to top that huh...
ZullGostnu2 2 years ago
Are you saying all axioms are meaningless? Or just this one?
awerner2007 2 years ago
The kind of tautological axiom that this is, is meaningless. There's a use of "axiom" which just means the starting propositions in a logic proof.
azrienoch 2 years ago
So, would it be fair to say an arbitrary axiom to start a logical proof can be meaningful as long as you stay within the bounds of that axiom?
awerner2007 2 years ago
I don't know what you mean by that. A potentially meaningful axiom, i.e. axioms of the second sense, can be anything. I can start a logic proof with the axiom, "I ate bread," or "Socrates is a man." They aren't tautologous. I don't know what this "stay within the bounds" bit means.
azrienoch 2 years ago
I was just trying to avoid getting into things like Gettier counterexamples.
I understand that you believe tautologous axioms are meaningless. And, I agree. But, I want to know how we can have any sort of meaningful axioms. So, what do you mean by potentially?
awerner2007 2 years ago
Gettier? Blech! Run away!
Tautologies are meaningless because they offer no new information. "It will rain today, unless it doesn't," doesn't tell us anything. "I eat bread," tells us something. Axiom, meaning the initial lines in a logic proof, is a technical term.
1. If p then q.
2. p
3 Therefore q.
Lines 1 and 2 are axioms and they could be meaningful. They are assumed propositions. Axioms as tautologies are not necessarily axioms, the initial lines in a proof.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Are you reading what I said? I said I wanted to avoid Gettier. But, I want you to tell me what you mean by they COULD be meaningful. Or, what sorts of judgements are you putting on qualifiers like could?
Yes, I am trying to drag you away from the original point in the video.
awerner2007 2 years ago
Yes, I'm reading it. Avoiding Gettier means he's still pertinent. That's why I said run away. I was joking.
As for how an axiom could be meaningful, this is the third time I'll say it. There are two senses of the word "axiom". Axiom (1) is tautologous, and never meaningful. Axiom (2) is the presumed proposition of a logic proof, and it is meaningful when the axiom (2) is not an axiom (1). E.g. "I eat bread" may serve as an axiom (2), and that's a meaningful, non-tautology.
azrienoch 2 years ago
There you go again using qualifiers like "may". What does that mean? That is my principle question. Or, are you going to run away from that too?
awerner2007 2 years ago
Sounds like someone is trying to hammer home how the premise of an argument is never agreed upon, or rather how tenets can be infinitely regressed.
I've never known Jeff to run from an "argument", but I'd just like to point out that you've shifted your original question from "Can meaningful axioms exist" to the semantic definitions underpinning the rationale of his position.
A tad confusing, really. Perhaps you'd best be served making a video response if you have tangential questions.
Peace.
logicaust 2 years ago
I dont think my original question changed just the way I asked it changed. However, I will agree a video response was probably more fitting for such a question, but I dont really ever make videos. You are right in what I was trying to get at. Or, trying to get an explanation for.
awerner2007 2 years ago
Oh, I'm running scared from another stupid question! You've asked me a lot of different questions, and I've answered them all. Now you want to know what "may" means, instead of "may" in the context of what I'm saying. If you're allowed to ask me random and irrelevant questions, do I get to give you random and irrelevant answers? I won't--yet. "May" means "perhaps."
azrienoch 2 years ago
When is an orange just an orange fruit?
awerner2007 2 years ago
A little vagisil will clear that right up.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Oh, this is a little more serious then a yeast infection. Don't tell that to your wife though.
awerner2007 2 years ago
No it's not.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Yes, it is!
awerner2007 2 years ago
Let me get this straight: you ask me what "may" means, even though you know perfectly well. You ask me when an orange is just an orange fruit, even though nothing else is implied by "orange". And these questions are somehow more serious than a person's health? These questions are somehow serious at ALL??
azrienoch 2 years ago
Well, the orange question wasn't serious. But, the answer could have been tangerine or various other orange colored fruits. I'm trying to get you to understand how difficult axioms are to talk about. If you are going to say things like axiomatic logical proofs can be meaningful, then you have to explain the wiggle word (can). Otherwise, your rhetoric is just as meaningless as the person you responded to. And, yes that is fucking important. Comparing it to a yeast infection is a poor comparison.
awerner2007 2 years ago
That's ridiculous. If I say that axioms of logic proofs, a technical term, can be meaningful, I don't have to explain "can." I have to explain why the "can" is there, because any confusion to a native english speaker won't be about "can", but the context. And that's the answer I gave you. You want axioms, of the tautological sense, to be difficult to talk about. I know this because you keep confusing the two senses of "axiom," as if I said tautological axioms can be meaningful. I didn't.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Hehe. You know, Jeff has extensive knowledge of both Russell & Wittgenstein's views on axioms. It'll be interesting to see how far this goes, but I've got to go to bed.
I do think, though, that ol' Witty had it right (and Russell conceded as much, incidentally).
Ah...one more test, then I'm free for a few weeks.
Peace and goodnight.
logicaust 2 years ago
If you think I'm talking about tautological axioms, you're mistaken.
It isn't ridiculous to make you explain can. For example if I were to say., "My dog can be mean." Most people would probably expect me to explain when, for what reasons, and how my dog can be mean. Any dog can be mean, but usually for different reasons, etc. So, just saying that my dog can be mean is meaningless.
awerner2007 2 years ago
Wow, you are throwing around words like you don't care about them. I'm not sure why you won't accept the explanations I gave you the first time around, that axioms are meaningful when they aren't tautologous. At the time, you said you were asking for something else. Now you're asking for this answer again. Make up your mind and stop pretending I haven't answered you.
And your dog example is rubbish. It covers one context, and assumes all others require it to be meaningless.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Dude, since you answered my first question I haven't been talking about tautologous axioms. All my other questions have been relating to what you call logical proofs.
This isnt really getting anywhere, so I give up.
The az philosophy "Certain things can be meaningful." The end.
awerner2007 2 years ago
Oh, yes, criticize me for your inability to be clear. I explained the meaninglessness of tautologies well enough in the video. I explained what determines the meaningfulness of axioms of logical proofs. What the hell more do you want from me?
azrienoch 2 years ago
When I said that if an axiom in a logic proof is a tautology, it's meaningless, you said you wanted a different answer, that it wasn't the question. But here you are, saying, "The az philosophy 'Certain things can be meaningful.' The end." WHAT EXPLANATION IS MISSING???
azrienoch 2 years ago
awerner, get back here and explain yourself. You have an obligation to the discussion--you started it, and you've done damned little to finish it. If you don't, as far as I'm concerned you're just a troll trying to rile me up with irrelevant trivialities and I'll block you.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Don't block me :(. Sorry, I can't be at my computer all day. No, point in getting riled up about that. Sorry, if I'm not really being clear, but I guess I just don't find your explanations adequate. I just want to know you're criteria for what is meaningful and what is not. Ruling out tautologies which is reasonable doesn't do that except in one situation.
awerner2007 2 years ago
You mean aside from tautologies in general? So not even necessarily pertaining to axioms of logic proofs? Geeze, man, say that. Sentences are meaningless when they have no use in ordinary language. Not something you can really apply a rule to (critera), but it is something you can investigate after it is said.
azrienoch 2 years ago
How can we investigate it without a set of rules?
awerner2007 2 years ago
Well, how do you find a set of lost car keys without a set of rules? We may have methods and routines for finding lost keys, or we may not. We can try different approaches to finding the keys. There are no rules here. The closest thing is that we find the lost keys, which we really don't even have with investigations into meaningfulness. It's more like asking whether our keys are lost or not. Something makes us suspicious, and we look.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Cool, now I have something to think about for a couple of days.
awerner2007 2 years ago
thanks for ze ammo.
It's good to know that others feel the same sharp pain in the brain when thinking about objectivists, kinda
gratex 2 years ago
SLICE IT OFF!
bubonicnate 2 years ago
what are you writing? =<
hubble65 2 years ago
I'm finishing a small, short book I started about a year ago. The working title is, "You're Stupid." How to Argue Effectively. I'll put it out on Lulu when it's done and make an announcement.
azrienoch 2 years ago 5
@azrienoch Yeah!!! I be in need of this, I will jump the jump.
ZullGostnu2 2 years ago
I was so happy to see a video of yours attached to Gratex's. You don't use your philosophy channel enough IMHO
Your point sounds a bit like Arthur Fine's NOA...
Naturalistic Ontology Attitude...Or maybe I just thought I heard you making that point because it's one that I would favor as a resolution to the debate over scientific 'realism'.
Confused? Me too. OK...Back to my writing also.
.
2bsirius 2 years ago
I don't know about NOA. I think it's incorrect to say existence exists and jumpers jump in the same way it's incorrect to say, "No we bowl isn't eaten for." That is, we don't say it in ordinary language (except as perhaps a joke where we make light of not knowing what a word means definitively, though we can use it correctly in a sentence, such as, "What is cunnilingus? It's... cunnilingus") because it has no practical use as a tool or instruction of any sort. It's... meaningless.
azrienoch 2 years ago
I think it's incorrect to say such things as "existence exists or jumpers jump" not because the sentences are themselves nonsensical, as you seem to implying in your examples, but because such sentences are trivial tautologies. If a person or [a kangaroo for that matter] is jumping then of course he can be said to be a jumper...BUT the sentence adds no new information. To say that existence exists is even more trivial.
As to your second point, sometimes a cunnilingus is just a cunnilingus...
2bsirius 2 years ago
OK have to add all this just seems to be a rephrasing of Aristotle's law of identity which says something like an entity without an identity cannot exist because it would have no specific attributes and therefore ultimately have no existence. To exist is to exist AS something...So, yes, of course, A = A but that existence is dependent on the identity in question having specific attributes...
2bsirius 2 years ago
No, they're not nonsense. They are, as you said, meaningless. I'm just saying that that's the very good reason they aren't used in ordinary language.
azrienoch 2 years ago
OK...agreed.
The phrase "Existence exists" is MEANT to sound profound...But it's actually a very trivial use of the WORD "existence" as a word alone and not as a concept...IOW in order to speak of existence as a concept, it is necessary to speak about it's qualities or attributes. It's easy to fool the gullible with these kinds of word plays.
I guess in my convoluted way I'm agreeing that the flaw IS grammatical, as you point out, but the reasons for the flaw are deeper than mere grammar
2bsirius 2 years ago
"It's easy to fool the gullible with these kinds of word plays."
Everyone should read that line.
azrienoch 2 years ago
I think, therefore I think.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Thinking thinks.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
About what?
threeofwands 2 years ago
Thinking.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Thinking thinks thinking?
threeofwands 2 years ago
Ah, good ol' use-mention distinction!
Daniel Dennett mentioned this in his recent talk »The Evolution of Confusion«. Folks commit this sort of error so often that Dennett just puts "UME" (for "use mention error") in red in the margin.
leporidus 2 years ago
Sorry for mentioning (or using) "mention" three times in my first comment. It was repetetive, redundant, and repetetive. :p
leporidus 2 years ago
"albert im talkin '" its like ur boyfriend
ahahah
whats wrong wit ur mouth it seems swollen?
did an objectivist get a little too pissed off and punch u in da mouth?
i have to be a prick and make one last lame joke: whats with the fangs? what u forgot to evolve, and are still in need of penetrating deep into an animal's skin?
hahaha im just playin
all the best
mahyarmohaghegh 2 years ago
Yeah, A is A,
Rand was a tool.
tetsubo57 2 years ago 2
Life lives.
publicz 2 years ago
Jumping jumps. Existence exists. (both incorrect) Jumping things jump. Existing things exist.
Nightbane12 2 years ago
Both the latter are incorrect as well, for the same reason. They're tautologous and grammatically improper. Just because you've got a noun in the noun place and a verb in the verb place, and even adjectives in their places, doesn't mean you've got a proper sentence. ("Proper" in the sense that it's likely to be corrected by a native English speaker.) E.g. "Bushy water counts euphemisms." That sentence makes no sense in English, even though it uses English words and English grammar.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Well, I think the latter two are restrictedly correct as a way to introduce either part of the phrase to someone who doesn't know the word:
"- Then I tried counting sheeps going over a fence... er what do you call that which the jumping things do?
- Jumping things jump."
(the jumping example may sound weird for its simplicity, but one can more conceivably think of names of trades and profession: "otorinholaryngologists examine ears, nose, and throat")
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 2 years ago
This kind of redundant phrasing is useful for this kind of linguistic groundwork, however, I agree that it may not be part of a meaningful conversation - which language teaching is not. So I think that such sentences are devoid of meaning, but can still be correct for other reasons.
maksiiiskam2 2 years ago
I think Albert had a few objections there :)
lensherr82 2 years ago
google
marniespeaks 2 years ago
sorry i did check, and both hopping and existing are BAD to do lol... just so yu know :D
MystSilverDragon 2 years ago
maybe none of us exist.............it is only a figment of imagination.........a dream.......OR...hoppin and existing are BAD words! :P
MystSilverDragon 2 years ago
you make me tired :D
MystSilverDragon 2 years ago
my cats hop at will............lol
MystSilverDragon 2 years ago
hoppin * either lol............hmmm thats deep after 34 hrs awake :P
MystSilverDragon 2 years ago
real;ly!? I was almost positive the hoppin folks hop :) ..............wait hoopin isnt a real word......or is it :)
MystSilverDragon 2 years ago
The link does not seem to work
I assume it is /watch?v=6mzWwsuSchM
you are referring to.
johncrwarner 2 years ago
ADD Moment: What kind of bird do you have? Is that a parrot?
ardman911 2 years ago
Yes, he's an African grey.
azrienoch 2 years ago
Existence only exists in a reality where time is absolute :)
zitan17 2 years ago
Great video. And very true. But not a truism.
I love how impressed some non-philosophers are at the apparent "strength" of tautologies. Theists, for example, practically jizz their collective pants for the self-affirming truth that God is wholly good because God is the objective standard of goodness (and vice versa).
Incidentally, what video was this a response to?
mavaddat 2 years ago
Comment removed
mavaddat 2 years ago
saying existence exists is about as profound as saying jumpers jump.
craigtotherichie 2 years ago
A pop philosopher Ayn Rand makes.
HellWithPoverty 2 years ago
I guess dismissing Kant as a "jerk" without ever having read him has the added benefit of allowing Objectivists to say things he refuted 200 years ago.
SkepticalThought 2 years ago
Could you PLEASE put a link on what this is a reply to in the sidebar information area? please?
FatherRanting 2 years ago
Done.
jeffsmithluedke 2 years ago
Ah, you missed the "watch?v=" before the video ID in the URL.
But I added it. ;-)
mavaddat 2 years ago
Fixed.
azrienoch 2 years ago
I guess someone needed a reason to make a video today.
dospook 2 years ago