=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ ================================================================================ EXISTENCE 2 STEPHEN GROSSMAN & DANIEL TSCHAEN sdgross@att.net home.att.net/~sdgross (c) 1985 NEW BEDFORD, MA 02719, USA _______________________________________________________________________________ PREFACE A We would appreciate any comments on this essay. Among other things, our radically systematic approach, setting a radically new direction for metaphysics, can help to better understand the axioms of Objectivism. This is done by, among other things, identifying the limits of systems and the limits of axioms. These intellectually startling essays must be read slowly, carefully, and beyond conventional limits. We consider everything that is conventionally considered philosophy, including Rand and Kant,Aristotle and Plato, reason and mysticism, and then consider more. However, since Objectivism is the only philosophical denial of metaphysical opposition, this essay should help to transcend the Godelian completeness-consistency limit, a possible objection to Objectivism. The essay can easily be misread and trivialized despite its use in solving problems caused by axioms, systems, internal conditions, and even byproblems. Please ignore the trivial inconsistency between the concern, in the introduction, to be existence and to avoid essences and the concern, in the body of the essay, to protect Objectivism. We eagerly seek active minds, so characteristic of classical Greek philosophy, in our concern to understand problems in conventional philosophy and in expressing ourradical metaphysics. The Presocratics, within limits, may be considered an introduction to our concerns. We can infinitely modify our approach to any value, such as a completely metaphysical understanding of induction which will enable one to know when it is and is not a problem. The understanding of science in our "Philosophy of Science" is another introduction to existence, clearly linking different philosophies to different problems and answers. We are also expanding this essay into a book. Copies may be distributed. Please let us hear from you. ______________________________________________________________________________ PREFACE B Philosophy is exhausted, nothing works, and we are drifting to the future. Some claim that philosophy is kibbutzing or daydreaming. Is this all there is? This admitted confusion and triviality is the necessary development of the history of philosophy as limited by the Platonic-Aristotelian view of the Presocratics. The stress on the epistemological concerns of method, logic, language, metaphor and usage,exists within the limit of the Presocratic concern with opposition, essence, and cause. This limit is so poorly reccognized that even those philosophers who want to return to the Presocratic concern with existence do so within the limit of the Platonic- Aristotelian view of the Presocratics. The use of or the attempt to transcend the Platonic-Aristotelian limit is foolishly understood to imply an unlimited relativism, skepticism, mysticism, and/or nihilism. But these are limited. The failure to recognize the limit of one's understanding of existence has led to the ignorance of the virtues and vices, the problems and answers of each limit. Philosophers despair but do not recognize the limit of despair. Philosophers seek metaphysical and epistemological privilege without recognizing the limit of privilege, and then become nihilist without recognizing the limit of nihilism. The historical concern with opposites has led to a search for an epistemology to unite opposites. However, opposites are limited to epistemology and pose no metaphysical problem. Philosophy needs a new epistemology which can transcend epistemology and a new, metaphysical logic which transcends the epistemological logic of Aristotle. He limited his logic to the Presocratic concern with opposition, cause, and essence. Another logic is possibleand necessary. This logic would be a recognition of existence and limits so that one wouldn't unknowingly transcend one's limits and end in unwanted confusion. This logic would be a completeness theorem. It would permit us to recognize that Wittgenstein limited himself by pulling up the ladder and that Husserl limited himself with a phenomenological return to the things themselves. A logic which includes itself is possible within a metaphysics in which everything exists and exists equally (including inequality and this statement). This logic would be a recognition of our values and their limits. This logic is a recognition of the limits of knowledge, nihilism, and mysticism. ________________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION TO EXISTENCE This introduction to existence is really no introduction at all. Anything you recognize, including recognition itself, exists. However, within the limits of the history of philosophy, it is indeed an introduction to an entirely new concern or direction for philosophy. Historically, philosophies (except Objectivism) have been based, implicitly or explicitly, upon their own particular dichotomies. They have been concerned with basics. These basics can be the ground for reality, knowledge, nature, or other limits. And, since dichotomies are at the heart of, are the bases for, these philosophies,methods for relating the poles of the dichotomy have always been necessary and thus also a matter of concern for philosophy. We avoid all these unsolvable, trivial problems by giving "philosophy" a whole new direction. Forget "basics." Forget pet dichotomies which yield such ideas as "ideas," "reality," "theory," "truth," "fact," "substance," "accident," "essence," "trivia," "mind," "body," "matter," "form," "actuality," "potentiality," "one," "many, "quantity," "quality," "thing," "relation," "stasis," "change," "process," "reason," "imagination," "sight," "conceptualization," "perception," etc, etc. Once this is forgotten, methodsand problems with methodology will also be forgotten for they are of no use and are left without a basis or reason for being. Logic, however defined, is included in this retraction of basis. Self-negations, infinite regresses, and tautolgies, which have imposed severe limits upon philosophy since, at least, Plato, may no longer have any merit. Philosophy has, for too long, been an acceptance of logical, rather than metaphysical, limits in its process. What 'essentially' happened is that logics based upon Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysics have imposed those specific metaphysics upon any attempt at the formation of new metaphysical systems through the uncritical acceptance, for the new metaphysics, of the given Platonic- Aristotelian logic. The result is a clash of metaphysics wherein the new metaphysics loses out because of its inability to conform to the old standard. Metaphysics bases logic, not the reverse. Metaphysics can and must be done without reference to method, logic, evidence, goals, essences, basics, reason, knowledge, reality, etc. How a particular metaphysics is developed, why it developed, what can be hoped to be achieved with it, what evidence is available for it, the relation of that metaphysics to other things, etc., are totally irrelevant indoing metaphysics. For example, to have a goal is already to have a metaphysics so no metaphysics is done once the goal is stated or used. The metaphysics is already finished in the selection of a goal for metaphysics. What various statements imply, and what their meaning is, also introduces outside concerns if either implication or meaning are taken too seriously. Meanings and implications are system-dependent. Interpretations, implications, deductions, and consequences of a metaphysical system are irrelevant to and in that system. Metaphysics is bigger and more powerful than anyone realizes, and one must realize that his metaphysics is complete before he even thinks of anything. This does not mean nor imply that there are innate ideas, for metaphysics is not essentially ideas, nor do meaning and implication mean anything to metaphysics. Metaphysics implies and means everything. To get a conceptual hold on metaphysics is impossible (not because of skepticism) for this requires a previous metaphysics from which to establish the value of conceptualization. The self-negation involved in this last statement is irrelevant to what is being said. Metaphysics has no need for epistemology. Historically, metaphysics and epistemology have been assumed to be mutually dependent. This assumption was and is based upon what we consider a false definition of metaphysics: the study of the fundamentals of existence. This definition makes sense only within Aristotle's metaphysics and we have a much more ambitious definition, so ambitious, in fact, as to ignore the need or desire to define metaphysics. To define metaphysics is to ignore metaphysics. Under these circumstances, metaphysics is existence. Fundamentality, as it relates to conventional metaphysics, refers to what is fundamental to knowledge. Disregard knowledge, and you disregard fundamentality. This is a wider statement of the Objectivist insight that essences are epistemological, not metaphysical. Given all this, can nothing be said? Only if logical implication is given back its value is this the case. (The infinite regress, caused by the fact that we are arguing and doing so within the limit of a particular logic, is not a problem unless the reader is still doing epistemology) That is, by implication from what has been said above, metaphysics is useless, can have no content, yields no nformation, and has no relationship to the metaphysician, to mankind, or to reality. However, implication per se has no metaphysical basis itself, so what is implied by metaphysics (or equivalently, existence) is irrelevant to metaphysics. No thing, including implication, comes with its own justification. And, the fact that the terms "basis" and "justification" are necessarily used above is only an infinite regress and thus is only an epistemogical limit. Of course, this is not to essentially devalue epistemology. Mystics, who claim that what is most basic to reality or existence (or whatever) cannot be stated have made the 'mistake' of valuing epistemology over metaphysics or existence by remaining faithful to an uncriticized logical standard in their metaphysics and are valuing what is implied. Also, philosophies with goals are totally irrelevant in terms of existence. How is a goal to be selected without here being an already established philosophy? (Of course, this question is based upon an implicit metaphysics wherein a question is considered as a possibility) Once a goal is selected, no further thought is required. One now only needs to relate explicitly what is already related implicitly. This, and this analysis of it, are trivial. Metaphysics, existence, is open, wide, etc. If one has to make sense of all that has been said above, although it sholdn't be necessary if metaphysics is understood, one should consider the existence of the argument forwarded to be more basic than the fact that it is an argument. This will be a comfortable "existence over essence" scheme, but one which has no metaphysical merit. The philosophical systems of the past have been concerns to make sense, but our metaphysics asks, for one thing, why make sense exclusively? Now, we are not advocating struggle toward answers, or the process aspect of existence. We don't adocate anything. However, we are not nihilistic, for we advocate every thing and there is every thing. Of course, claims of truth, falsity, importance, relevance, consistency, completeness, etc., and claims itself, have no relevance to metaphysics. Given no purpose, means, content or object, standards for truth or progress, nor hierarchy of values, then, is metaphysics impossible? Again, only if one follows this by implicitly valuing logical implication does this make sense. The entire 'theory' posited here is of no essential worth, for it is just one more existent. But it is inessential only if one applies the principle posited here to a particular concrete example, thus requiring a principle-concrete dichotomy. We do not argue for or against dichotomies or logic or anything. We are not concerned with argument, proof, truth, knowledge, or existence at all. No thing prevents us, however, from changing these things with which we are not concerned, into things of ultimate value. Metaphysics is wide open. Everything is possible and actual. Everything said here is 'only' one idea and it may or may not have implications. There are implications, logical standards, truth, values, goals, differentiations, etc. One possible implication is that traditional arguments in philosophy will be considered much more powerful and important than they have in the past, while at the same time being seen to be much more value- dependent. Or, philosophy may be considered to be trivial. Looking for the context of what is being said, for its validity, meaning, origin, cause, or results, may be important or non-essential. For example, there is a much that could have been said but wasn't. Things and situations will change such that this has no meaning. For example, I will sleep later such that existence, meaning, etc, mean nothing, etc. Values also change, and, values can be irrelevant. Nothing, everything, and some things are prescribed. Prescription is a result. Nothing, everything, and something are all results. Things are already results. Facts, givens, goals, evidence as a whole, existence, knowledge, reality, essence, meaning or meanings are all results. Results are a result, but who cares? Philosophy has dwelled on the cute and clever for too long. One philosopher makes a system, (always ultimately and necessarily based on some dichotomy), which, by virtue of its being a system, has a set of axioms and a specific logic relating the axioms to each other and to their implications for the secondary, dependent principles or concretes (or whatever). The next philosopher points out the Godelian imit of the previous system. He, then, either replaces the criticized system with another, which necessarily has the same limit, or adopts a cynical, skeptical, or nihilist limit. And this skeptical, etc. limit is assumed to be superior to any metaphysics because of its greater width or depth But, both Godel and skeptics, etc. do not avoid the same limits, i.e., they are only epistemologies. All criticism, even the one we used above, is metaphysically empty. It must be noted that this is not an ordinary philosphical essay. It does not have a specific point to make and does not possess an argument for or against anything. The quotes used are not examples of some idea that we are trying to substantiate nor should one infer from an analysis of all the quotes what we are doing. All that is being done in the body of this essay is attempting to move philosophy out of its epistemologically limited concerns and past even concerns. This is being done by quoting people with highly diverse epistemologies and by showing the power and thus the limits of each. That is, the power of epistemology has tended to lend more credibility to epistemology than it deserves. In this essay the statements which would be classified as metaphysics by every philosopher since Aristotle are considered by us to fall far short of what we call metaphysics. _____________________________________________________________________________ EXISTENCE Every thing exists, be it earth, air, fire, and water, or mud, hair, and dirt. The objects of myth, common sense, science, and philosophy exist. Aphrodite, rocks, electrons, and causes exist. "...It is..." recognized Parmenides.(1) "..[E]xistence exists....[E]xistence...[is] every entity, attribute, action, event, or phenomenon (including consciousness)....The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is," understood Rand.(2,3,4) "Existence is...self-sufficient....It is not the product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it, and no alternative to it. Existence exists-and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable," recognized Peikoff.(5) The epistemological terminology used in the above quotes from Rand and Peikoff should be, at least temporarily, ignored. Rand's reference to the "given" and to the "true or false", and Peikoff's terms, "product," "antecedent," "alternative," "irreducible," and "unalterable" should not prevent the reader from understanding the point being made. The selection of terms used was determined by the present state of affairs in philosophy and is not essential. The Presocratic philosophers studied everything and by every method: myth, folk wisdom, common sense, and philosophy. "Men who love wisdom must be inquirers into very many things indeed," said Heraclitus.(6) But methods are limited. One can use reason, rationalism, empiricism, linguistics, mysticism or any other method, but there is more, there is always more. Methods cause understanding within some limit, while necessarly ignoring other limits. One might make sense or accept nonsense, be logical or illogical. There is structure, consistency, and integration as well as structurelessness, contradiction and disintegration. There are many essences and no essences, limits and the unlimited, methods and the lack of method. Here, it must be noted that this essay is philosophical and yet transcends philosophy. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy", said Hamlet.(7) "Philosophy cannot and should not give faith, but should understand itself and know what it has to offer and take nothing away, and least of all fool people out of something as if it were nothing," said Kierkegaard.(8) Philosophy is a concern with fundamentals but one may value non-fundamentals. Philosophy is a method of answering questions or solving problems, but "...[a] question can only arise if a presupposition permits it", as Kekes said.(9) Here, Kekes points out the pervasiveness and power of philosophy but doesn't see the limits of power, nor of the philosophy that permits power, nor the limits of permission or of limit, etc. Everything exists equally, be it acorns and oak trees, reality and consciousness, monism and dualism, substance and accident, matter and form, one and many, change and permanence, concretes and universals, truth and falsity, good and evil, knowledge and faith, values and nihilism, this moment and eternity, the whole of existence and a pebble. Inequality exists as much as equality. Does inequality exist as much as equality? If the reader still cannot ignore the 'logical' limitations of this statement, we can appeal to an Hegelian logic for help. To do so, we will simply substitute our equality -inequality scheme for Hegel's identity-difference scheme in the quote below. "We must be careful, when we say that the ground is the unity of identity and difference, not to understand by this unity an abstract identity. Otherwise we only change the name, while we still think the identity....To avoid this misconception we may say that the ground, besides being the unity, is also the difference of identity and difference."(10) This type of logic makes the epistemological limits of our "inequality exists as much as equaliity" statement more tolerable but the logic is still, by definition, epistemological. Epistemology, i.e, making sense, tolerance, understanding, etc., are metaphysically insignificant, or, rather, asignificant. All logics are equally justified in existence, i.e., none are justified. No logic or method in general, is necessary in metaphysics. Logics and methods exist. Now, do not limit your understanding of this line of 'thought' to the categorization of existence as the incorporation of thought, method, logic, tolerence, significance, etc. What incorporates what is a philosophical question and has nothing to do with metaphysics. (Of course, what relates to what is also a philosophical question, and the definition of "philosophy" is also a philosophical question, etc.) Returning now to a much more conventional philosophy and philosophical style, we will now attempt to give the reader a foothold from which to start. The specific starting point is not important and Objectivism has been selected. Existence is not split, dichotomized, contradictory, nor opposed to itself. There are no modes nor categories of existence, since modes and categories also exist. Existence is full, a Parmenidean plenum. There is something everywhere. "Nor is Being divisible, since it is all alike. Nor is there anything [here or] there which would prevent it from holding together, nor any lesser thing, but all is full of Being....Observe [nevertheless] how things absent are securely present to the mind; for it will not sever Being from its connection with Being, whether it is scattered everywhere throughout the universe or whether it is collected together," said Parmenides.(11) "Naught exists as much as Aught," said Democritus.(12 ) "For the fuller's screw, the way, straight and crooked, is one and the same....(13) They do not understand how that which differs with itself is in agreement....(14) The way up and down is one and the same....(15) In the same river we both step and do not step, we are and we are not", said Heraclitus.(16) [I]t is the same thing to think and to be," understood Parmenides.(17) "Metaphysically, an entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity's identity" recognized Peikoff.(18) "[E]xistence is identity....[E]xistence and identity are not attributes of existents; they are the existents," understood Rand.(19) Historically, the occasional Presocratic concern with opposition became the prime concern of philosophy through the influence of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates profoundly changed the history of philosophy with his focus upon the definition-nondefinition (or, equivalently, the essence-nonessence dichotomy). Plato sought definitions with an existence "formally" divided into idea and reality. Aristotle then 'placed' rational system into these dichotomous metaphysical conditions and advanced his own matter-form or potentiality-actuality dichotomy. Opposititons (contradictions, splits, modes, categories, dichotomies, etc.) are limited or contextual (and they exist). An existence opposed to itself would not exist (which is not really an argument against opposition). Existence exists. Each side of an opposition exists as much as the other, although one side may be valued more than another. Each opposition exists as much as any other oppositiion, although one may be valued more than another. In fact, we sometimes consider the history of philosophy to be just debates over the relative values of various oppositions. To Plato, the matter-form dichotomy is crucial, to Descartes it is thought-reality, to Hume it is perception-conception. There are no gaps in existence as a whole, by considering the definition of "whole." Gaps exist only once an oppositon is created and under these circumstances, the gap(s) exist(s) as much as the poles of the oppositon. The relation between the poles exists as much as the poles themselves and as much as any thing else.Identity exists as much as opposition. But, from within an opposition, it it impossible to relate the poles of the opposition. Plato's "participation" is the paradigm example of this impossibility. The poles of the opposition, however, can be related from outside that specific opposition by relegating that original, assumedly basic opposition to an inferior position within a new assumedly basic opposition. This is the history of philosophy. A problematic opposition is integrated using another problematic opposition. We realize, with Godel, that dichotomization is necessary epistemologically and are not concerned with that necessity. We are concerned here to identify the 'primarily' epistemological limit of the history of philosophy. ______________________________________________________________________________ GAPS Gaps in (the whole of) existence do not exist. Its just another way of claiming that existence does not exist. Existence exists. There is something everywhere. Gaps exist, too. There is no hole at the heart of being, as Sartre thought. There are no kinds of being, since kinds exist also. Kinds exist. Gaps exist. Hamburgers exist. Gaps, kinds, hamburgers and God all exist. And all exist equally. Existence exists everywhere, and everywhere equally, in all of existence. There is no part of existence which lacks existence. There is no metaphysically absolute lack of existence, since existence exists. You are literally making something out of nothing but there is no metaphysical creation since existence exists. And only existence exists. There is nothing behind, to the left of, in between, or other than existence. Only existence exists. Absolute non-existence does not exist. Existence exists. It is not the product of a supernatural dimension (where hamburgers are always plump, juicy, and free) nor of social or individual consciousness. Existence cannot be created since the identity of existence is existence. And existence is identity since existence is itself, ie, existence is existence. There is no existence/gap gap. There is no split between existence and split. Splits or gaps are one more thing, with no metaphysical privilege. Splits are not essential to existence. Essences are not metaphysical, but epistemological. Everything exists equally, without more or less existence (since more and less exist also and exist as much as anything else). Splits are not essential, not metaphysically important, but just exist. There is no essence to these claims since there is more, there is always more. The whole of existence exists just as much as a pebble. Causes and explanations are not metaphysically essential. The lack of causes and explanations is not metaphysically essential. These insights have no metaphysical privilege (altho they do exist). Car repair also exists. And, if your car fails, a mechanic is more important than a philosopher. And philosophy also exists. ____________________________________________________________________________ BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. _Ancilla to the Presocratic Philosophers_; Kathleen Freeman; Harvard University Press, 1983 (1948). Parmenides, Fr. 2. 2. _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_; Ayn Rand; The Objectivist, 1973. p.53. 3. Rand; p.53. 4. "The Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made;" Rand; _The Ayn Rand Letter_, Mar.12, 1973. p.179. 5. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy;" Leonard Peikoff; _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, 2nd edition; Ayn Rand; NAL Books, NYC, 1990. 6. Freeman; (Heraclitus), Fr.35. 7. _Hamlet_; Shakespeare. 8. _Concluding Unscientific Postscript_; Kiekergaard; Princeton University Press, 1974 (1941). p.144. 9. _A Justification of Rationality_; Kekes; State Universtity of New York, 1976 p.232. 10. _The Phenomenology of Mind_; Hegel; Harper & Row Publishers, N.Y., 1967. p.14. 11. Freeman; (Parmenides), Fr. 8 and Fr. 4. 12. Freeman; (Democritus) Fr. 156. 13. Freeman; (Heraclitus) Fr. 59 14. Freeman; (Heraclitus) Fr. 51. 15. Freeman; (Heraclitus) Fr. 60 16. Freeman; (Heraclitus) Fr. 49a. 17. Freeman; (Parmenides) Fr. 3. 18. Peikoff; p.10. 19. Rand; p.53; _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_. ================================================================================ =========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+