A question for everyone

[GDL]

Man's existence is not but the fact that existence exists is. Identity is an axiom because of the 100% concurrence of existence and identity. To exist is to be something and something specific. Think of identity as the attributes of a thing. And to be something is to exist as opposed to being nothing. We can't drill down any further because the concept "existence" is the most fundamental concept. It denotes everything that exists. Any valid concept identifies something that exists.

Thank you for the answer.

Identity and/or existence, as you may prefer, of man, at least, is not the starting point/axiom for morality (being the inquiry in the OP), at least for those outside the atheistic and agnostic persuasion. Nor was man's existence the irreducible axiom for the Philosophers or man in general who has seemingly always asked where and how we came into being. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know, so please don't see this as my attempting to teach you.

Existence of man and things doesn't answer where morality came from, at least for a large part of humanity. Nor is perception the foundation of knowledge as the OP states.

 

[durangodawood]

... To exist is to be something and something specific....

To exist is also to be something changing.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

To exist is also to be something changing.

Yeah, but the fact that existence exists doesn't change.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Thank you for the answer.

Identity and/or existence, as you may prefer, of man, at least, is not the starting point/axiom for morality (being the inquiry in the OP), at least for those outside the atheistic and agnostic persuasion. Nor was man's existence the irreducible axiom for the Philosophers or man in general who has seemingly always asked where and how we came into being. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know, so please don't see this as my attempting to teach you.

Existence of man and things doesn't answer where morality came from, at least for a large part of humanity. Nor is perception the foundation of knowledge as the OP states.

Sure it is. If man does not exist and is not what he is then there's no need for morality.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

It's evident. Isn't that enough?

But the process is to reduce an idea to an axiom. The idea that the genome must propagate is not irreducible. What's a genome? what does propagate mean? These concepts are dependent on more fundamental knowledge.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, but the fact that existence exists doesn't change.

This goes into territory I dont understand.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I can think of two 'facts of reality' as you call them. That I see as absolutely a moral choice.

The first fact, alcoholism. When I left home, I lived in some boarding houses and they were populated to some extent by alcoholics. Having observed the suffering and medical problems, that alcoholics experience. I vowed, I would never drink alcohol. That was a moral choice and a health choice.

The second observable fact, drug addiction. Unfortunately, I knew a number of heroin addicts and ice addicts. I also knew addicts that were addicted to certain prescription drugs. The suffering and medical problems were prolific. I am terrified of addictive drugs. I never want to experience the suffering, the withdrawals, the broken families, the ruined lives. Once again, moral choices.

No one want's to experience these two facts.

Why do you put "facts of reality" in quotes as if this is an iffy or doubtable phrase. Are you saying that it's not a fact that man exists?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

This goes into territory I dont understand.

Yeah, that's the point. Most people accept ideas without knowing what they are based on. They take things like existence for granted. This exercise is to make what is implicit in an idea explicit in our minds so that we know that idea down to its root.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What is the difference between a fact and a primary fact?

################
Edit: So far, I'm unable to see what you're saying as an uncommon way of thinking.

Maybe I lack the capability to grasp what you're saying.
Or maybe what you're saying is "ungraspable", irrational.
Or maybe it's the way most people think and you're using different words for it.

Have a good one, my man!

A primary is a fact that is irreducible. It is not dependent on other facts. It is something known directly from perceiving reality and not the product of an inference. When I open my eyes the first thing I'm aware of is that things exist. This is a primary. In grasping that things exist I also grasp that I do and that I'm conscious. That's a primary. Morality is not a primary. It's a higher-level abstraction.

 

[GDL]

Sure it is. If man does not exist and is not what he is then there's no need for morality.

The principles of morality preexist man, as does knowledge, thus my point of man's existence not being an irreducible axiom for many throughout history, but simply a chosen starting point for a certain discussion.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The principles of morality preexist man, as does knowledge, thus my point of man's existence not being an irreducible axiom for many throughout history, but simply a chosen starting point for a certain discussion.

Really? How does a concept pre-exist the thing which forms concepts in the first place? Do you think that concepts are intrinsic in the universe? Without the existence of a being that faces the fundamental alternative of life or death, how could there be such a thing as a moral principle?

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, that's the point. Most people accept ideas without knowing what they are based on. They take things like existence for granted. This exercise is to make what is implicit in an idea explicit in our minds so that we know that idea down to its root.

This root seems absurd. "Existence exists"?

What I get from this is that fundamentals are basically unknowable and inexpressible. This confirms my sense that the human mind did not evolve for tasks like this.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

This root seems absurd. "Existence exists"?

What I get from this is that fundamentals are basically unknowable and inexpressible. This confirms my sense that the human mind did not evolve for tasks like this.

I see. Recognizing the fact that there is a reality is absurd? Why have a discussion then since the concept of discussion rests on an absurdity? Fundamentals are unknowable? The fact that existence exists is unknowable? How do you know this? The fact that there is a reality is inexpressible? The axiom that existence exists expresses this fact perfectly.

 

[durangodawood]

I see. Recognizing the fact that there is a reality is absurd? Why have a discussion then since the concept of discussion rests on an absurdity?

Yes, absurd, strictly speaking. But thats a loaded term which also means "ridiculous", which is not what I mean.

We can reasonably discuss things that are within the realm of human comprehension. There's plenty there to build a theory of morality from.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yes, absurd, strictly speaking. But thats a loaded term which also means "ridiculous", which is not what I mean.

We can reasonably discuss things that are within the realm of human comprehension. There's plenty there to build a theory of morality from.

Absurd means wildly unreasonable. So it's wildly unreasonable to say that existence, all the things which exist, actually exist. This is unreasonable? It's not comprehensible to you that you exist and that you are not a ham sandwich or a yoga mat but a man. You seem to be spinning off into absurdity Why can't you just acknowledge that man exists and he has an identity? This is self-evident and it seems so silly to argue over it. You can comprehend abstractions like realm, strictly, rediculous, and loaded but you can't comprehend that existence exists?

 

[durangodawood]

Absurd means wildly unreasonable. So it's wildly unreasonable to say that existence, all the things which exist, actually exist. This is unreasonable? It's not comprehensible to you that you exist and that you are not a ham sandwich or a yoga mat but a man. You seem to be spinning off into absurdity Why can't you just acknowledge that man exists and he has an identity? This is self-evident and it seems so silly to argue over it. You can comprehend abstractions like realm, strictly, rediculous, and loaded but you can't comprehend that existence exists?

Yes it is unreasonable to say, as you put it "....all the things which exist, actually exist." Its just a restatement of the word exist. The sentence advances nothing, and so there's no meaning there, just grammatical correctness.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yes it is unreasonable to say, as you put it "....all the things which exist, actually exist." Its just a restatement of the word exist. The sentence advances nothing, and so there's no meaning there, just grammatical correctness.

No, it's not. It's the formal recognition of an axiomatic truth in the form of a universal principle. all S is P. Everything that exists is something as opposed to nothing. It's unreasonable in your view to recognize this fact.

 

[GDL]

Really? How does a concept pre-exist the thing which forms concepts in the first place? Do you think that concepts are intrinsic in the universe? Without the existence of a being that faces the fundamental alternative of life or death, how could there be such a thing as a moral principle?

Surely, you've seen my posted identity as "Christian" and thus know my answer. If not, then I'm giving you too much credit for what you must know. You have many points you're making that simply conform to your worldview, but to those who don't share it, they are simply viewed as being erroneous. The concepts you speak of pre-existed man, because they reside and are intrinsic in the One who created and eternally pre-existed man and the universe.

 

[durangodawood]

No, it's not. It's the formal recognition of an axiomatic truth in the form of a universal principle. all S is P. Everything that exists is something as opposed to nothing. It's unreasonable in your view to recognize this fact.

The sentence says nothing. "Exists = exists" says nothing. Its as useful just saying "exists".

Fundamentals like this are not rational. They are mystical at best.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The sentence says nothing. "Exists = exists" says nothing. Its as useful just saying "exists".

Fundamentals like this are not rational. They are mystical at best.

I think you might like the word tautology.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The sentence says nothing. "Exists = exists" says nothing. Its as useful just saying "exists".

But that's not what I said. I said existence exists. I didn't say exist=exist. Look, If I say that a tree exists is that saying nothing? Exist=Exist is not a statement of the form all S is P. When I say that trees exist, I'm saying that all trees exist. That is the same thing as saying that all trees that exist are real. This distinguishes them from things that are not. Is it not important in your worldview to make a distinction between what's real and what isn't? Because that would explain a lot of our interactions on this forum.