CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
8
Existence has primacy Objectivism is nonsense
Debate Score:11
Arguments:10
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Existence has primacy (2)
 
 Objectivism is nonsense (8)

Debate Creator

Rawlings1234(26) pic



Primacy: Inanimateness or Consciousness?

Pro: Objectivism holds that existence has primacy over consciousness as identity clearly demonstrates that all existents are what they are ("A" is "A") regardless of what any given entity of consciousness might conceive about them.

 

Con: Objectivism's assertion that existence has primacy over consciousness is nonsense as it begs the question, i.e., presupposes that all of existence is empirical and that all consciousness is finite. There’s no reason to think that "A" would not still be "A" were transcendent consciousness to have primacy over an immanent realm of being.

Existence has primacy

Side Score: 3
VS.

Objectivism is nonsense

Side Score: 8
No arguments found. Add one!
0 points

Existence is contingent on perception meaning that, although something might "exists" without being perceived, it would have nothing upon which to impress it existence, and therefore would be relatively non-existent.

Side: Objectivism is nonsense
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

Relatively, not absolutely. This begs the question as well.

Side: Existence has primacy
TheBogle88(115) Disputed
0 points

What can be said to be absolute? Eh?

Side: Objectivism is nonsense
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
0 points

Existence is contingent on perception? Are you talking about sensory perception? If so, on the very face of it, that's nonsense.

Side: Objectivism is nonsense
0 points

The immediate problem with Objectivism's metaphysics is not the notion that existence exists, which is to say that something exists, and that consciousness exists. These things are self-evident as is the law of identity. (Objectivism asserts the obvious as if it were something unique to itself or profound.)

The apprehension that something exists is the apprehension that human consciousness exists. So what? Existence exists doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. So what exists? The fact that we have to ask that question demonstrates that human consciousness certainly does not have primacy. But again, so what?

1. Existence has primacy over human consciousness.

2. Existence has primacy over consciousness.

These are not the same assertions at all. The ultimate issue of primacy can hardly be settled without definitively establishing what the nature and the extent of existence are.

The objectivist arbitrarily declares all of existence to be material and, therefore, all instances of consciousness in existence to be finite.

Huh? And what are these assertions based on precisely? The certainly doesn’t follow from the fundamental axioms of being.

Side: Objectivism is nonsense
fxinfidel(1) Disputed
1 point

Rawlings incorrectly claimed by way of fabrication of a strawman that: > “The objectivist arbitrarily declares all of existence to be material and, therefore, all instances of consciousness in existence to be finite. Huh? And what are these assertions based on precisely? The certainly doesn’t follow from the fundamental axioms of being."

Objectivism holds and specifically affirms the Axiom of Consciousness as is clearly seen in Rand's writings.

“Consciousness is the faculty of awareness—the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Awareness is not a passive state, but an active process. On the lower levels of awareness, a complex neurological process is required to enable man to experience a sensation and to integrate sensations into percepts; that process is automatic and non-volitional: man is aware of its results, but not of the process itself. On the higher, conceptual level, the process is psychological, conscious and volitional. In either case, awareness is achieved and maintained by continuous action.

Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one’s awareness of the external world. Some object, i.e., some content, is involved in every state of awareness. Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward—a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward—a process of apprehending one’s own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated. Awareness is awareness of something. A content-less state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.” ~ “Concepts of Consciousness,” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 37

Rawlings' claim that Objectivism is a species of materialism is patently false. Objectivism affirms consciousness is an actual phenomenon consisting of a set of instantiated brain actions resulting in awareness of something.

Only existence exists. There is nothing outside of existence; Rawlings' arbitrary ad hoc naked presuppositions that consciousness is something in and of itself somehow existing apart from existence and that some super consciousness outside of existence is possible and has priority over existence ostensibly seem sourced from his failure to understand the fundamental nature of existence. Paraphrasing George H. Smith from “Atheism: The Case Against God assists to facilitate understanding of Rawlings fallacy.

To exist is to exist as something. To be something is to have a specific nature. That is to have a particular identity. The Laws of Identity A=A and Non-Contradiction A =/= ¬A entail that any ontological being must posses specific determinate characteristics. To have such characteristics is a consequence of being part of nature. But the theistic God is asserted to be super-natural, and that is to be exempt from the uniformity of nature. Herein lies the contradiction fatal to any claim of knowledge about God. Having specific determinate characteristics imposes limits, and those limits would restrict the capacities of the alleged super-natural being. Such restriction then renders the alleged super-natural being subject to the causal relationships that denote the uniformity of nature in actual existence and disqualify it from being God. To escape this contradiction, the religious mind proposes to somehow imagine a God lacking any definite attributes or properties. But a postulated existent devoid of properties or attributes is indistinguishable from nothingness and is incompatible with the concept of existence. For God to have characteristics necessarily means God must have definite characteristics. That is to say that God would then necessarily be limited, for to be A is to also not be ¬A. Any being with characteristics is then subject to the uniformity of nature imposed by those capacities. For a super-natural being to differ from natural existence, it must exist without a limited identity and nature. This amounts to existing without any nature or identity at all. If humanity is to have meaningful discourse about God, we must presuppose it to have properties by which is can be identified. By asserting that God is super-natural theism stipulates existence apart from the uniformity of nature and eliminates any possibility of assigning definite characteristics to God. But by assigning definite characteristics to God, theism brings its God within the natural realm and renders it not-God. Something cannot be both A and ¬A. Hence, God then cannot exist, and any claim of knowledge of God is indistinguishable from a fantasy of God.

Awareness of existence cannot manipulate, control, create from nothingness, or terminate existence. Existence must have priority over consciousness. This view is buttressed by the exclusivity of a supremely necessary principle. Existence is the ultimate irreducible primary and is necessary. It can't be any other way than what it is. In contrast, the God notion rests upon foundational layers of suppositions and is contingent thereunto, so it can't be necessary. Since there is nothing outside of necessary existence and because God is not a necessary being that cannot exist, then its quite obvious that consciousness cannot have priority over existence.

Rawlings' criticism of Objectivism fails for another reason. If consciousness has priority over existence, then there is no fixed reality and knowledge and statement of fact are impossible. But any assertions that consciousness has priority over existence must presuppose the Objectivist Metaphysical Axioms that existence exists independently of any form of consciousness, and that entities are what they are independent of consciousness, and that consciousness is awareness of existence. Rawlings or any other critic must presuppose the truth of Objectivism's Metaphysical Axioms in order to make assertions purportedly attacking those very same Axioms. This Stolen Concept fallacy is fatal to Rawlings' argument.

Side: Existence has primacy
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
0 points

Only existence exists. There is nothing outside of existence; Rawlings' arbitrary ad hoc naked presuppositions that consciousness is something in and of itself somehow existing apart from existence and that some super consciousness outside of existence is possible and has priority over existence ostensibly seem sourced from his failure to understand the fundamental nature of existence.

Nonsense. Are you cultist not able to think for yourselves at all? Where did I ever state that human consciousness "is something in and of itself somehow existing apart from existence"?

I didn't, did I?

Side: Objectivism is nonsense
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
0 points

Hey, it's Robert "Pseudo-Science" Bumbalough! I’d recognize your jive anywhere!

Don't be fooled, folks. All of Objectivisim’s blather about existence amounts to this: there is nothing beyond the empirical realm of being because there is nothing but an empirical realm of being. Yep, there really is nothing more to it. It's just one big tautological circle jerk of juvenile crap. Existence exists, which is to say something exists, and all that exists is that which is within the realm of sensory perception. God doesn't exist because all consciousness is finite. Identity is necessarily a limiting factor. Never mind that God would obviously not be an empirical entity subject to any limiting factors of materiality.

Yep. It's just a collection of slogans nancing about as a philosophy.

Ol' Bumbalough here doesn't even know that the technical terms quantity and quality of philosophy in terms of identity refer to the scientific concerns of spatial extension and chemical composition. He’s also got some rather bizarre notions about the principle of causality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Strictly pseudo-science claptrap.

Objectivism’s a real hoot, wherein virtually the entire structure is built on an indemonstrable and unexplained collection of metaphysical claims followed by a reactionary epistemology to a strawman version of the Kantian analytic-synthetic.

For more information, check this link out: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/10/objectivism-uninspired-religion-of.html

For a good laugh, check this link out: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/ 01/objectivist-cult-member-says.html

Side: Objectivism is nonsense
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
0 points

Examples of bald statements never really explained.

Remember, he starts out quoting me: “The objectivist arbitrarily declares all of existence to be material and, therefore, all instances of consciousness in existence to be finite." This is true. Make no mistake about it. Watch where he ends up.

Objectivism affirms consciousness is an actual phenomenon consisting of a set of instantiated brain actions resulting in awareness of something.

Actually, on another site when I pushed the matter, Bumbalough acknowledged that "all humanity knows" that the constituents of consciousness are ultimately “encoding[s] embodied in material particles.” In short, concrete, biochemical data. The official Objectivist position is more expansive: it essentially amounts to the idea that human consciousness is the sum of all the physiological structures and biochemical reactions of the human organism, a physicalist view of consciousness.

Only existence exists. Bravo! And what is the extent and essence of this existence?

There is nothing outside of existence. Say it isn’t so!

Rawlings' arbitrary ad hoc naked presuppositions that consciousness is something in and of itself somehow existing apart from existence. . . . Naturally, I asserted no such thing.

. . . and that some super consciousness outside of existence is possible and has priority over existence . . . Ah! He just switched from human to divine consciousness, and, without justification, he implies I shove “super consciousness outside of existence”! LOL!

ostensibly seem sourced from his failure to understand the fundamental nature of existence. For those who are not familiar with the tactics Objectivist cult members commonly employ in their pathologically dishonest argumentation, almost immediately following the point at which the strawman is inserted (i.e., “outside of existence”), a variation of an oft-repeated phrase will appear: “failure to understand, failure to correctly assess, failure to rightly define. . . .”

To exist is to exist as something. Ah! There’s the hook, a truism. Typical. Watch for the ol’ switch-a-roo coming up.

To be something is to have a specific nature. Another truism, the term nature as in any given ontological essence.

The Laws of Identity A=A and Non-Contradiction A =/= ¬A entail that any ontological being must posses specific determinate characteristics. Another truism.

To have such characteristics is a consequence of being part of nature. But the theistic God is asserted to be super-natural. . . . Ah! And there’s the switch-a-roo: nature as in any given ontological essence, becomes nature as in an entity of empirical substance.

Did ya catch that, Phil?

I sure did, Joey, just after rounding second, Bumbalough feigned a left, but slapped the short stop with a haymaker of a right!

To escape this contradiction, the religious mind proposes to somehow imagine a God lacking any definite attributes or properties.

You ever heard of such a thing, Phil?

Can’t say I have, Joey. Did he just make that up?

Looks like it, Phil. Lot’s a spit on that one.

For God to have characteristics necessarily means God must have definite characteristics.

Zing Another truism, Phil.

Yep!

That is to say that God would then necessarily be limited. . . .

Woe, nelly, foul ball, Phil!

Yep. Just outside the line, Joey!

For a super-natural being to differ from natural existence, it must exist without a limited identity and nature.

He packed some real heat in that switch-a-roo, Phil.

Yep. The definitive identity and nature of supernatural A becomes the limitations of a natural B.

Hmm. But why would an eternally self-subsistent entity that is indivisible, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and has no beginning or end be limited or not have a definitive nature distinguishable from materiality which is none of these things?

It’s a mystery, Phil. A real mystery.

If consciousness has priority over existence, then there is no fixed reality and knowledge and statement of fact are impossible.

And why would that necessarily be true?

Looks like ol’ Bumbalough is callin’ God a liar, Phil!

Strike three, Joey.

Side: Objectivism is nonsense
Rawlings1234(26) Disputed
0 points

While I'm not in 100% accord with this critic, given Judeo-Christianity's rational-empirical construct of epistemology as opposed to Kant's valiant, albeit, theologically uninformed attempt to reconcile empiricism and rationalism, most of what this critic has to say is right up the alley of righteous. My real complaint with Kant is, not with his logic and the essential rightness of his assessment of the human condition as isolated in a relentlessly complex and chaotic sea of information, but with his very isolation of human introspection itself, which surrenders human cognition to the whims of subjectivism.

In other words, one should read Kant . . . along with the Bible. As for Objectivism: Don't read Objectivism; read real philosophy.

http://www.epinions.com/review/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_by_Ayn_Rand/book-review-30E2-EB75595-398D1CBA-prod1?sb=1

Side: Objectivism is nonsense