The logic of this video seems undeniable to me, and this isn't the first time I've heard the basic concept. In order for something to have caused existence, it first would have to exist. So, if God exists, he exists inside of existence. Another way of saying it is........the existence of existence must be independent of God if God exists. Existence CANNOT have a cause because that cause would have to not exist.
I agree 100% with this video. It's easy to get lost in the semantics of the argument. The struggle of existence is totally undeniable. Things that require "a leap of faith", are always accompanied by a direct lack of evidence; sorry to all the theists out there but anecdotal evidence PROVES NOTHING.
It is not possible for anything to create possibility without it being possible fore possibility to be created, thus, given the exisance of reality, possibility IS the prime attribute of reality.
Kant showed that "existence" is not a real predicate.
The Objectivist's formulation is reification.
Existents exist *as* something. You can't take everything away and be left with "existence" - especially given that this is precisely the meaning of non-existence!.
Objectivists are misusing the word "existence" to mean "reality".
Existents exist. Existence most definitely doesn't.
@JohananRaatz existence is ALL'S MIND ONLY THE ALL EXIST THE ALL IS IN ALL AND IS ALL OMNIPRESENT OMNIAWARE OMNISCIENT UNITY OF ALL EXISTENCE. JUST MY VIEW DON'T GO SAYING PEOPLE ARE WRONG IN THERE VIEW THEY SOME ARE JUST AT A LOWER LEVEL OF AWARENESS.
Possibility is the most foundational. THe primacey of possibility is superior to an ultimate source. Possibility is the source, thus there is no first cause, reality is the cause itself. Pantheism and Atheism are the only appraochable positions given the concept that infinite regress applies. Possibility is the only thing that allows itself to exist, thus it is the sole cause, not the first cause.
(part 1)Francis Bacon knew that to command nature, one must act according to its rules and identity. The statement Reality is Absolute is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. Evading this fact will mean your actions will not have their desired effects. Your failure will be metaphysical justice.
(part 2)The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies things that exists. Existence is primary in that consciousness requires existence, and there is no consciousness without existence. Because consciousness identifies existents, there can be no consciousness without something existing to perceive. Nothing can have an identity without existing.
(part 3)That something is identified necessarily implies its existence which necessarily implies existence in general. There is no consciousness without existence. Because consciousness identifies existents, consciousness itself must exist to do the identifying. Tto be conscious (to identify), a consciousness must exist. A faculty can not operate and not exist at the same time. A verb without a noun makes no sense, and the noun must exist in order for the verb to take place.
(part 4)Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness. All mysticism derive from demonstratively false premise of primacy of consciousness. Assertions that existence somehow requires consciousness, sometimes called the Interdependence Theory, is arbitrary at best without objective basis.
Hang with me here.You assume consciousness exists.If we apply the same reductionist approach to consciousness and experience as we do to the universe itself, how does that explain anything? I understand the point in your video, but you seem to be saying that which you said makes no sense, that existence exists.So perhaps it would more effective to talk about that which is manifest as existing. Couldn't we then begin to ponder mind and potentiality from a different perspective than existence?
Are you reducing existence to universe? If so how does the universe come to be? Maybe conscious doesn't exist. Even from your own view it is only really abstract as it is not manifest, it is the neurological networks that are manifest. This means I can think outside the box. I mean a big clue is that I am positing questions outside the box. Why is it that this imaginary threshold (existence) is an actual threshold of perspective? I am just thinking, not necessarily challenging.
"If 'before' the universe is even meaningful (i don't think it is), then whatever was there, existed."
You contradict yourself because you need a universe to have existence (existence isn't in the background somewhere, it is a property, much like time isn't in the background, because time is relative), unless there was another universe there, and then we are back to the infinite regress problem...
You are saying existence is foundational, so existence exists and non-existence exists, but that is contradictory. Things existing really becomes meaningless without something to perceive it. But that begs the question, so what about just perception itself? It's no more ambiguous than positing existence itself. Time is not an escape route either, just because we perceive a past without human beings, doesn't mean that things exist without a perception of those things.
What exactly does that mean? You can't perceive it, therefore it doesn't exist? Or, things that we say don't exist, must exist? I find this idea of existence as "all there is" somewhat flawed. But I am having trouble articulating exactly what my problem with it is.
Im just saying that as far as I understand things, something cant come out of nothing, so if nothing ever existed, there would still be.. nothing! :P its either nothing OR everything. did that clarify my position?
I got you, and that's how I thought about it myself for a long time. But we lack an understanding of the concept of nothing. It is therefore something we don't understand. It isn't perceivable. Existence exists is just saying that what I can conceive of exists in some form or another. Wow, how insightful. Nothing from something is not the issue. After all, reverse the flow of time and you will have things continuously going back into "nothing". It the problem of perception...
...and that leads back to the idea of consciousness being more fundamental than existence, such that existence springs forth from thought. Even though on the surface it seems counter to all empirical evidence, what if there is no real foundation, but you have consciousness (nothing) and perception (to be aware of existence, ultimately to be existence) flopping back and forth in some sort of cycle of expression? Maybe I am thinking differently, or maybe I am just elaborating on the concept.
I grant consciousness NO importance at all in my view of things. So I thing we are a bit off here. I would argue that 'nothing' is but a consept, and does not exist outside the tiny world of human language. If you dont agree that it's either everything or nothing, then you will have to elaborate on your definition of 'nothing'. Because in my world, those are mutually excluding. If there is something (ex. perceivable universe) than there cant be nothing! *N* would mean that there is NO universe.
It's existence that is the definition we aren't mutually understanding. If there was nothing instead of something, would nothing exist? That is a glaring contradiction. Existence exists is just A=A. If existence is really a foundation it must rely on nothing! It points directly to the linguistic limitations of many of these abstract terms. They really aren't meant to be freestanding concepts at all, rather to describe properties and aspects of other things.
Also, granting conscious no importance is basically telling me 2 things. First, you are a reductionist of some sort. Second, you ultimately deny the existence of immaterial and abstract phenomenon. If I am wrong, step in and clarify. To be fair, let me elaborate on my definition of nothing. Nothing simply isn't a thing in the sense one defines things. If we use the word thing loosely to mean any concept imaginable, than it wouldn't be one of those things. It's kind of like atheism, it lacks.
I think Im somewhat with you so far, but still feel rather discontented by your definition of nothing. I have yet to see any relevance it would have to anything, so pls, do continue to elaborate! If you could apply it to something to which I can actually relate, or just putting it in any context at all I might help.
So far 'nothing' is just a word for me, describing an imminent lack of something specific. A linguistic tool so to speak.
Consciousness doesn't create things. Imagine it this way. You have nothing, which is really just an infinite "soup" of possibilities. From a perception, certain non-things are realized. Existence is a property of those things. It is not a foundation, but a state of all things we can conceive of, whether they are physically manifest, or they are mental concepts. Existence exists is redundant and non-existence exists is contradictory.
I have not assumed that existence is primary. The statement 'existence is primary' is axiomatic, we know this because it can be defended by retortion.
That's a language issue, it doesn't mean that existence is actually primary. Think about the Big Bang for a second. If time "began", why assume existence is primary? Maybe primary isn't the word. How about, why assume existence is applicable to whatever was before the universe?
"Think about the Big Bang for a second. If time "began", why assume existence is primary?"
Because existence (what it means, in our language) is axiomatic and can be defended by retortion as I already explained.
"why assume existence is applicable to whatever was before the universe?"
If 'before' the universe is even meaningful (i don't think it is), then whatever was there, existed. Exists is an irreducible primary that you can't get behind, no matter how hard you try.
Excellent, and yes you are right, from within existence. And for this very reason, before isn't applicable. So how do you get around the began part? You also have to get around the exist part. It would seem to me that without motion, there is no matter, no energy, no space-time, no existence. So to move is to be something in the sense we understand it. All I am saying is that the buck doesn't necessarily stop at existence. So how are you not assuming the universe is eternal?
Nothing cannot exist without something, and something cannot exist without nothing. Therefore, there has always been nothing, and there has always been something. Eventually, consciousness (something) was bound to mould itself into something much cooler than it used to be. Like our current life on earth.
I think you're setting up a strawman here. Theists would say: existence is a property of god; existence is never an agent of causation, and always a contingent fact. "What came first? Existence." is nonsensical. Existence of what? Existence can never be a necessary condition. But why bother with any of this, most could bite the bullet: "Yeah, existence came before god--existence, god, stuff--so what? Just about as good as: nothingness, existence, stuff."
let me try this again "we exist" the very first self evident truth to us as individuals...all that we sense, is the foundation of all that we know..... why add a conscious arbiter, when we are not sure that one is needed?
maybe i misunderstood you before. not only is a creative consciousness suspicious because it is a less parsimonious arrangement than the naturalistic alternatives, but the primacy of existence means that a consciousness could never be foundational.
"whatever stops the buck in infinite regress has to exist by necessity, so why not a consciousness?"
Because even if there is a creative consciousness, the fact that _something_ exists is where the buck really stops. Whatever that something is, we cannot 'get behind' the fact of existence to explain it in terms of something else without stealing the concept.
"Because even if there is a creative consciousness, the fact that _something_ exists is where the buck really stops." no, why so? you seem to be appealing to -getting to the buck now, ready or not? the fact that your existence has to be assumed true does not actually stop the buck there... the physical universe pre-exists you and me....you must also assume this true, no?
I think what those of us on this side of the aisle what to say is that simply because existence is assumed, this does not necessarily mean that it's assumed *metaphysically* rather than merely conceptually.
And I should add, it's not that we're denying the actual reality of "things," it's that in order to think that "existence" is some sort of metaphysical category, then it's almost as if you think you can comprehend non-existence... The only way for us to explain existence is to posit an actual thing, which clearly does have metaphysical endurance of some sort. But simply because we abstract the actual thing's "existence" does not mean we've discovered a category beyond the actual material thing.
Sorry for the log delay. I didn't get a notification of your comments.
I think your objection is answered by noticing that 'existence', in the objectivist sense, doesn't refer to a property of a thing, but to the sum of all existents, or to the fact that _something_ exists.
Something exists: This is a statement that cannot be explained in any other terms without presupposing its truth. That's why existence trumps God (a consciousness) as a metaphysical foundation.
No worries on the delay. But the whole idea of a set is not uncontroversial in philosophy. Do they exist by themselves, or are they simply an abstraction (by consciousness)? Most philosophers nowadays go with the latter, even though there is considerable debate about the nature of consciousness.
I also don't see how we presuppose existence as a metaphysical category, since we must be talking about a particular thing in order to talk about the category.
For a thing to have primacy, this would mean that contingent things somehow depend, not only logically, but actually, on the thing with primacy, for their continuation.
If the primacy of existence is only a logical abstraction, nothing has been demonstrated about the actual contingency things have, and nothing has been demonstrated about any metaphysical primacy of existence.
The problem is, this type of proof needs to happen if the "primacy of existence" is said to disprove things like God.
If Existence is only an abstraction, then its primacy has not been established. Yet Objectivist literature talks as if the primacy of existence is "irrefutable."
If the primacy of existence is irrefutable, then it must be that existence is more than just an abstraction containing our idea of everything that exists. If actual things are contingent, then it must be that existence is somehow an arena that things exist in.
The other step I refer to below (the extra step, as I see it) is a step of the reification of the abstract idea of existence.
BTW, though I have critiqued your view, I thank you very not banning me yet. I've had a disagreement with someone on the same topic, on the YouTube post, "Existence before Consciousness," and the guy who posted it ran out of things to say and now I can't post there.
So thank you, bitbutter, for allowing open disagreement.
When I use the word 'existence' I use a sort of short-hand word...short for an actual thing with location, mass, shape, or some sort of wind or charge or pull or something of that nature. It can get very cumbersome having to say all those things, so the word "existence" fills in nicely when speaking abstractly.
It's true that I've assumed that the things I refer to are real, or not non-existent, like unicorns.
But saying existence is 'primary' requires another step all together.
Yes, the reply was lengthy, and detailed, but if one rejects the idea that existence is somehow a *thing* that specific things depend on, then there is still an impasse.
If "existence" is an abstraction, as the Objectivist definition seems to imply, (since it's the things that actually exist), then it seems the abstract idea of 'existence 'is a way to describe all actual things at once.
It is not obvious that existence is somehow a *thing* or *force* or *arena* that actual things depend on.
If you check out the vid I suggested you'll see I've made it to the end of at least one person's ideas regarding this subject, and he's gone to simply dismissing me.
I suspect, bitbutter, if you have any doubt about the usefulness of this idea about existence existing, then no one will be able to do anything for you other than simply repeat things like "existence exists," or "existence is axiomatic for all knowledge."
(part2) "How does one prove the truth of the axioms?" But such questions miss the point. The fact of the case is, we need the axioms for any proof. The axioms are not the product of proofs, but, as noted above, perceptually self-evident. They are implicit in our every act of awareness, but in the philosophy of Objectivism, they are made explicit at the outset of our thinking and integrated consistently throughout the development of a non-contradictory, comprehensive philosophic system.
(part1) Since consciousness does not create or change the identity of objects it perceives, we cannot accept statements which contradict the identity of our objects as genuine knowledge. A contradiction is a violation of the law of identity. One does not look at a cat, for instance, and say "This cat is a bowl of rice," or "A is both itself and not itself." Why? Because that which exists is that which it is, or A is A. Existence exists. Existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.
(part4) As Allan Gotthelf notes, "Many philosophers have attempted to build their systems on the denial of the existence of an independent reality. In maintaining that the independence of the real is axiomatic, Ayn Rand is in effect maintaining that every such attempt will ultimately make use of the very fact it is attempting to deny." -- (The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy by Anton Thorn)
(part3) to deny or reject the axioms requires their use. Since the axioms are implicit in our every act of awareness, they are also assumed in every task of thought. Any course of thought which leads one to reject the axioms 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness' as the proper starting point of reason, naturally implicates and defeats itself. Although this leads to futile self-contradiction and stolen concepts, it is not uncommon to encounter in modern philosophical models (Descartes, Kant)
Thanks for your comments kbrown. Since you seem quite at home with this topic (an objectivist?) perhaps you could take a look at willthiswork's objection posted earlier in this thread:
"If something must 'be' in order for existence to manifest itself, why can't that something be eternal? If it can, then why is existence more fundamental?"
Greetings bitbutter: Sir I'm most happy to defend reason by correcting the fallacies in the commenter's, willthiswork, objection. ETA ~ 48 hours to prepare a proper essay. Youtube comment size restriction dictates posting the essay elsewhere, perhaps on your favorite forum message board or blog? PM a url to me.
I'd be very interested to read it. I don't know of an appropriate forum though.
Another option would be to post it as a video. If you have a microphone you could record it in, or make a video 'stub' where you just introduce the essay and provide a link to the full thing (copying that link in the 'about' box too).
You could publish the full essay using google docs (docs[dot]google[dot]com) and choosing the 'publish as webpage' function under the 'share' options.
Perhaps you should check out the video titled "Existence Before Consciousness," on YouTube, and more specifically the comment section where the person in the video and myself discuss the issue. The video is posted by "sfmonkeyc."
Anyway, when you see how weak his responses are, perhaps that will motivate you to see how this view adds nothing.
Excellent concise exegesis of the Primacy of Existence. Consciousness is irreducibly an awareness of existence and cannot amend modify or create existence. All acts of consciousness presuppose existence. It is impossible that existence was wished to obtain by a consciousness. Without existence, awareness is impossible; without awareness, consciousness is impossible. Read Anton Thorn's "Primary Argument Against god-belief: The Argument from Existence."
(Part 2)But this is categorically impossible, for to be conscious is to be aware of reality, and meta-consciousness must necessarily rest upon a foundation of awareness. That consciousness is awareness of reality is indisputable. Without reality there can be no awareness; without awareness there can be no consciousness. Consequently, there could not have been a primordial consciousness responsible for causing reality to obtain.
(Part 1) To believe that a theistic creator deity exists and is responsible for reality, one must think the deity a primordial, immaterial, non-spatial, consciousness that wished reality to instantiate. Further, a theism/creationism believer must believe their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to "before" existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, void without anything or any knowledge, alone as a consciousness, conscious of nothing or only itself.
Do you believe existence is a property, like shape or mass?
I understand the argument you're making, but if you think hard about existence, you may question how warranted it is to deductively assert that existence is primary. If existence is primary in such a way that everything which came after was contingent, then it seems that you're implying that existence could "exist" by itself, and that doesn't strike me as a very intelligible idea.
"If existence is primary in such a way that everything which came after was contingent[..]"
'after' is problematic here. Of course existence always manifests itself by *something* existing. Existence is necessarily primary in a metaphysical scheme.
First let me say, I feel uncomfortable by the way we're talking about existence, as if it's a quality, but I'll put that aside for a minute and just say:
If 'after' is problematic in my post, then why must existence trump God? After all, you've said that existence always manifests itself by *something* existing, yes?
It seems as though *something* could exist alongside existence, right? Whether that *something* is God, or maybe some inconsequential mass/energy, is another story.
People who appeal to a god as an ultimate explanation are shortsighted, they got to where they wanted to go and forget that the questions haven't dried up.
Why does god exist? There can be no answer. existence is an inscrutable fact. Get used to that early, and attempt to posit a rational, intelligent 'ground of all being' is revealed to be useless. Because 'behind' that god is dumb existence.
Now you're just repeating your position. You're pretending that you've demonstrated something you haven't.
I agree the questions haven't dried up, but the same is true with your view on existence, which you're reifying. Maybe it would help if you read the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Existence." Also, Analytic Philosophy (the dominant kind in the English speaking world) doesn't take Objectivism very seriously, and that includes this little ditty on existence.
If I had sufficient space to explain why Objectivism is bunk, I would.
Suffice it to say, you haven't explained how existence trumps anything, you've expressed your opinion and some silly Randian ideas.
Perhaps you could just answer this: If something must 'be' in order for existence to manifest itself, why can't that something be eternal? If it can, then why is existence more fundamental?
We could say that existence wouldn't exist without the *something* too right?
"why can't that something be eternal? If it can, then why is existence more fundamental?"
I don't need to show that existence is more fundamental here. The message of the vid is simpler: Anyone who appeals to that kind of eternal thing as an explanation, is still left with the unanswerable question: why does that eternal thing exist? This unanswerable question needs to be taken into account when assessing the explanatory power of positing that eternal thing.
But you've titled your video "Existence Trumps God" and you've made the overly ambitious metaphysical statement that existence is some kind of something that things depend on. That's what I'm taking you to task on.
Many religious people don't realize the shortcomings of their position, when they posit God as a ultimate explanation.
But that doesn't get you off the hook, since you've said more than that in your post and in the last few comments.
Religion creates a God a "higher"consciousness to explain creation,to give a cause.If u accept that ,then its only logical to ask "who created the creator?"They ll answer that the limited human mind is unable to comprehend Gods existence....Why cant i just accept the incomprehensiveness of regress in the first place ?
to even be asking why? i exist or even question our origin proves a higher divine being...but you have wonder-what will happen when i die? no matter what age you are sooner or later this question will haunt and scare many to simply unexist for me is an extreme thing to think about to exist is all we know, we have and cannot even fathom not existing yet you play with it as if you dont care but even to put this vid up means you are thinking and searching for an answer or in hopes to be disproven
"to even be asking why? i exist or even question our origin proves a higher divine being."
I'm not sure how you're reaching that conclusion but it doesn't follow.
"yet you play with it as if you dont care"
Of course i care. It's a big deal!
"but you have wonder-what will happen when i die?"
Mark Twain said it best:
"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
Excellent exposition. It expresses much that I've thought myself, however whereas it's bound to hurt most traditional beliefs (in god), it only strengthens mine, as I see no distinction between consciousness and 'dumb' existence; i.e. existence=consciousness.
That is an incredibly silly statement, if you think about the definitions of those words. "Existence" denotes all that which has ever existed or will ever exist. "Consciousness" means nothing more than a faculty of certain living organisms that perceives that which exists. Consciousness is therefore entirely dependent on existence, whereas existence will continue to exist independently of consciousness. To equate the terms is to destroy the meaning of both.
I concede to your analysis of the words in question, at least in their current & strict senses. But you misunderstand me, I do not say that this is what theses words mean, but that this is what I believe them to be, and therefore what I feel they ought to mean.
Furthermore, what is a definition (especially of things we study scientifically such as matter/gravity/consciousness/existence/etc) but OUR DESCRIPTION OF IT in terms of OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF IT;
& just as our scientific knowledge is changing, so too is/will our language change right alongside it.
Whereas you may be content living with and not looking past the understanding and definitions of today, thinking them to be full and complete, I look freely to the new and undiscovered of tomorrow, unhampered by the man-made categories of yesterday.
Warning, do not become complacent in a single view of the world, as 'fundamentalism' is not relegated to religion alone.
I agree inasmuch as the illusion of consciousness is but a minuscule fragment of infinite unconscious existence. Consciousness implies the necessary limitations of time and space, when deep down we know that our own consciousness is really just on loan from the universe; our real identity IS infinite.
Excellent video, although these sort of ideas tend to make my brain hurt!! In his 5 Q for atheists, Veritas48 asked why is there something rather than nothing, which got me thinking, can nothing exist (existence presupposes something)? Is it because it is impossible for us to imagine absolutely nothing, or is absolute nothing an impossibility?
To me the question is contradictory, as i think you're also suggesting. As to whether nothingness can be imagined: i think not--we can fool ourselves into thinking we can imagine absence of everything, but even in the act of imagining we unwittingly position ourselves 'in' the nothingness. And since we are consciousness, and consciousness exists, we are not really imagining nothing, so it's a doomed project.
In defining God entirely in terms of consciousness, it seems like you are setting up a strawman argument.
God's name was given in the OT in terms of existence itself. The implication of this name is that, at least, existence itself is a quality of God. By this understanding, "Existence trumps God" presents a false dichotomy.
"The implication of this name is that, at least, existence itself is a quality of God."
You are welcome to claim that existence itself is semantically equivalent with god. But in this case you are proposing pantheism and are no longer talking about a theistic god because the claim that something with human-like characteristics _is_ existence itself is unintelligible.
"but your argument as applied to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God is strawman."
As long as christians claim that God exists, at the same time claim that he is the ultimate foundation, as many seem to be doing, this is not a straw man.
How so? Can God not be an "ultimate foundation" (I'm assuming metaphorically speaking) while simultaneously having existence as a quality?
I know that there are many common misunderstandings of Judeo-Christianity in general, but I'm not sure this could be a relevant one.
Have you read Aquinas? He wrote extensively on essence and existence. Going back over Summa Theologica, it seems that Aquinas claims that God is existence itself. I need to do some more digging on this.
"Can God not be an "ultimate foundation" [..] while simultaneously having existence as a quality?"
No, because if the claim is that 'God exists' the genuine foundation has to be existence itself because we can't explain god's existence in terms that don't presuppose existence. Existence is axiomatic. God, if he exists, is contingent, he comes in 2nd place ;)
Again, this is only true if you presume that existence is external to the nature of God. Claiming that existence in and of itself is axiomatic, is nothing more than an assertion that God does not exist; it is begging the question (circular reasoning).
Right. Paul Tillich did a great job in Protestant Theology with this very idea. If interested, check out the Wiki article for some good leads. I'd recommend the collection of his sermons, "The Eternal Now," as well.
christians fancy that they understand god because they read a book written by humans and babble rhetoric because if they did not babble rhetoric about it then the emotion that they first associated with the system of psychology and the perpetuations of that association would be destroyed, and it's so very closely tied in with the emotion and sense of self.. who wants their existence to lose integrity? am I making sense? it's all self perpetual rhetoric. Understanding god on someone else's ground
Consciousness allows us to contemplate the fact we do exist...having a Creator with consciousness makes our consciousness intelligible...
Also, you ignore the fact that you are left with an infinite regress as an atheist...even if you consider existence first, it begs the question: "How did we arrive to today from an infinite past?" This leads us to a Creator for our origins...logic also directs us to understand that this Creator has mind.
I was paying attention...your argument is completely weak and begs fundamental questions.
For instance: You cannot "prove" your own existence...not apart from consciousness...then you have the problems paleo and I have been harping on for months.
If you were then you'd understand the that following is not a rebuttal: "Consciousness allows us to contemplate the fact we do exist...having a Creator with consciousness makes our consciousness intelligible."
When you put it that way...well golly...I never thought about that...there are absolutely no metaphysical consequences to atheism, and absolutely no cosmological quandries created (pun intended)...I guess I just need to start thinking in terms of Bigfoot being the same as belief in God.
Let's make a deal: God is to Bigfoot as abiogenesis is to spontaneous generation...(except I won't agree to those terms...and abiogensis is the "churched up scientific" acceptance of spontaneous generation).
You just want to make believe atheism entails nothing beyond "lack of belief in God". Atheism and theism are pivotal beliefs that inform other beliefs...it's far different than you opting for a turkey sandwhich while I opt for roast beef.
Thank you for the advice on having a conversation...the modus operandi is always the same...write off what I have to say and chalk what I have to say up to me having some sort of deficiency...sometimes it's ignorance, other times stupidity, other times it's arrogance...this time it's more of a problem related to being antisocial...
And I'm only speaking for myself . . . I have never accused you of stupidity or arrogance or being antisocial.
You are ignorant of some things, as I am of many things. Also, I think you have difficulty staying on point. You seem to gallop off in many directions, mimicking Duane Gish.
Atheism may not preclude an uncaused cause...but there's no way of describing such a thing...well, not according to atheism, at least. We have no experience of there being uncaused causes, and trusting induction becomes highly problematic given the metaphysic atheism requires to allow an uncaused cause...you find this boring...but it's so fundamental that children recognize the problem.
Your metaphysic doesn't afford you the assumptions you use, but that doesn't matter...use logic and the scientific method...but when it comes time to evaluating your presuppositions...begging the question is a real hoot...and philisophically acceptable.
"trusting induction becomes highly problematic given the metaphysic atheism requires to allow an uncaused cause"
Ok here's a refresher: trusting induction is problematic _anyway_, no matter what your metaphysical convictions are. This is 'the problem of induction'. If you don't yet understand why your w/view fails to solve it check the vids: "Underestimating the problem of induction" and "Miracles and inductive inference".
I've checked your vids...unfortunately, you don't allow the Christian worldview to be internally critiqued...you're combatting a swordsman made of straw.
If you could be more specific about exactly how you think what I said in the vids fails as an internal critique that'd be helpful (commenting on those video threads would be the best place for it).
Existence is a human concept. A construct of the mind. Drop the word, imagine a time before a mind exists, and the logical conclusion still holds: "from nothing, nothing comes". Your statement, though cryptic enough to cause one to pause, is semantics only. It appears to me that it is irrelevant to the argument for design of our universe. If you postulated that "existence" was an object, you might be on to someting. But you used it properly, as a construct of a mind.
Ill try to put it another way: I think theists don't want to have something dumb or arbitrary seeming as an ultimate foundation, (they prefer something human-like, purposeful) so they have this divine consciousness as the solution. But they've still failed to dodge the foundational dumbness because that consciousness exists for no reason (just like any other thing that you use to fill the uncaused cause shaped slot).
If we realise that there's always the inscrutable fact of existence behind any solution to the regress, we can drop the futile effort to slot something human-like and purposeful in as the ground of all being.
OK...I agree with you about ex nihilo consciousness...BUT I don't think that you fully explain your what you mean by the NECESSITY of existence before that of consciousness. What then do you make of the possibility of experiencialism within the early monism of Russell or Whitehead? By introducing this analysis of causation can't we find a place for consciouness? This is not in support of theism, but of a more considered naturalism.
hi 2bsirius. What i was tryong to get as is that existence is axiomatic and necessary, and that consciousness is contingent. I hope that's a sensible answer.
I'm afraid i don't know much about experientialism, and a quick google just now wasn't enough for me to really understand how it relates to the subject.
Yes, I agree that the default idea that existence comes before consciousness. I was just trying to point out that it is a position that lots of philosophers take issue with. Among them are Galen Strawson, Gregg Rosenberg, Alfred North Whitehead and even some aspects of the philosphy of Bertrand Russell. I'd love to say more on this, but 500 wds.
I'd be interested to hear more about the criticisms of POE. Any chance of a video about it? (I don't count myself as an objectivist but i think they have the metaphysical primacy thing wrapped up).
What about the concept of eternity though? If the god always existed, then that would make the sitution at least coherent, as a universe must have a cause but a god perhaps not by definition. this is how their argument goes, I believe. But, woudl you say such eternal existence depends on 'existence' itself? This seems odd to me- I see how it works in your example but can you apply it to this one?
"But, woudl you say such eternal existence depends on 'existence' itself? This seems odd to me"
Yes absolutely. Eternal or not, every existent is 'there' because existence itself exists without any possible explanation. This applies to disembodied, eternal, consciousnesses as well as everything else.
This sounds like semantic slight of hand bit. Existence isn't a thing. It is a description of a thing. The conclusion is not that "existence exists", rather that somethink eternal (without beginning) must be.
Would that hold for imaginary things? In other words, do you allow for the "existence" of things that are not material? I do. Logic, mental concepts such as math, for examples. If you and I decide not to define imaginary things, or things like my examples as "existing" then I would have to argue that you can describe something that does not exist. So to repeat the question: "do all things that exist have to be material?"
'So to repeat the question: "do all things that exist have to be material?"'
According to my w/view 'material' isn't quite the right word, physical says it better. logic, thought, abstractions etc are patterns. I agree with EverettsVLOG, existence itself is not a thing, rather it is a precondition of thingness.
I am extremely interested in the idea that "objects" of the mind, which are not physical, are patterns. I find that explanation wanting. Patterns are used to communicate thoughts, certainly, but I don't understand how they can "be" thoughts. I am working on a vid series that will include this subject, so your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
"I am extremely interested in the idea that "objects" of the mind, which are not physical, are patterns. "
Hi. My contention is that these patterns _are_ physical. 'material' implies 'made of matter', which excludes movement, for example. 'Physical' is broader, encompassing arrangements and patterns of matter and motion.
Pattern presumes order...also, pattern is just another word for seeing relationships between things/ideas. Pattern,btw, is a category...there are different occassions of order and pattern...so patterm, to be intelligible, is a concept...which is immaterial & unobservable.
Perhaps you argue pattern is a product of mind? If not, why patterns and not chaos? Of course...I'm asking this with the presumption you will not be arbitrary and you'll explain how order is a consequence of your metaphysic.
"so patterm, to be intelligible, is a concept...which is immaterial & unobservable."
On my view, concepts themselves _are_ patterns (as are other phenomena including movement). And patterns are, in principle, observable. Immaterial? yes, non-physical? no.
"Perhaps you argue pattern is a product of mind? If not, why patterns and not chaos? "
The logic of this video seems undeniable to me, and this isn't the first time I've heard the basic concept. In order for something to have caused existence, it first would have to exist. So, if God exists, he exists inside of existence. Another way of saying it is........the existence of existence must be independent of God if God exists. Existence CANNOT have a cause because that cause would have to not exist.
multard 6 months ago
The phrase "dancing on the head of a pin" comes to mind. Have you ever asked yourself why you want a godless universe?
cantleysugar 1 year ago
Existence exists seems a bit terse. Can you expound?
kdheithaus 1 year ago
I agree 100% with this video. It's easy to get lost in the semantics of the argument. The struggle of existence is totally undeniable. Things that require "a leap of faith", are always accompanied by a direct lack of evidence; sorry to all the theists out there but anecdotal evidence PROVES NOTHING.
420dudemeister 1 year ago
It is not possible for anything to create possibility without it being possible fore possibility to be created, thus, given the exisance of reality, possibility IS the prime attribute of reality.
rxangel18 2 years ago
'possibility IS the prime attribute of reality.'
Possibility isn't foundational because it depends on other concepts, and existence is necessarily among those concepts.
bitbutter 2 years ago
Comment removed
VeridicusX 1 year ago
@bitbutter
No, what you're saying is incorrect.
You seem to be reifying.
Existents exist, existence doesn't.
VeridicusX 1 year ago
@VeridicusX Existence refers to the totality of existents. So existence exists.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter
Kant showed that "existence" is not a real predicate.
The Objectivist's formulation is reification.
Existents exist *as* something. You can't take everything away and be left with "existence" - especially given that this is precisely the meaning of non-existence!.
Objectivists are misusing the word "existence" to mean "reality".
Existents exist. Existence most definitely doesn't.
VeridicusX 1 year ago
@bitbutter Isn't it something the lengths people will go playing with words to try an prove something so rock solid as this wrong? amazing!
JerryTheHeretic 10 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@bitbutter The totality of existents is the wave-fcn of the universe.
1.) The wave-fcn of the universe is self-collapsing (since there is nothing external to it to measure and collapse it).
2.) Self-collapsing wave-fcns are minds. (Roger Penrose's quantum mind model Orch-OR)
Thus, the wave-function of the universe is a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
The empirical existents of our physical universe would then be the product of the wave-function collapse of this mind.
Existence IS God's mind.
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz existence is ALL'S MIND ONLY THE ALL EXIST THE ALL IS IN ALL AND IS ALL OMNIPRESENT OMNIAWARE OMNISCIENT UNITY OF ALL EXISTENCE. JUST MY VIEW DON'T GO SAYING PEOPLE ARE WRONG IN THERE VIEW THEY SOME ARE JUST AT A LOWER LEVEL OF AWARENESS.
TheLovesoul1 5 months ago
@rxangel18 This is correct.
The word "reality" is simply a place-holder for the phrase, "Every possible state of affairs".
VeridicusX 1 year ago
Possibility is the most foundational. THe primacey of possibility is superior to an ultimate source. Possibility is the source, thus there is no first cause, reality is the cause itself. Pantheism and Atheism are the only appraochable positions given the concept that infinite regress applies. Possibility is the only thing that allows itself to exist, thus it is the sole cause, not the first cause.
rxangel18 2 years ago
(part 1)Francis Bacon knew that to command nature, one must act according to its rules and identity. The statement Reality is Absolute is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. Evading this fact will mean your actions will not have their desired effects. Your failure will be metaphysical justice.
9432bce6 3 years ago
(part 2)The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies things that exists. Existence is primary in that consciousness requires existence, and there is no consciousness without existence. Because consciousness identifies existents, there can be no consciousness without something existing to perceive. Nothing can have an identity without existing.
9432bce6 3 years ago
(part 3)That something is identified necessarily implies its existence which necessarily implies existence in general. There is no consciousness without existence. Because consciousness identifies existents, consciousness itself must exist to do the identifying. Tto be conscious (to identify), a consciousness must exist. A faculty can not operate and not exist at the same time. A verb without a noun makes no sense, and the noun must exist in order for the verb to take place.
9432bce6 3 years ago
(part 4)Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness. All mysticism derive from demonstratively false premise of primacy of consciousness. Assertions that existence somehow requires consciousness, sometimes called the Interdependence Theory, is arbitrary at best without objective basis.
9432bce6 3 years ago
Hang with me here.You assume consciousness exists.If we apply the same reductionist approach to consciousness and experience as we do to the universe itself, how does that explain anything? I understand the point in your video, but you seem to be saying that which you said makes no sense, that existence exists.So perhaps it would more effective to talk about that which is manifest as existing. Couldn't we then begin to ponder mind and potentiality from a different perspective than existence?
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Are you reducing existence to universe? If so how does the universe come to be? Maybe conscious doesn't exist. Even from your own view it is only really abstract as it is not manifest, it is the neurological networks that are manifest. This means I can think outside the box. I mean a big clue is that I am positing questions outside the box. Why is it that this imaginary threshold (existence) is an actual threshold of perspective? I am just thinking, not necessarily challenging.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
"You assume consciousness exists."
I'm afraid you're misrepresenting me again.
I don't merely assume the existence of consciousness. I know that consciousness exists (at least 'my own') because this is a self-evident fact.
I can't follow the rest of your comment.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Existence exists is redundant.
"If 'before' the universe is even meaningful (i don't think it is), then whatever was there, existed."
You contradict yourself because you need a universe to have existence (existence isn't in the background somewhere, it is a property, much like time isn't in the background, because time is relative), unless there was another universe there, and then we are back to the infinite regress problem...
cruelfate45 3 years ago
"Existence exists is redundant."
Existence exists is foundational. I have not contradicted myself.
bitbutter 3 years ago
I said it's redundant and so you have not established a foundation, but simply gone in a circle.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
The reason it looks circular is that it can be defended by retortion. I won't be replying further here.
bitbutter 3 years ago
You are saying existence is foundational, so existence exists and non-existence exists, but that is contradictory. Things existing really becomes meaningless without something to perceive it. But that begs the question, so what about just perception itself? It's no more ambiguous than positing existence itself. Time is not an escape route either, just because we perceive a past without human beings, doesn't mean that things exist without a perception of those things.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
"You are saying existence is foundational, so existence exists and non-existence exists"
I haven't said that. Nor does it follow from what I've said.
bitbutter 3 years ago
How do you deal with the idea of non-existence then?
cruelfate45 3 years ago
If there is exsitence, there cant be non-existance, as far as my perception goes.
haerverk 3 years ago 2
What exactly does that mean? You can't perceive it, therefore it doesn't exist? Or, things that we say don't exist, must exist? I find this idea of existence as "all there is" somewhat flawed. But I am having trouble articulating exactly what my problem with it is.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Im just saying that as far as I understand things, something cant come out of nothing, so if nothing ever existed, there would still be.. nothing! :P its either nothing OR everything. did that clarify my position?
haerverk 3 years ago
I got you, and that's how I thought about it myself for a long time. But we lack an understanding of the concept of nothing. It is therefore something we don't understand. It isn't perceivable. Existence exists is just saying that what I can conceive of exists in some form or another. Wow, how insightful. Nothing from something is not the issue. After all, reverse the flow of time and you will have things continuously going back into "nothing". It the problem of perception...
cruelfate45 3 years ago
...and that leads back to the idea of consciousness being more fundamental than existence, such that existence springs forth from thought. Even though on the surface it seems counter to all empirical evidence, what if there is no real foundation, but you have consciousness (nothing) and perception (to be aware of existence, ultimately to be existence) flopping back and forth in some sort of cycle of expression? Maybe I am thinking differently, or maybe I am just elaborating on the concept.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
I grant consciousness NO importance at all in my view of things. So I thing we are a bit off here. I would argue that 'nothing' is but a consept, and does not exist outside the tiny world of human language. If you dont agree that it's either everything or nothing, then you will have to elaborate on your definition of 'nothing'. Because in my world, those are mutually excluding. If there is something (ex. perceivable universe) than there cant be nothing! *N* would mean that there is NO universe.
haerverk 3 years ago
It's existence that is the definition we aren't mutually understanding. If there was nothing instead of something, would nothing exist? That is a glaring contradiction. Existence exists is just A=A. If existence is really a foundation it must rely on nothing! It points directly to the linguistic limitations of many of these abstract terms. They really aren't meant to be freestanding concepts at all, rather to describe properties and aspects of other things.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Also, granting conscious no importance is basically telling me 2 things. First, you are a reductionist of some sort. Second, you ultimately deny the existence of immaterial and abstract phenomenon. If I am wrong, step in and clarify. To be fair, let me elaborate on my definition of nothing. Nothing simply isn't a thing in the sense one defines things. If we use the word thing loosely to mean any concept imaginable, than it wouldn't be one of those things. It's kind of like atheism, it lacks.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
I think Im somewhat with you so far, but still feel rather discontented by your definition of nothing. I have yet to see any relevance it would have to anything, so pls, do continue to elaborate! If you could apply it to something to which I can actually relate, or just putting it in any context at all I might help.
So far 'nothing' is just a word for me, describing an imminent lack of something specific. A linguistic tool so to speak.
haerverk 3 years ago 2
And ye, some sort of reductionist is fair to say, if it helps you tailor your approach.
haerverk 3 years ago
Consciousness doesn't create things. Imagine it this way. You have nothing, which is really just an infinite "soup" of possibilities. From a perception, certain non-things are realized. Existence is a property of those things. It is not a foundation, but a state of all things we can conceive of, whether they are physically manifest, or they are mental concepts. Existence exists is redundant and non-existence exists is contradictory.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
"Consciousness doesn't create things"
I know that. But the Christian Gd is imagined by many to be a creative consciousness.
"Existence exists is redundant"
Not exactly. It's foundational, a self evident truth.
bitbutter 3 years ago
You assume existence is primary.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
I have not assumed that existence is primary. The statement 'existence is primary' is axiomatic, we know this because it can be defended by retortion.
bitbutter 3 years ago
That's a language issue, it doesn't mean that existence is actually primary. Think about the Big Bang for a second. If time "began", why assume existence is primary? Maybe primary isn't the word. How about, why assume existence is applicable to whatever was before the universe?
cruelfate45 3 years ago
"Think about the Big Bang for a second. If time "began", why assume existence is primary?"
Because existence (what it means, in our language) is axiomatic and can be defended by retortion as I already explained.
"why assume existence is applicable to whatever was before the universe?"
If 'before' the universe is even meaningful (i don't think it is), then whatever was there, existed. Exists is an irreducible primary that you can't get behind, no matter how hard you try.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Excellent, and yes you are right, from within existence. And for this very reason, before isn't applicable. So how do you get around the began part? You also have to get around the exist part. It would seem to me that without motion, there is no matter, no energy, no space-time, no existence. So to move is to be something in the sense we understand it. All I am saying is that the buck doesn't necessarily stop at existence. So how are you not assuming the universe is eternal?
cruelfate45 3 years ago
"You also have to get around the exist part."
No you don't. And in fact you can't, for the reasons i've already given.
bitbutter 3 years ago
The universe began
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Nothing cannot exist without something, and something cannot exist without nothing. Therefore, there has always been nothing, and there has always been something. Eventually, consciousness (something) was bound to mould itself into something much cooler than it used to be. Like our current life on earth.
We are all consciousness, we are all god. Next?
dastardlydude67 3 years ago
I think you're setting up a strawman here. Theists would say: existence is a property of god; existence is never an agent of causation, and always a contingent fact. "What came first? Existence." is nonsensical. Existence of what? Existence can never be a necessary condition. But why bother with any of this, most could bite the bullet: "Yeah, existence came before god--existence, god, stuff--so what? Just about as good as: nothingness, existence, stuff."
rader55555 3 years ago
let me try this again "we exist" the very first self evident truth to us as individuals...all that we sense, is the foundation of all that we know..... why add a conscious arbiter, when we are not sure that one is needed?
istheretruth 3 years ago
maybe i misunderstood you before. not only is a creative consciousness suspicious because it is a less parsimonious arrangement than the naturalistic alternatives, but the primacy of existence means that a consciousness could never be foundational.
bitbutter 3 years ago
why must the determination of regress be conscious? why not a dumb force?
the answer = it could be either/ or
why do we fight so hard to make sure that it can't be a consciousness?
istheretruth 3 years ago
termination ******not determination
istheretruth 3 years ago
"why do we fight so hard to make sure that it can't be a consciousness?"
If a disembodied creative consciousness existed, it would have to exist. Hence existence would be primary, there is no fight/contest.
bitbutter 3 years ago
whatever stops the buck in infinite regress has to exist by necessity, so why not a consciousness?
istheretruth 3 years ago
"whatever stops the buck in infinite regress has to exist by necessity, so why not a consciousness?"
Because even if there is a creative consciousness, the fact that _something_ exists is where the buck really stops. Whatever that something is, we cannot 'get behind' the fact of existence to explain it in terms of something else without stealing the concept.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"Because even if there is a creative consciousness, the fact that _something_ exists is where the buck really stops." no, why so? you seem to be appealing to -getting to the buck now, ready or not? the fact that your existence has to be assumed true does not actually stop the buck there... the physical universe pre-exists you and me....you must also assume this true, no?
istheretruth 3 years ago
"the fact that your existence has to be assumed true does not actually stop the buck there"
You're misunderstood me. I can't think of how to explain myself in other terms.
bitbutter 3 years ago
I think what those of us on this side of the aisle what to say is that simply because existence is assumed, this does not necessarily mean that it's assumed *metaphysically* rather than merely conceptually.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
And I should add, it's not that we're denying the actual reality of "things," it's that in order to think that "existence" is some sort of metaphysical category, then it's almost as if you think you can comprehend non-existence... The only way for us to explain existence is to posit an actual thing, which clearly does have metaphysical endurance of some sort. But simply because we abstract the actual thing's "existence" does not mean we've discovered a category beyond the actual material thing.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
think about it for a while. I'd love to understand exactly what you are saying.
istheretruth 3 years ago
I'll shut up for a while, until there is a response.
Thanks...
wilthiswork 3 years ago
Sorry for the log delay. I didn't get a notification of your comments.
I think your objection is answered by noticing that 'existence', in the objectivist sense, doesn't refer to a property of a thing, but to the sum of all existents, or to the fact that _something_ exists.
Something exists: This is a statement that cannot be explained in any other terms without presupposing its truth. That's why existence trumps God (a consciousness) as a metaphysical foundation.
bitbutter 3 years ago
bitbutter,
No worries on the delay. But the whole idea of a set is not uncontroversial in philosophy. Do they exist by themselves, or are they simply an abstraction (by consciousness)? Most philosophers nowadays go with the latter, even though there is considerable debate about the nature of consciousness.
I also don't see how we presuppose existence as a metaphysical category, since we must be talking about a particular thing in order to talk about the category.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
For a thing to have primacy, this would mean that contingent things somehow depend, not only logically, but actually, on the thing with primacy, for their continuation.
If the primacy of existence is only a logical abstraction, nothing has been demonstrated about the actual contingency things have, and nothing has been demonstrated about any metaphysical primacy of existence.
The problem is, this type of proof needs to happen if the "primacy of existence" is said to disprove things like God.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
If Existence is only an abstraction, then its primacy has not been established. Yet Objectivist literature talks as if the primacy of existence is "irrefutable."
If the primacy of existence is irrefutable, then it must be that existence is more than just an abstraction containing our idea of everything that exists. If actual things are contingent, then it must be that existence is somehow an arena that things exist in.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
The other step I refer to below (the extra step, as I see it) is a step of the reification of the abstract idea of existence.
BTW, though I have critiqued your view, I thank you very not banning me yet. I've had a disagreement with someone on the same topic, on the YouTube post, "Existence before Consciousness," and the guy who posted it ran out of things to say and now I can't post there.
So thank you, bitbutter, for allowing open disagreement.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
I meant to say, I thank you very much, for not banning me yet...
wilthiswork 3 years ago
When I use the word 'existence' I use a sort of short-hand word...short for an actual thing with location, mass, shape, or some sort of wind or charge or pull or something of that nature. It can get very cumbersome having to say all those things, so the word "existence" fills in nicely when speaking abstractly.
It's true that I've assumed that the things I refer to are real, or not non-existent, like unicorns.
But saying existence is 'primary' requires another step all together.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
Yes, the reply was lengthy, and detailed, but if one rejects the idea that existence is somehow a *thing* that specific things depend on, then there is still an impasse.
If "existence" is an abstraction, as the Objectivist definition seems to imply, (since it's the things that actually exist), then it seems the abstract idea of 'existence 'is a way to describe all actual things at once.
It is not obvious that existence is somehow a *thing* or *force* or *arena* that actual things depend on.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
If you check out the vid I suggested you'll see I've made it to the end of at least one person's ideas regarding this subject, and he's gone to simply dismissing me.
I suspect, bitbutter, if you have any doubt about the usefulness of this idea about existence existing, then no one will be able to do anything for you other than simply repeat things like "existence exists," or "existence is axiomatic for all knowledge."
wilthiswork 3 years ago
(part2) "How does one prove the truth of the axioms?" But such questions miss the point. The fact of the case is, we need the axioms for any proof. The axioms are not the product of proofs, but, as noted above, perceptually self-evident. They are implicit in our every act of awareness, but in the philosophy of Objectivism, they are made explicit at the outset of our thinking and integrated consistently throughout the development of a non-contradictory, comprehensive philosophic system.
kbrown45 3 years ago
(part1) Since consciousness does not create or change the identity of objects it perceives, we cannot accept statements which contradict the identity of our objects as genuine knowledge. A contradiction is a violation of the law of identity. One does not look at a cat, for instance, and say "This cat is a bowl of rice," or "A is both itself and not itself." Why? Because that which exists is that which it is, or A is A. Existence exists. Existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.
kbrown45 3 years ago
(part4) As Allan Gotthelf notes, "Many philosophers have attempted to build their systems on the denial of the existence of an independent reality. In maintaining that the independence of the real is axiomatic, Ayn Rand is in effect maintaining that every such attempt will ultimately make use of the very fact it is attempting to deny." -- (The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy by Anton Thorn)
kbrown45 3 years ago
(part3) to deny or reject the axioms requires their use. Since the axioms are implicit in our every act of awareness, they are also assumed in every task of thought. Any course of thought which leads one to reject the axioms 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness' as the proper starting point of reason, naturally implicates and defeats itself. Although this leads to futile self-contradiction and stolen concepts, it is not uncommon to encounter in modern philosophical models (Descartes, Kant)
kbrown45 3 years ago
Thanks for your comments kbrown. Since you seem quite at home with this topic (an objectivist?) perhaps you could take a look at willthiswork's objection posted earlier in this thread:
"If something must 'be' in order for existence to manifest itself, why can't that something be eternal? If it can, then why is existence more fundamental?"
bitbutter 3 years ago
Greetings bitbutter: Sir I'm most happy to defend reason by correcting the fallacies in the commenter's, willthiswork, objection. ETA ~ 48 hours to prepare a proper essay. Youtube comment size restriction dictates posting the essay elsewhere, perhaps on your favorite forum message board or blog? PM a url to me.
kbrown45 3 years ago
I'd be very interested to read it. I don't know of an appropriate forum though.
Another option would be to post it as a video. If you have a microphone you could record it in, or make a video 'stub' where you just introduce the essay and provide a link to the full thing (copying that link in the 'about' box too).
You could publish the full essay using google docs (docs[dot]google[dot]com) and choosing the 'publish as webpage' function under the 'share' options.
bitbutter 3 years ago
bitbutter,
Perhaps you should check out the video titled "Existence Before Consciousness," on YouTube, and more specifically the comment section where the person in the video and myself discuss the issue. The video is posted by "sfmonkeyc."
Anyway, when you see how weak his responses are, perhaps that will motivate you to see how this view adds nothing.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
Excellent concise exegesis of the Primacy of Existence. Consciousness is irreducibly an awareness of existence and cannot amend modify or create existence. All acts of consciousness presuppose existence. It is impossible that existence was wished to obtain by a consciousness. Without existence, awareness is impossible; without awareness, consciousness is impossible. Read Anton Thorn's "Primary Argument Against god-belief: The Argument from Existence."
kbrown45 3 years ago
(Part 2)But this is categorically impossible, for to be conscious is to be aware of reality, and meta-consciousness must necessarily rest upon a foundation of awareness. That consciousness is awareness of reality is indisputable. Without reality there can be no awareness; without awareness there can be no consciousness. Consequently, there could not have been a primordial consciousness responsible for causing reality to obtain.
kbrown45 3 years ago
(Part 1) To believe that a theistic creator deity exists and is responsible for reality, one must think the deity a primordial, immaterial, non-spatial, consciousness that wished reality to instantiate. Further, a theism/creationism believer must believe their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to "before" existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, void without anything or any knowledge, alone as a consciousness, conscious of nothing or only itself.
kbrown45 3 years ago
bitbutter,
Do you believe existence is a property, like shape or mass?
I understand the argument you're making, but if you think hard about existence, you may question how warranted it is to deductively assert that existence is primary. If existence is primary in such a way that everything which came after was contingent, then it seems that you're implying that existence could "exist" by itself, and that doesn't strike me as a very intelligible idea.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
"If existence is primary in such a way that everything which came after was contingent[..]"
'after' is problematic here. Of course existence always manifests itself by *something* existing. Existence is necessarily primary in a metaphysical scheme.
bitbutter 3 years ago
bitbutter,
First let me say, I feel uncomfortable by the way we're talking about existence, as if it's a quality, but I'll put that aside for a minute and just say:
If 'after' is problematic in my post, then why must existence trump God? After all, you've said that existence always manifests itself by *something* existing, yes?
It seems as though *something* could exist alongside existence, right? Whether that *something* is God, or maybe some inconsequential mass/energy, is another story.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
People who appeal to a god as an ultimate explanation are shortsighted, they got to where they wanted to go and forget that the questions haven't dried up.
Why does god exist? There can be no answer. existence is an inscrutable fact. Get used to that early, and attempt to posit a rational, intelligent 'ground of all being' is revealed to be useless. Because 'behind' that god is dumb existence.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Now you're just repeating your position. You're pretending that you've demonstrated something you haven't.
I agree the questions haven't dried up, but the same is true with your view on existence, which you're reifying. Maybe it would help if you read the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Existence." Also, Analytic Philosophy (the dominant kind in the English speaking world) doesn't take Objectivism very seriously, and that includes this little ditty on existence.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
I explained the sense in which existence trumps god.
"It seems as though *something* could exist alongside existence, right?"
That's a strange way of putting it. Anything that exists depends on the fact of existence.
"Also, Analytic Philosophy (the dominant kind in the English speaking world) doesn't take Objectivism very seriously"
I don't take appeals to authority very seriously either.
bitbutter 3 years ago
If I had sufficient space to explain why Objectivism is bunk, I would.
Suffice it to say, you haven't explained how existence trumps anything, you've expressed your opinion and some silly Randian ideas.
Perhaps you could just answer this: If something must 'be' in order for existence to manifest itself, why can't that something be eternal? If it can, then why is existence more fundamental?
We could say that existence wouldn't exist without the *something* too right?
wilthiswork 3 years ago
"why can't that something be eternal? If it can, then why is existence more fundamental?"
I don't need to show that existence is more fundamental here. The message of the vid is simpler: Anyone who appeals to that kind of eternal thing as an explanation, is still left with the unanswerable question: why does that eternal thing exist? This unanswerable question needs to be taken into account when assessing the explanatory power of positing that eternal thing.
bitbutter 3 years ago
I agree with your point about explanatory power.
But you've titled your video "Existence Trumps God" and you've made the overly ambitious metaphysical statement that existence is some kind of something that things depend on. That's what I'm taking you to task on.
Many religious people don't realize the shortcomings of their position, when they posit God as a ultimate explanation.
But that doesn't get you off the hook, since you've said more than that in your post and in the last few comments.
wilthiswork 3 years ago
I think i understand your objection. I'll give it some thought.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Nevermind, you said so explicitly!
qtronman 3 years ago
:) sure. I don't count myself as an an objectivist, but I find some aspects of Rands thinking are very compelling.
bitbutter 3 years ago
The primacy of existence. Were you influenced by the philosophy of Objectivism?
qtronman 3 years ago
Very good analysis.Its close to what i believe.
Religion creates a God a "higher"consciousness to explain creation,to give a cause.If u accept that ,then its only logical to ask "who created the creator?"They ll answer that the limited human mind is unable to comprehend Gods existence....Why cant i just accept the incomprehensiveness of regress in the first place ?
Please excuse my english as i m Greek..lol
ObsidianHelios 3 years ago
to even be asking why? i exist or even question our origin proves a higher divine being...but you have wonder-what will happen when i die? no matter what age you are sooner or later this question will haunt and scare many to simply unexist for me is an extreme thing to think about to exist is all we know, we have and cannot even fathom not existing yet you play with it as if you dont care but even to put this vid up means you are thinking and searching for an answer or in hopes to be disproven
jesse7037 4 years ago
"to even be asking why? i exist or even question our origin proves a higher divine being."
I'm not sure how you're reaching that conclusion but it doesn't follow.
"yet you play with it as if you dont care"
Of course i care. It's a big deal!
"but you have wonder-what will happen when i die?"
Mark Twain said it best:
"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
bitbutter 4 years ago
Excellent exposition. It expresses much that I've thought myself, however whereas it's bound to hurt most traditional beliefs (in god), it only strengthens mine, as I see no distinction between consciousness and 'dumb' existence; i.e. existence=consciousness.
DELLBIRD 4 years ago
That is an incredibly silly statement, if you think about the definitions of those words. "Existence" denotes all that which has ever existed or will ever exist. "Consciousness" means nothing more than a faculty of certain living organisms that perceives that which exists. Consciousness is therefore entirely dependent on existence, whereas existence will continue to exist independently of consciousness. To equate the terms is to destroy the meaning of both.
wnsyipsp 4 years ago
I concede to your analysis of the words in question, at least in their current & strict senses. But you misunderstand me, I do not say that this is what theses words mean, but that this is what I believe them to be, and therefore what I feel they ought to mean.
Furthermore, what is a definition (especially of things we study scientifically such as matter/gravity/consciousness/existence/etc) but OUR DESCRIPTION OF IT in terms of OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF IT;
DELLBIRD 4 years ago
& just as our scientific knowledge is changing, so too is/will our language change right alongside it.
Whereas you may be content living with and not looking past the understanding and definitions of today, thinking them to be full and complete, I look freely to the new and undiscovered of tomorrow, unhampered by the man-made categories of yesterday.
Warning, do not become complacent in a single view of the world, as 'fundamentalism' is not relegated to religion alone.
DELLBIRD 4 years ago
I agree inasmuch as the illusion of consciousness is but a minuscule fragment of infinite unconscious existence. Consciousness implies the necessary limitations of time and space, when deep down we know that our own consciousness is really just on loan from the universe; our real identity IS infinite.
themanyone 4 years ago
Thanks dellbird. While i don't consider existence to be consciousness, consciousness is certainly an 'instance' of existence.
bitbutter 3 years ago
exactly man
botchbud 4 years ago
Excellent video, although these sort of ideas tend to make my brain hurt!! In his 5 Q for atheists, Veritas48 asked why is there something rather than nothing, which got me thinking, can nothing exist (existence presupposes something)? Is it because it is impossible for us to imagine absolutely nothing, or is absolute nothing an impossibility?
shoyhoy 4 years ago
"can nothing exist (existence presupposes something)?"
To me the question is contradictory, as i think you're also suggesting. As to whether nothingness can be imagined: i think not--we can fool ourselves into thinking we can imagine absence of everything, but even in the act of imagining we unwittingly position ourselves 'in' the nothingness. And since we are consciousness, and consciousness exists, we are not really imagining nothing, so it's a doomed project.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Many thanks bitbutter, I'll stop now before I think myself out of existence!
shoyhoy 4 years ago
In defining God entirely in terms of consciousness, it seems like you are setting up a strawman argument.
God's name was given in the OT in terms of existence itself. The implication of this name is that, at least, existence itself is a quality of God. By this understanding, "Existence trumps God" presents a false dichotomy.
gorgonzolaaa 4 years ago
"The implication of this name is that, at least, existence itself is a quality of God."
You are welcome to claim that existence itself is semantically equivalent with god. But in this case you are proposing pantheism and are no longer talking about a theistic god because the claim that something with human-like characteristics _is_ existence itself is unintelligible.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I did not say that it is equivalent to God; I said that it is a quality of God.
I'm not sure what the nature of this quality is, although I suspect that it has something to do with essence being equivalent to existence.
gorgonzolaaa 4 years ago
Sorry fr the misinterpretation.
I disagree that existence can be a quality of a thing, rather existence is a prerequisite of 'thingness'.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Believe as you will, but your argument as applied to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God is strawman. Feel free to use it against Allah. ;)
gorgonzolaaa 4 years ago
"but your argument as applied to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God is strawman."
As long as christians claim that God exists, at the same time claim that he is the ultimate foundation, as many seem to be doing, this is not a straw man.
bitbutter 4 years ago
How so? Can God not be an "ultimate foundation" (I'm assuming metaphorically speaking) while simultaneously having existence as a quality?
I know that there are many common misunderstandings of Judeo-Christianity in general, but I'm not sure this could be a relevant one.
Have you read Aquinas? He wrote extensively on essence and existence. Going back over Summa Theologica, it seems that Aquinas claims that God is existence itself. I need to do some more digging on this.
gorgonzolaaa 4 years ago
"Can God not be an "ultimate foundation" [..] while simultaneously having existence as a quality?"
No, because if the claim is that 'God exists' the genuine foundation has to be existence itself because we can't explain god's existence in terms that don't presuppose existence. Existence is axiomatic. God, if he exists, is contingent, he comes in 2nd place ;)
bitbutter 4 years ago
Again, this is only true if you presume that existence is external to the nature of God. Claiming that existence in and of itself is axiomatic, is nothing more than an assertion that God does not exist; it is begging the question (circular reasoning).
gorgonzolaaa 4 years ago
"Claiming that existence in and of itself is axiomatic, is nothing more than an assertion that God does not exist; "
hi. I'm not claiming, or asserting, that god does not exist.
bitbutter 4 years ago
"God, if he exists, is contingent"
Right. Paul Tillich did a great job in Protestant Theology with this very idea. If interested, check out the Wiki article for some good leads. I'd recommend the collection of his sermons, "The Eternal Now," as well.
MikeSarno 4 years ago
Thanks, interesting stuff. I hadn't come across 'Transtheism' before.
bitbutter 4 years ago
christians fancy that they understand god because they read a book written by humans and babble rhetoric because if they did not babble rhetoric about it then the emotion that they first associated with the system of psychology and the perpetuations of that association would be destroyed, and it's so very closely tied in with the emotion and sense of self.. who wants their existence to lose integrity? am I making sense? it's all self perpetual rhetoric. Understanding god on someone else's ground
botchbud 4 years ago
'Triangle ABC looks isosceles therefore...'
Mjhavok 4 years ago
Allah will punish you for this! No kidding =P you are right to my oppinion.
NLExport 4 years ago
Allah's earthly representatives do quite enough punishing already :)
bitbutter 4 years ago
Consciousness allows us to contemplate the fact we do exist...having a Creator with consciousness makes our consciousness intelligible...
Also, you ignore the fact that you are left with an infinite regress as an atheist...even if you consider existence first, it begs the question: "How did we arrive to today from an infinite past?" This leads us to a Creator for our origins...logic also directs us to understand that this Creator has mind.
Creative consciousness is foundational.
antipelagian 4 years ago
"Also, you ignore the fact that [etc]"
None of this is relevant to this vid.
"Creative consciousness is foundational."
I guess you weren't paying attention.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I was paying attention...your argument is completely weak and begs fundamental questions.
For instance: You cannot "prove" your own existence...not apart from consciousness...then you have the problems paleo and I have been harping on for months.
antipelagian 4 years ago
"I was paying attention"
If you were then you'd understand the that following is not a rebuttal: "Consciousness allows us to contemplate the fact we do exist...having a Creator with consciousness makes our consciousness intelligible."
Read it again please.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Ok, i'll bite. Once more:
'it begs the question: "How did we arrive to today from an infinite past?"'
Atheism does no such thing, stop playing dumb. Certain views on cosmology might imply an infinite past. Atheism alone most certainly doesn't.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I never look at atheism "alone"...every view has further implications...those implications can demonstrate the premise is *wrong*.
You want to act as if atheism can exist in a vacuum...but there are consequences to the supposition of atheism...cosmological issues, for example.
antipelagian 4 years ago
"but there are consequences to the supposition of atheism...cosmological issues, for example."
Consequences to the suppositions of atheism? That just makes no sense.
I don't believe in bigfoot. What consequences result from that lack of belief?
UnBeguiled 4 years ago
When you put it that way...well golly...I never thought about that...there are absolutely no metaphysical consequences to atheism, and absolutely no cosmological quandries created (pun intended)...I guess I just need to start thinking in terms of Bigfoot being the same as belief in God.
Let's make a deal: God is to Bigfoot as abiogenesis is to spontaneous generation...(except I won't agree to those terms...and abiogensis is the "churched up scientific" acceptance of spontaneous generation).
antipelagian 4 years ago
Craig, the point is you don't know anything about a particular atheist's suppositions, so their is no one "supposition of atheism".
I have certain suppositions, sure, everybody does.
You need to learn how to have a real conversation. Look at your comments here and see how many tangents you go off on.
UnBeguiled 4 years ago
You just want to make believe atheism entails nothing beyond "lack of belief in God". Atheism and theism are pivotal beliefs that inform other beliefs...it's far different than you opting for a turkey sandwhich while I opt for roast beef.
antipelagian 4 years ago
Thank you for the advice on having a conversation...the modus operandi is always the same...write off what I have to say and chalk what I have to say up to me having some sort of deficiency...sometimes it's ignorance, other times stupidity, other times it's arrogance...this time it's more of a problem related to being antisocial...
antipelagian 4 years ago
Oh, stop whining.
I do not "make believe atheism entails nothing beyond "lack of belief in God". Like I clearly said, I do have suppositions that lead me to atheism.
But you cannot generalize about atheists, just like when someone says they believe in God, I have no idea what that means until they extrapolate.
UnBeguiled 4 years ago
And I'm only speaking for myself . . . I have never accused you of stupidity or arrogance or being antisocial.
You are ignorant of some things, as I am of many things. Also, I think you have difficulty staying on point. You seem to gallop off in many directions, mimicking Duane Gish.
UnBeguiled 4 years ago
"you ignore the fact that you are left with an infinite regress as an atheist"
Atheism doesn't preclude an "uncaused cause" if that's what you're getting at.
Now that you've been corrected please don't mischaracterise what atheism implies about cosmology again, it's getting boring.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Atheism may not preclude an uncaused cause...but there's no way of describing such a thing...well, not according to atheism, at least. We have no experience of there being uncaused causes, and trusting induction becomes highly problematic given the metaphysic atheism requires to allow an uncaused cause...you find this boring...but it's so fundamental that children recognize the problem.
antipelagian 4 years ago
Your metaphysic doesn't afford you the assumptions you use, but that doesn't matter...use logic and the scientific method...but when it comes time to evaluating your presuppositions...begging the question is a real hoot...and philisophically acceptable.
antipelagian 4 years ago
"trusting induction becomes highly problematic given the metaphysic atheism requires to allow an uncaused cause"
Ok here's a refresher: trusting induction is problematic _anyway_, no matter what your metaphysical convictions are. This is 'the problem of induction'. If you don't yet understand why your w/view fails to solve it check the vids: "Underestimating the problem of induction" and "Miracles and inductive inference".
bitbutter 4 years ago
I've checked your vids...unfortunately, you don't allow the Christian worldview to be internally critiqued...you're combatting a swordsman made of straw.
antipelagian 4 years ago
If you could be more specific about exactly how you think what I said in the vids fails as an internal critique that'd be helpful (commenting on those video threads would be the best place for it).
bitbutter 4 years ago
Existence is a human concept. A construct of the mind. Drop the word, imagine a time before a mind exists, and the logical conclusion still holds: "from nothing, nothing comes". Your statement, though cryptic enough to cause one to pause, is semantics only. It appears to me that it is irrelevant to the argument for design of our universe. If you postulated that "existence" was an object, you might be on to someting. But you used it properly, as a construct of a mind.
rUTokKIN2ME 4 years ago
hi. I'm not sure exactly what your objection is. What part do you disagree with?
bitbutter 4 years ago
Ill try to put it another way: I think theists don't want to have something dumb or arbitrary seeming as an ultimate foundation, (they prefer something human-like, purposeful) so they have this divine consciousness as the solution. But they've still failed to dodge the foundational dumbness because that consciousness exists for no reason (just like any other thing that you use to fill the uncaused cause shaped slot).
bitbutter 4 years ago
If we realise that there's always the inscrutable fact of existence behind any solution to the regress, we can drop the futile effort to slot something human-like and purposeful in as the ground of all being.
bitbutter 4 years ago
OK...I agree with you about ex nihilo consciousness...BUT I don't think that you fully explain your what you mean by the NECESSITY of existence before that of consciousness. What then do you make of the possibility of experiencialism within the early monism of Russell or Whitehead? By introducing this analysis of causation can't we find a place for consciouness? This is not in support of theism, but of a more considered naturalism.
2bsirius 4 years ago
hi 2bsirius. What i was tryong to get as is that existence is axiomatic and necessary, and that consciousness is contingent. I hope that's a sensible answer.
I'm afraid i don't know much about experientialism, and a quick google just now wasn't enough for me to really understand how it relates to the subject.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Yes, I agree that the default idea that existence comes before consciousness. I was just trying to point out that it is a position that lots of philosophers take issue with. Among them are Galen Strawson, Gregg Rosenberg, Alfred North Whitehead and even some aspects of the philosphy of Bertrand Russell. I'd love to say more on this, but 500 wds.
2bsirius 4 years ago
I'd be interested to hear more about the criticisms of POE. Any chance of a video about it? (I don't count myself as an objectivist but i think they have the metaphysical primacy thing wrapped up).
bitbutter 4 years ago
contigent on existence... nice thought.
maksiiiskam2 4 years ago
What about the concept of eternity though? If the god always existed, then that would make the sitution at least coherent, as a universe must have a cause but a god perhaps not by definition. this is how their argument goes, I believe. But, woudl you say such eternal existence depends on 'existence' itself? This seems odd to me- I see how it works in your example but can you apply it to this one?
EverettsVLOG 4 years ago
"But, woudl you say such eternal existence depends on 'existence' itself? This seems odd to me"
Yes absolutely. Eternal or not, every existent is 'there' because existence itself exists without any possible explanation. This applies to disembodied, eternal, consciousnesses as well as everything else.
bitbutter 4 years ago
This sounds like semantic slight of hand bit. Existence isn't a thing. It is a description of a thing. The conclusion is not that "existence exists", rather that somethink eternal (without beginning) must be.
rUTokKIN2ME 4 years ago
I think existence is neither a thing NOR a description of at thing, but it is the precondition for descriptions.
EverettsVLOG 4 years ago
Would that hold for imaginary things? In other words, do you allow for the "existence" of things that are not material? I do. Logic, mental concepts such as math, for examples. If you and I decide not to define imaginary things, or things like my examples as "existing" then I would have to argue that you can describe something that does not exist. So to repeat the question: "do all things that exist have to be material?"
rUTokKIN2ME 4 years ago
'So to repeat the question: "do all things that exist have to be material?"'
According to my w/view 'material' isn't quite the right word, physical says it better. logic, thought, abstractions etc are patterns. I agree with EverettsVLOG, existence itself is not a thing, rather it is a precondition of thingness.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I am extremely interested in the idea that "objects" of the mind, which are not physical, are patterns. I find that explanation wanting. Patterns are used to communicate thoughts, certainly, but I don't understand how they can "be" thoughts. I am working on a vid series that will include this subject, so your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
rUTokKIN2ME 4 years ago
"I am extremely interested in the idea that "objects" of the mind, which are not physical, are patterns. "
Hi. My contention is that these patterns _are_ physical. 'material' implies 'made of matter', which excludes movement, for example. 'Physical' is broader, encompassing arrangements and patterns of matter and motion.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Pattern presumes order...also, pattern is just another word for seeing relationships between things/ideas. Pattern,btw, is a category...there are different occassions of order and pattern...so patterm, to be intelligible, is a concept...which is immaterial & unobservable.
Perhaps you argue pattern is a product of mind? If not, why patterns and not chaos? Of course...I'm asking this with the presumption you will not be arbitrary and you'll explain how order is a consequence of your metaphysic.
antipelagian 4 years ago
"so patterm, to be intelligible, is a concept...which is immaterial & unobservable."
On my view, concepts themselves _are_ patterns (as are other phenomena including movement). And patterns are, in principle, observable. Immaterial? yes, non-physical? no.
"Perhaps you argue pattern is a product of mind? If not, why patterns and not chaos? "
I don't follow the question, can you rephrase?
bitbutter 4 years ago