From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:12:30 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <Bv6M27.Ln@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
>Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
>Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 10:49:15 GMT

>In article <Bv29M7.n1B@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>>In article <exukjb.229.717269191@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>>In article <Bv0J3q.KI9@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:

>>>No, I meant, What are we saying of x when we say of x that "it exists" or
>>>"has being"?

>>    The answer is: everything.
>>    But Bell has been so influenced by Kant's nihilist subjectivism that I pre-
>>dicted that my original answer may have no meaning for him, as for all who take
>>modern thought seriously. You can present an apple to the moderns and they will
>>refuse to take it seriously. They will consider it a mere phenomenon, a crea-
>>tion of language, or some such foolishness. They will consider that existence
>>is somehow not the apple because Kant has taught them, directly or indirectly,
>>through contemporary philosophy, to reject perception and reason as methods of
>>knowing existence. For moderns, as Kant so dangerously taught, "I have limited
>>knowledge therefore, to make room for faith." 

>Come on Stephen, there's no need to get nasty.  All Ken did was ask a question
>and you misunderstood what he was asking about.  Later on you got around to 
>explaining that the existence of a thing is a primary which cannot be further 
>analyzed, but you would do much better to just answer the questions rather than
>insult Ken for asking a question.

>>    Of course, you can continue to tell yourself that everything you know is
>>unreal and does not exist. That essence of contemporary culture is why Mari-
>>anne Faithfull sings, "We've been trying to get high without having to pay."

>I didn't see Ken say any of that.  He just asked a question.  Give him a break.

>--Brian

Perhaps I can better clarify what I'm asking objectivists in this question 
about the nature of being or existence if I indicate what I would count as
an answer to it, not necessarily a correct answer.  The question is a 
typically metaphysical one, one that is often asked in the history of 
philosophy, especially in the grand tradition.  Plato, for example, 
identified being with "power"; Hegel with spirit; Neitzsche with the will to 
power; Schaupenhaur with just will; Spinoza, Russell, at one point, 
identified it with some neutral entity or stuff, of which thought and 
extension were modes. And so on.  

What, then, is it for x to be real, on the objectivist view?  What does the 
word 'real' mean?  I take it these are appropriate questions for any 
philosophical system.  Here's an example of a relevant, but (I think) 
false and easily disposable answer: 

Reality = df Whatever is mind-independent or would exist unthought of.

This won't do because even ideas are real taken in themselves, even if they 
don't have referents in extra-mental reality.  What I want to know is, 
regardless of whether you're talking about mental or nonmental things, what 
makes those "things" or any entity *real* at all? In what does its having 
being consist?  What I'm after is some general characterization of the 
notion of being itself, or of the conditions that must be present for 
something to be said to have being or be real or simply to exist?  
Translated from the material to the formal mode, the question might be taken 
as asking, 'What are the truth-conditions of "X exists"?'

Does objectivism have any account of the concept of existence or being as 
such?

Does that help?
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta