From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Objectivism/Existence
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:36:45 GMT
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.


    This is a follow-up to my Aug. 12 message to Leo Smith's Aug. 4 message:

    I am typing a message from my collaborator, Dan Tschaen, on our 1985 essay,
"Existence 2."
    Your concern for philosophy in general, is admirable, and, from a
 utilitarian perspective, your interpretation of existence is entitrely accu-
rate. however, 'we' are trying 'to get to existence without any regard for
perspective nor for epistemology in general. This is NOT a mystical, religious,
mathematical, a priori attempt, and is not 'really' an attempt at all. There is
no way to avoid  existence, so no 'attempt' to get to it is necessary. This is
almost entirely the 'point we are trying to make.' In order to "understand this 
'point,'" I think you will have to, at least temporarily suspend your
utilitarianism. Where the "point" will lead must be considered irrelevant. 
Also, what "existence" implies is irrelevant to existence for existence exists.
Existence is not a concept, a metaphor, God, a number, a thing, an
epistemological dead end, or anything else. It IS everything on your list and
everything else. [Care must be taken here to avoid considering existence to be a
big, wide, all-encompassing thing or concept because smallness, narrowness,
triviality, etc. all exist 'as much as' existence. Even though quantity (as with
all possible contexts) ia not a standard by which existence can be judged.]

    That is Dan's comment on existence and we hope that THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN
OUR UNDERSTANDINGS OF EXISTENCE BY MEANS OF WHICH OUR UNDERSTANDINGS ARE BOTH
DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHER UNDERSTANDINGS will help to make this difficult issue
understandable. I will occasionally have Dan contribute more, especially in
reply to those who find him easier(!) to understand. Dan has also written on
the existence of philosophy of science, etc.
    Objectivists have non-systematically considered existence. Rand said,
"Existence is neither true nor false. It just is." Peikoff said, "Existence is:
all of the things which it is." Thus, objectivity and nihilism both exist and
they both exist equally. There is no transcendental Form of the Good, damnit!
"Good" is one of the many things which exist, along with beer and Aristotle, 
and you may value it or not. Relativism is one of the many things which exist,
along with objectivity and nihilism, and you may value it or not. There is no
meta. privileged realm, no "realms of light," as The Doors sang. Whatever logic
or other method one uses to understand this has some specific meta. context or
limit. And there is no meta. privileged realm!!! Rand, along with Aristotle,
discovered objectivity, but there is subjectivity as well. I value objectivity
since my mind must be connected to objective reality by choice and by logic for
me to use reason, the fundamental method of human survival. But Kantian
nihilism also exists and others may wish to value sacrifice, faith, duty, and
suffering. There are effects to your values but you may think the good will is
more important. Once again, relativism is not some transcendental, neutral view
on existence (since relativity is merely one more existent). Existence exists.
Beer exists. Even Marilyn Monroe is not meta. privileged, although, let's face
it, she comes close. You can value philosophy as some value-neutral, scholarly,
technical language game or as some elucidation of the text, all split from the
theoretical wisdom necessary for human life. You can do that but it has no 
meta. privilege. Wisdom exists as much as foolishness. Pick your philosophy
more carefully than you pick your nose. There is no place to put metaphysical
boogers! They will snap back in your (meta.) face! What a hideous image! A 
Husseralian horizon exists no more than a Plymouth Horizon. Of course, one can
be used to drive someplace and as for the other, well, nihilists have no place 
to go. Comments? Now, my critics know why it was childishly easy to debate the
creatures who inhabit university "philosophy" departments.      

    
    
 
o