(September 6, 2019 at 1:56 am)Objectivist Wrote: The primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.  

 
(This is a typo that's supposed to say "true" instead of "false".....? Or maybe I'm confused....?)

Quote:That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e.,  Consciousness is metaphysically passive.

I'm on board with most of this. I see no reason to doubt that there is stuff "out there." Things exist independent of me, don't need my consciousness, will continue to exist when I'm gone, etc.

I think I'd dissent, though, on the idea that consciousness is passive. I don't think we evolved to perceive the world passively. Our sense organs receive input (e.g. light or sound) passively, but our minds edit and interpret all of that before we are even aware of it. This had evolutionary advantage in that we automatically picked out from the environment the things that were more important for us. 

As a simple example, when you meet a friend you are far more aware of his face than of his thigh. His thigh is bigger, so if consciousness were passive it would loom larger in our awareness. But the face contains the information we are interested in, so we focus on that and pretty much ignore the thigh. 

This doesn't mean that thighs don't exist, or that our minds "create" stuff in the world. Just that our relationship to that stuff isn't passive. 

Quote:Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship. 

This I'm not seeing yet.....

In what way does every version of theism hold that consciousness is primary? Is it because God is said to be conscious? I don't understand. 

Quote:They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you."  Matthew 17:20.

The idea that faith, or prayer, can perform acts on objects is doubtful, I agree. But I don't see why mental stuff influencing matter would mean that consciousness is primary over existence. 

It doesn't seem right to me that in every case if X can influence or change Y, then X is in some way has "primacy" over Y. 

If your kids scream loudly enough, they can make you do something. But in what way do they have "primacy" over you? Not temporal primacy, because of course you came before your kids. There may be a power struggle, in which there are different winners at different times, but how does this establish some kind of metaphysical "primacy"? 

Objects are objects, and ESP, telekinesis, etc., are myths. That's fair. But I don't get the rest of the metaphysical claims here......

Quote:If your kids scream loudly enough, they can make you do something.

In which case you have failed as a parent.  Off topic, but there we are.

Boru

(September 6, 2019 at 1:56 am)Objectivist Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 6:47 pm)mcc1789 Wrote: Can you explain why? I'm not very familiar with Objectivism. Others here likely aren't either.

Hi,

If an idea contradicts a fact of reality, then that idea is false because contradictions cannot exist.  If it's false then to believe it is irrational.  The primacy of existence principle identifies a fundamental truth, that of the relationship between consciousness and its objects.  This relationship is the most basic issue in philosophy and it is both knowable by direct perception and it is rationally undeniable.  This relationship is also contextually fixed, in that the subject and object cannot change places.  One would have to accept it's truth in order to try and deny it.  In denying its truth, one would be tacitly relying on its truth. That's because anyone who makes any statement of fact is implicitly saying that the state of affairs, in reality, is this, independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.   To deny it would be to contradict one's self; the primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary. You see?

This principle lies at the root of all knowledge, whether one identifies it explicitly, as Objectivism does, or if it remains only implicit.  It is a primary and inescapable fact of reality.  It's also known as the principle of objectivity.  It's the root of the concept objectivity.  

Now, what does it say?  The objects of consciousness exist and are what they are and do what they do independent of anyone's conscious activity.  Objects are the things we are aware of and the subject is any conscientiousness that is aware of them.  That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e.,  Consciousness is metaphysically passive.

Now reason, being a kind of conscious activity, identifies the facts, it doesn't create them or alter them.  The five dollar bill in your wallet with remain a five dollar bill no matter how much you scrunch your eyes tight and believe that it will turn into a hundred dollar bill.  Facts are absolutes that don't care about your feelings. Therefore reason presupposes the primacy of existence and is incompatible with the primacy of consciousness. Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship. They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you."  Matthew 17:20.

Well, that's the bare bones, I hope it helps.  For a further explanation do a google search for David Kelley primacy of existence.

Very interesting. I believe the theist would agree (in most cases) they're independent of our consciousness, though not God's. Of course I've also heard of philosophical idealism which apparently can take a non-theistic form and also holds the contrary view (like some New Age and Eastern ideas). How would you answer them saying that, while it may be true any person who states "this is a fact" relies on there being an objective reality, it does not apply to God (in their view, the only fully existent thing)? That is, there's nothing wholly independent of God and what he wills (everything apart owes its existence to him, they say)? Or what of a skeptic, who might simply deny we know any facts?

---

(September 6, 2019 at 3:44 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 1:56 am)Objectivist Wrote: The primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.  

 
(This is a typo that's supposed to say "true" instead of "false".....? Or maybe I'm confused....?)

Quote:That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e.,  Consciousness is metaphysically passive.

I'm on board with most of this. I see no reason to doubt that there is stuff "out there." Things exist independent of me, don't need my consciousness, will continue to exist when I'm gone, etc.

I think I'd dissent, though, on the idea that consciousness is passive. I don't think we evolved to perceive the world passively. Our sense organs receive input (e.g. light or sound) passively, but our minds edit and interpret all of that before we are even aware of it. This had evolutionary advantage in that we automatically picked out from the environment the things that were more important for us. 

As a simple example, when you meet a friend you are far more aware of his face than of his thigh. His thigh is bigger, so if consciousness were passive it would loom larger in our awareness. But the face contains the information we are interested in, so we focus on that and pretty much ignore the thigh. 

This doesn't mean that thighs don't exist, or that our minds "create" stuff in the world. Just that our relationship to that stuff isn't passive. 

Quote:Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship. 

This I'm not seeing yet.....

In what way does every version of theism hold that consciousness is primary? Is it because God is said to be conscious? I don't understand. 

Quote:They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you."  Matthew 17:20.

The idea that faith, or prayer, can perform acts on objects is doubtful, I agree. But I don't see why mental stuff influencing matter would mean that consciousness is primary over existence. 

It doesn't seem right to me that in every case if X can influence or change Y, then X is in some way has "primacy" over Y. 

If your kids scream loudly enough, they can make you do something. But in what way do they have "primacy" over you? Not temporal primacy, because of course you came before your kids. There may be a power struggle, in which there are different winners at different times, but how does this establish some kind of metaphysical "primacy"? 

Objects are objects, and ESP, telekinesis, etc., are myths. That's fair. But I don't get the rest of the metaphysical claims here......

In regards to theism and consciousness, I believe this is because it teaches that God's mind is behind all things, not a non-conscious whatever.

Hi Belaqua,

Sorry about the format.  I don't know how to work all the quotes on this forum yet (yes, it's true I'm really dumb about all this computer stuff).  I'll get it figured out as soon as I have time to sit and play with it.  

I had written:  The primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.

You responded:  "(This is a typo that's supposed to say "true" instead of "false".....? Or maybe I'm confused....?)"

I was attempting to demonstrate how a denial of the primacy of existence would contradict itself.  The part in italics is the part that is implicitly in any statement about reality.  You could tack this onto any statement anyone might make which is supposed to represent a fact.  Sorry if it was confusing.  If you said for instance that Apples are green, the "independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary" would be implicit in that statement.  This would be true even for statements that aren't true because I doubt anyone would say their statement was true because they said so or because they want it to be true.  

I had written:  That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e.,  Consciousness is metaphysically passive.

You responded:  "I'm on board with most of this. I see no reason to doubt that there is stuff "out there." Things exist independent of me, don't need my consciousness, will continue to exist when I'm gone, etc.

I think I'd dissent, though, on the idea that consciousness is passive. I don't think we evolved to perceive the world passively. Our sense organs receive input (e.g. light or sound) passively, but our minds edit and interpret all of that before we are even aware of it. This had evolutionary advantage in that we automatically picked out from the environment the things that were more important for us. 

As a simple example, when you meet a friend you are far more aware of his face than of his thigh. His thigh is bigger, so if consciousness were passive it would loom larger in our awareness. But the face contains the information we are interested in, so we focus on that and pretty much ignore the thigh. 

This doesn't mean that thighs don't exist, or that our minds "create" stuff in the world. Just that our relationship to that stuff isn't passive."

I should have said Metaphysically passive, but epistemologically active.  

I had written:  Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship.  

You responded:  "This I'm not seeing yet.....

In what way does every version of theism hold that consciousness is primary? Is it because God is said to be conscious? I don't understand." 

No, because of the relationship that God's consciousness is said to have to its objects.  It is said that existence is dependent on it, is maintained by it and can be altered by it, i.e., the doctrine of creation, miracles, its plan, etc. 

I had written: They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you."  Matthew 17:20.

You responded:  "The idea that faith, or prayer, can perform acts on objects is doubtful, I agree. But I don't see why mental stuff influencing matter would mean that consciousness is primary over existence. 

It doesn't seem right to me that in every case if X can influence or change Y, then X is in some way has "primacy" over Y. 

If your kids scream loudly enough, they can make you do something. But in what way do they have "primacy" over you? Not temporal primacy, because of course, you came before your kids. There may be a power struggle, in which there are different winners at different times, but how does this establish some kind of metaphysical "primacy"? 

Objects are objects, and ESP, telekinesis, etc., are myths. That's fair. But I don't get the rest of the metaphysical claims here......"

Your kids screaming is a physical action carried out by physical means, so it would not count.  If the child wished that his green beans were Apple pie and poof the green beans became Apple pie, then that would be a case of the primacy of consciousness.  

If x can influence or change y, where y is some object of its awareness other than its own mental activity, purely by thinking, wishing, wanting, desiring, etc,  then that would be an instance of the primacy of consciousness.  

I highly recommend, if you want to understand this issue, that you do a search for David Kelley primacy of existence.  He's a great speaker and he really knows how to make this stuff understandable.  He can do a much better job than my feeble attempt.  It isn't too long and I think you'll learn a lot.

(September 6, 2019 at 7:23 pm)Objectivist Wrote: Hi Belaqua,

Sorry about the format.  [...]

Many thanks for this detailed and kind response! 

I appreciate that you are willing to discuss these things like adults!

The format is far less important....

I'll respond later today when my morning duties are taken care of. In the meantime, there is much here to ponder.

(September 6, 2019 at 7:23 pm)Objectivist Wrote: The part in italics is the part that is implicitly in any statement about reality.  

Understood!

Quote:I should have said Metaphysically passive, but epistemologically active.  

That makes sense. 

Quote:No, because of the relationship that God's consciousness is said to have to its objects.  It is said that existence is dependent on it, is maintained by it and can be altered by it, i.e., the doctrine of creation, miracles, its plan, etc. 

Here's where everybody's going to get mad at me. 

Lately I have been talking about the doctrine of divine simplicity. Apparently this isn't something people think much about, yet it is crucial in the theology of all the big name theologians -- Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Also in most of the theistic philosophers. 

According to divine simplicity, God has no parts, and excludes nothing. Everything is God. So it's only an analogy to talk about God's "consciousness" as if it's similar to peoples' consciousness. 

When people are conscious of things, it means there are at least two things: the person, and the thing he's conscious of. It requires separation. 

It's different for God's consciousness (they say) because when God is "conscious" of something, in fact it's not two things. God includes the thing. Or better, God is the thing -- God is the existence of the thing. Plotinus and others talk of God as the One -- meaning it excludes nothing. The same idea is important in Buddhism, where it's called   不二 -- "not two." 

Now, since God is not two, and God is the existence of everything, it is wrong to say that God is conscious of objects and can change or maintain them by his thought. In fact God is existence itself (they say), so God's thought is exactly equal to existence, which is exactly equal to everything. 

So in this sense existence is not prior to consciousness (for God), because for him they are identical. 

This becomes important in mystical thinkers like Plotinus and William Blake. They are adamant that the world, which is God, is one. It seems separate to us because our perceptions are limited. But, as Blake said, “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” (For them, the Fall of man is not about disobedience but about a separation of perceptions.) 

For these theistic thinkers, then, existence is not prior to consciousness because, again, they are one. They seem to think that if we regain our full perception, then the apparent distinction between existence and consciousness would be revealed as a misunderstanding. 

I do think it would be reasonable to say that, according to these guys, existence is prior to consciousness in our current fallen state. Things exist, and we are conscious of them through a kind of active epistemology, but this is only due to our present limitations. 

So OK, in most naive or run-of-the-mill views of religion, it would make sense to say that existence is prior. But in the traditional theology of the great philosophers (which is strangely little-known among modern people), I don't think it's right.

[quote pid='1931281' dateline='1567831407']

Here's where everybody's going to get mad at me. 

Lately I have been talking about the doctrine of divine simplicity. Apparently this isn't something people think much about, yet it is crucial in the theology of all the big name theologians -- Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Also in most of the theistic philosophers. 

According to divine simplicity, God has no parts, and excludes nothing. Everything is God. So it's only an analogy to talk about God's "consciousness" as if it's similar to peoples' consciousness. 

When people are conscious of things, it means there are at least two things: the person, and the thing he's conscious of. It requires separation. 

It's different for God's consciousness (they say) because when God is "conscious" of something, in fact it's not two things. God includes the thing. Or better, God is the thing -- God is the existence of the thing. Plotinus and others talk of God as the One -- meaning it excludes nothing. The same idea is important in Buddhism, where it's called   不二 -- "not two." 

Now, since God is not two, and God is the existence of everything, it is wrong to say that God is conscious of objects and can change or maintain them by his thought. In fact God is existence itself (they say), so God's thought is exactly equal to existence, which is exactly equal to everything. 

So in this sense existence is not prior to consciousness (for God), because for him they are identical. 

This becomes important in mystical thinkers like Plotinus and William Blake. They are adamant that the world, which is God, is one. It seems separate to us because our perceptions are limited. But, as Blake said, “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” (For them, the Fall of man is not about disobedience but about a separation of perceptions.) 

For these theistic thinkers, then, existence is not prior to consciousness because, again, they are one. They seem to think that if we regain our full perception, then the apparent distinction between existence and consciousness would be revealed as a misunderstanding. 

I do think it would be reasonable to say that, according to these guys, existence is prior to consciousness in our current fallen state. Things exist, and we are conscious of them through a kind of active epistemology, but this is only due to our present limitations. 

So OK, in most naive or run-of-the-mill views of religion, it would make sense to say that existence is prior. But in the traditional theology of the great philosophers (which is strangely little-known among modern people), I don't think it's right.
[/quote]

Here's the problem.  One can ascribe any quality or ability to something that they are imagining.  Guess what, Sparky the wonder unicorn has all those same qualities that these philosophers ascribe to their god.  He's even more amazing and beats God in any contest of awesomeness.  

But, the imaginary is not real.  I can imagine that existence is not prior to consciousness because they are one.  I can imagine all sorts of crazy things, but in the end I'm just imagining.  Because the theist, or the mystic, does not have the primacy of existence principle consciously but only implicitly, he's always in danger of blurring the imaginary with the real.  He can't avoid it because it's the primacy of existence principle that distinguishes between the real and the imaginary, the true and the fantastical.  They would do well study Objectivism.

Hi mcc1789,


Very interesting. I believe the theist would agree (in most cases) they're independent of our consciousness, though not God's. Of course I've also heard of philosophical idealism which apparently can take a non-theistic form and also holds the contrary view (like some New Age and Eastern ideas). How would you answer them saying that, while it may be true any person who states "this is a fact" relies on there being an objective reality, it does not apply to God (in their view, the only fully existent thing)? That is, there's nothing wholly independent of God and what he wills (everything apart owes its existence to him, they say)? Or what of a skeptic, who might simply deny we know any facts?

Yes, this is the typical attempt to sidestep the issue, but they are attempting to straddle the issue and have it both ways.  They can't do that, not in reason.  They do not absolve themselves of subjectivism by doing this, they only move the issue to who's consciousness has primacy.  You can't solve one contradiction by embracing another.  Plus they're stealing concepts.  Their problems multiply like mushrooms after a rainstorm.  

What would I say to a skeptic who denies that we can know facts?  Come back to me when you do have some facts.  Any attempt to attack man's mind refutes itself by retorsion.

How can a being that is one with everything be said to possess consciousness? And how can something that is one with everything have no parts, when everything clearly has parts?

Are you saying that the universe is conscious?

(September 7, 2019 at 12:43 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 7:23 pm)Objectivist Wrote: The part in italics is the part that is implicitly in any statement about reality.  

Understood!

Quote:I should have said Metaphysically passive, but epistemologically active.  

That makes sense. 

Quote:No, because of the relationship that God's consciousness is said to have to its objects.  It is said that existence is dependent on it, is maintained by it and can be altered by it, i.e., the doctrine of creation, miracles, its plan, etc. 

Here's where everybody's going to get mad at me. 

Lately I have been talking about the doctrine of divine simplicity. Apparently this isn't something people think much about, yet it is crucial in the theology of all the big name theologians -- Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Also in most of the theistic philosophers. 

According to divine simplicity, God has no parts, and excludes nothing. Everything is God. So it's only an analogy to talk about God's "consciousness" as if it's similar to peoples' consciousness. 

When people are conscious of things, it means there are at least two things: the person, and the thing he's conscious of. It requires separation. 

It's different for God's consciousness (they say) because when God is "conscious" of something, in fact it's not two things. God includes the thing. Or better, God is the thing -- God is the existence of the thing. Plotinus and others talk of God as the One -- meaning it excludes nothing. The same idea is important in Buddhism, where it's called   不二 -- "not two." 

Now, since God is not two, and God is the existence of everything, it is wrong to say that God is conscious of objects and can change or maintain them by his thought. In fact God is existence itself (they say), so God's thought is exactly equal to existence, which is exactly equal to everything. 

So in this sense existence is not prior to consciousness (for God), because for him they are identical. 

This becomes important in mystical thinkers like Plotinus and William Blake. They are adamant that the world, which is God, is one. It seems separate to us because our perceptions are limited. But, as Blake said, “If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” (For them, the Fall of man is not about disobedience but about a separation of perceptions.) 

For these theistic thinkers, then, existence is not prior to consciousness because, again, they are one. They seem to think that if we regain our full perception, then the apparent distinction between existence and consciousness would be revealed as a misunderstanding. 

I do think it would be reasonable to say that, according to these guys, existence is prior to consciousness in our current fallen state. Things exist, and we are conscious of them through a kind of active epistemology, but this is only due to our present limitations. 

So OK, in most naive or run-of-the-mill views of religion, it would make sense to say that existence is prior. But in the traditional theology of the great philosophers (which is strangely little-known among modern people), I don't think it's right.

A lot of that sounds like pantheism. I suppose for the pantheist, it would be okay to say God is one with all things. However, classical theism denies that. Yet how do they reconcile this with what you've laid out I wonder? God is love, but also volcanoes? How so, assuming as they say he's wholly immaterial and necessary, separate from material, contingent things?

P.S. I'm not mad at you-I find this fascinating, good to learn more about

---

(September 7, 2019 at 11:12 am)Objectivist Wrote: Hi mcc1789,


Very interesting. I believe the theist would agree (in most cases) they're independent of our consciousness, though not God's. Of course I've also heard of philosophical idealism which apparently can take a non-theistic form and also holds the contrary view (like some New Age and Eastern ideas). How would you answer them saying that, while it may be true any person who states "this is a fact" relies on there being an objective reality, it does not apply to God (in their view, the only fully existent thing)? That is, there's nothing wholly independent of God and what he wills (everything apart owes its existence to him, they say)? Or what of a skeptic, who might simply deny we know any facts?

Yes, this is the typical attempt to sidestep the issue, but they are attempting to straddle the issue and have it both ways.  They can't do that, not in reason.  They do not absolve themselves of subjectivism by doing this, they only move the issue to who's consciousness has primacy.  You can't solve one contradiction by embracing another.  Plus they're stealing concepts.  Their problems multiply like mushrooms after a rainstorm.  

What would I say to a skeptic who denies that we can know facts?  Come back to me when you do have some facts.  Any attempt to attack man's mind refutes itself by retorsion.

I think what you say makes sense. This does align with what I've thought, that if God is the basis of everything there is no objective reality. I'm still unclear on why primacy of consciousness must be false, though it seems to be, I do agree. Forgive me if I seem slow. What concepts are stolen?

I have to admit every kind of skepticism seems to refute itself, unless a skeptic is only saying they personally don't know. Once it extends to someone else, how do they know others can't know?