Versions of primacy…

Estudia: Hi Phi, you were going to give me some examples of the primacy of consciousness principle as practiced by most philosophies. I know one for sure.

Philo: Good, which one of the three versions have you figured out?

Estudia: Three versions? Hummm… well most philosophy has been dominated by the church and they use the consciousness of a god as being the highest authority and the real truth.

Philo: Exactly right, that’s the biggy. We call it the super naturalistic version and its founder really is Plato. He felt that this world of entities was not the real world but more akin to shadows on the wall. His theory of forms was further developed by the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions with their Infinite, unknowable consciousness called Yahweh, God or Allah. They are all the same in that this supernatural consciousness created existence and can cause entities to act against their nature and hence do miraculous things.

Estudia: Can’t this be their axiom so to speak?

Philo: It is and this metaphysical view has epistemological implications also. It leads to mysticism which means that knowledge doesn’t have to come from looking out at existence but can come directly from the Supreme Creator, an indefinable pure mind. This knowledge can come to humans directly from God, say stone tablets left by a burning bush, et cetera, or it is sent to special individuals also known as prophets, or maybe just as some sort of instinctual pattern in our genes. You’ve heard of the God Gene no doubt. Some have it and some don’t. With the correct base-pair on a specific gene in the DNA of one of your chromosomes you will have a penchant for the mystical. You might be more easily hypnotized too… hummm. I wonder. Anyway, most philosophers have abandoned the supernatural consciousness view of the world but it is very popular with the general public. These lumpen refuse to begin with the universe we know exists but embraces the idea of an unknowable dimension like the Mind of God or just God as if this explained everything. They don’t question where this God is or came from and they don’t want to know because that would mean a higher dimension or God created the first one. It’s a circular argument and obviously a strange argument.

Estudia: It definitely is outside of any rational discussion, I can see that. But what are the other two versions of the primacy of consciousness view?

Philo: Well, there is the secularized version. If you hold that it’s the minds of men that create existence you come up with the phenomenal world of Immanuel Kant. This theory implies that there is a social version of the primacy of consciousness. This version holds that no one individual can create existence or do miracles but a group can. It takes a state or a race or a sex to will something into or out of existence. If enough people believe that something will happen, like say win a war, or fix the deficits somehow, then it will happen and you don’t have to worry about the facts. You can make reality conform to your wishes if enough of you believe it will be so.

Estudia: That’s really popular but I didn’t make the connection to consciousness. What are the implications of this social view?

Philo: Very popular and you hear it all the time. “If the people will only believe, then anything is possible. You’ve got to have faith and be optimistic and expect the best and it will happen no matter what you do or don’t do”. Epistemological implications… how ‘bout that knowledge is obtained by a survey, a collective group consensus so your perception of reality may not be correct, and isn’t correct if it differs from the consensus of the thinkers and movers of the group.

Estudia: So first, by the super naturalistic view, God can override facts and then secondly by the social view, the group can do the trick. Any thirdly?

Philo: The personal version. You know, what’s right for you may not be right for me. Each of us controls existence with our own consciousness. “Man is the measure of all things”, said Protagoras, “of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.” We each create our own little universe and everyone in it is our creation.

Estudia: So that would imply that we are all independent of reality and don’t have to conform to any standard of truth. That’s a nice escape from responsibility I’d say.

Philo: That’s for sure. All three views are wrong because existence exists and it has metaphysical primacy. If you want to be an Objectivist, you hold that existence is not a reflection of some consciousness. It just is. Things in the universe exist and are eternal in that they conform to immutable laws. Whether it be worm holes or the major or minor strings of string theory or whatever, it simply is what it is and no consciousness is needed accept to perceive that which is and conceptualize about it.

Estudia: I want to be an Objectivist I think. So far it all makes a lot of sense to me. What do we do with this view now that we reject the primacy of consciousness and accept the primacy of existence?

Philo: Next time lets discuss metaphysics some more. For now I’ve got to run. CU later.

Estudia: Bye, Phi!

Epistemological implications…

Estudia: Phi, About that proof of the primacy-of-existence. What were you going to say?

Philo: No can do. It is self-evident in the understanding of consciousness. As we discussed it is implicit even in a child’s first realization of consciousness. In order to prove something like a theorem, you have to establish ideas and concepts that make the process of a proof possible. You have to accept the primacy-of-existence idea in order to prove anything.

Estudia: Why’s that?

Philo: In order to prove something you have to have facts. Facts that don’t change because someone or something thinks about them. You can’t prove anything if the “facts” you are building a case on can be manipulated by any consciousness. In that case you wouldn’t need to prove anything as things could be anything a powerful enough consciousness wanted them to be and not necessarily what the facts would indicate. No, forget proof for now. We are still working with axioms and corollaries of axioms.

Estudia: That makes sense. So what does the primacy-of-existence principle tell us.

Philo: Well, we have some knowledge now. Metaphysical knowledge, but it is real knowledge of reality, and consequently it has to be included in our study of the nature and means of gaining knowledge. Remember what we call that?

Estudia: Let’s see… metaphysics is the study of the universe as a whole. The study of knowledge is epistemology; so you are saying that our metaphysical knowledge affects our epistemological …. What?

Philo: That’s right. Our new metaphysical principle leads to a particular epistemology. It has epistemological implications in other words. You see the primacy-of-existence principle identifies a fundamental relationship between our minds and existence. If, as we showed, existence is independent of consciousness, then you can only learn about the world by looking outward, by extrospection. Objectivism would say you have to only use reason to understand reality, not feelings or extrasensory perception. Every thought should be in accordance with the observed facts and only the observed facts.
If you accept the primacy-of-consciousness principle, then you would believe that consciousness controls existence and introspect to learn the truth about reality. You might ascribe to the use of intuitions, revelations, yogic energy or chi. You would rely on unreason to learn about reality. You would consider the source of your information as above reality. It would be the source of facts which would be the consciousness that created the facts.

Estudia: Objectivism holds existence primary and not consciousness you said. Don’t most philosophers accept this idea now?

Philo: Poor child, you must be kidding. With rare exception the opposite is true. Most all Western philosophy and all Eastern philosophy have accepted the primacy-of-consciousness idea. I’ll give you some examples next time you drop in.
Estudia: OK, again I can’t wait. This is fascinating.

Primacy…

Estudia: Phi, I’ve got a question.

Philo: Shoot. I’m at your service.

Estudia: You talked a lot about the axioms of existence and identity, but you haven’t said much about consciousness. You said we possess consciousness and so it must be an entity with specific properties. Can we say anything about its action? Does it cause things to react?

Philo: Objectivism holds, and I agree, that existence comes first. Things are what they are in spite of any consciousness. Think back to when you were a child again. You began to understand that you are separate from objects and that your inner world was a product of your senses. You could close your eyes and block out reality for instance. You implicitly understood that you had consciousness and that was your means of perceiving objects or entities in existence. You probably hope and prayed and wished that you could affect reality many times but you learned that it just doesn’t work that way. Maybe you developed some superstitions like the stepping on the crack rhyme or if you dropped the soap you’d lose something of value. Whatever, you learned that existence comes first or as we say: existence has primacy. Objectivism holds the “Primacy of existence” as a fundamental aspect of metaphysics.

Estudia: So things are what they are. Identity in other words.

Philo: Yes but also they are what they are independent of consciousness. Consciousness is dependent on the objects in existence. It takes the results of the stimulation of the senses and uses them to perceive existence. No amount of wishing can affect existence... without action of course. Consciousness in its ability to imagine can direct our actions so we can shape reality to our desires. But the thinking alone will not do a thing. Consciousness can discover what is what, but it can not alter or control objects on its own.

Estudia: So it takes a child a while to understand this.

Philo: Relatively a while, but that is only because they first have to understand that there is existence made up of entities with identity and certain causal relations. All that has to come first so consciousness is the last of the basic axiomatic concepts a child grasps.

Estudia: Objectivism holds existence primary and not consciousness. Most religions hold consciousness as primary I would say.

Philo: That’s true. You can have God’s or man’s consciousness as your primary starting point and hope for the best. Pun intended. Look, here’s an example of the two views of existence. Say you are being held hostage by terrorists and they are threatening to behead you if someone else doesn’t do what they want, say; release some of their friends from prison. Well if you held the primacy-of-existence view of things you would work on ways to escape, lie your way out of the hands of the terrorist, or kill them if you could. If you held the primacy-of-consciousness view, you might just begin praying and hoping and wishing for help and miss any chance to escape. Even if hundreds were praying with you it wouldn’t affect the outcome or the terrorists’ actions.

Estudia: Is the primacy-of-existence then an axiom.

Philo: A corollary. “Existence exists” comes before the “you exist possessing consciousness”. You have to be conscious of something, some object or entity. But entities are objects and act according. So consciousness is just a means of awareness. Consciousness can grasp what it is, but it can not alter or control entities or their nature.

Estudia: Hummm… well, can you prove the primacy-of-existence.

Philo: Please, proof, proof of existence. I’ll tell you what you can prove next time.

Estudia: OK, I can’t wait.

Corollaries…

Estudia: Phi, now that you have validated the law of causality does that mean it is an axiom like existence, identity and consciousness?

Philo: No, no, no, not at all. Causality can be thought of as a corollary of identity. It is a self-evident implication of what we have already learned.

Estudia: That’s what a corollary is? A self-evident … what did you say?

Philo: A self-evident implication of our knowledge. It’s not an axiom because it depends on some antecedent information. Axioms do not. It’s not a theorem requiring a logical proof but rather, because it is self-evident it is more like an axiom. It is just another way of looking on something we already know. Once you grasp the meaning of the law of causality and understand the concepts of entity and identity then the truth of the law of causality follows immediately.

Estudia: It sure does, doesn’t it? Seems obvious now.

Philo: Lots of truths in philosophy are like that — corollaries of axioms. Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, holds that the essence of metaphysics, which remember is the branch of philosophy that tries to explain what the universe is as a whole, the nature of everything if you will… the essence of metaphysics is the step by step development of the corollaries of the axiom existence exists.

Estudia: That’s it? Will it a makes a lot of sense to me so far. Existence is identity you said and so I guess every entity has a cause, right?

Philo: What about the universe? It just is. It is all that is so it doesn’t just come into being and it doesn’t just pass away. It may change but it is never ending. It just is. Some entities are not like that and they can be said to have a cause. But there coming into being or passing away is an action and that action is caused by entities in some process which we try to explain. The important idea is that all actions are caused by entities.

Estudia: I read that the moon was caused by a meteor hitting the earth. So the motion of the meteor caused a chuck of the earth to melt and squirt out and form a ball that moves around the earth. That is action causing action, I’d say.

Philo: Lots of philosophers would agree, but I think it was the meteor’s action, its motion, that caused it to strike the earth and melt the crust and cause it to splash up and out into orbit where that mass coalesced and formed a ball that was trapped in the orbit of the earth. The motion of the moon was not caused by the motion of the meteor directly without the meteor and the earth being there. Remember the law of causality which states that every action has a cause and that cause is the action of entities. If it has been a meteor made of water, the result would have been a lot different.

Estudia: Well, Menace would still ask, and he has asked me, who created the universe. So I guess he’d want to ask, who is responsible for the law of causality.

Philo: Causality is part of the fabric of reality. You can’t separate them — just like you can’t separate an action from an entity. To be something is that something has to act according to it nature. You can’t ask who or what is responsible. The answer is that existence exists, so get over it. There is a lot to learn about existence, but at least you know that it is made up of entities with a specific nature that only act certain ways. That’s their nature, their identity to be precise. You don’t have to say we would have chaos if someone didn’t apply order to the universe. You don’t have to hope for a rare chance to change reality. The world is the way it is because the actions of entities are what they are and they can’t be any other way. That’s reality.

Estudia: Hummm… well, what about when people prey and change the outcome. That shows that consciousness is more powerful then existence doesn’t it? Not that I believe these things, but lots of people do and prayer helps lots of people.

Philo: Too much, please! Next time. For now get the axioms and the law of causality straight in your mind. I’ll discuss consciousness later.

Estudia: OK, Chao.

Causality…

Estudia: Hi Phi. Sorry I couldn’t wait, but now I’m back and want to hear how about this… what’d you call it, a natural law?

Philo: Oh, let me see. Yes we were ready to talk about the law of causality, weren’t we? I was saying that because you have understood explicitly the concepts of entity, identity and action, you, like a child does implicitly, can arrive at the law of causality.

Estudia: How does a kid do that?

Philo: Well, the child needs to observe a fact that is always present — an omnipresent fact, if you will. Things only act in a certain way.

Estudia: That’s obvious isn’t it?

Philo: Maybe to you now, but think back to when you were a child. Maybe you had a stuffed animal and a real pet dog. One would move and play with you, the other had to be moved and didn’t lick your face. What about that book? Did it make noises like the bell in your crib? Did the bars of the crib bend and move like the soft pillow under your head?

Estudia: No, of course not. Things act in definite ways and only in those ways. The bars in the crib were a real problem for me. I wanted them to move so many times, but I soon learned to climb over them and get to things.

Philo: Every entity has a specific nature. That’s what the child learns and knows implicitly. As adults we can state this fact explicitly. First we know that actions don’t stand alone. Action is action of an entity. That’s the only way to view an action. You have got to view the entity performing the action. Now we said that A is A, so every entity must have an identity which means it must act according to its nature. The action is thus caused by the entities nature. The nature of the entity necessitates the action. It can’t be any other way.

Estudia: Couldn’t an entity act strange sometime and do something differently?

Philo: It can’t act apart form its nature. Why? Because we know that existence is identity. Separate a thing from its nature and it is nothing. Also, an entity can’t act against its nature because A is A and that means contradictions don’t exist. They are impossible anyway. An entity acting against its nature would definitely be a contradiction.

Estudia: I think I need an example. Things are what they are. So if a thing suddenly did something weird, like, say a water molecule started vibrating so it emitted Morris code and began talking to us that would violate this law of causality. I think that is self evident.

Philo: Why so?

Estudia: Well, every action has a cause because that is the nature of the entity that is acting. And every cause will give you the same effect because the same entity, under the same conditions, will perform the same action. Right?

Philo: Marvelous! This is the law of causality. The law of identity applied to actions.

Estudia: All actions are actions of entities. The action is caused by the entity. The type of action is caused by the nature of the entity that acts. The action is determined by the entity.

Philo: And if you add that a thing can’t act in contradiction to its nature you have it.

Estudia: That’s obvious.

Philo: I’m so glad you think so, because you have just validated the law of causality. Great philosophical analysis my dear. Let’s go have a beer and I’ll tell you about corollaries.
Estudia: They go well with beer?

Categories…

Estudia: Hi Phi. Last time I saw you, we were discussing entities. Are entities what makes up existence?

Philo: Well, in the sense that entities are what we perceive. Everything in the world, everything that we can detect, is related to entities. I mean entities make up the world we perceive.

Estudia: What can we say or know about these entities? Anything?

Philo: Lots. When we observe any entity, we become aware of its attributes, and/or its actions, and/or relationship to something else. Philosophers get even more focused on these things and call them categories of being.

Estudia: What does that mean?

Philo: Well, they isolated things like qualities — the color or other physical property of the entity. There are lots of these that can be measured and defined by scientists to distinguish one entity from another. In addition to qualities, a category of something is its quantity like length in feet or inches. Also an entities weight would fall in the quantity category.

Estudia: Qualities and quantity are simple categories of entities. What else?

Philo: Relationships and actions. Something can be referred to in relation to something else. It’s on top of, or, it’s under, et cetera. Action is a category. Say something is running or walking or flying or whatever. The important thing to remember is that all these categories of attributes represent aspects of entities. You can’t have one without the other.

Estudia: So if you have an entity, it is such and such and its flying overhead but you can’t have flying overhead without the entity. Right?

Philo: Exactly. Flying overhead is an action, an action which certain entities do.

Estudia: Oh, OK. So we know, or at least we come to know implicitly that existence consists of entities. That these entities have identity with certain attributes. Cool. And so?

Philo: Now you have enough knowledge to do what any child does — arrive at the …drum roll please… ta ta dum … the natural law of causality!
Estudia: Really! Well it will have to wait. Got to run, see ya later.

Entities…

Estudia: Hi Phi. I hope you have forgiven me for bringing that illogical Menace over.

Philo: Not your fault and he was good exercise for me. Makes you wonder how someone can accept such confused ideas and think they are avoiding what is evident to every child from the get go.

Estudia: You mean we grasp these axioms at birth? I don’t see how that’s possible.

Philo: No, not all together and not as we are discussing them now as adults. A child does gain awareness of existence immediately when its senses begin delivering stimuli to its developing brain — probably sounds, and temperature, and pressure even before birth. Sight occurs probably only after birth. Well, maybe some bright light gets to stimulate the formed eyeball but I imagine it’s pretty dark in the womb and the loudest sound might be the mother’s heart beat. So yes in a sense we grasp the axiom existence as a new born. It is of course implicit, by that I mean it is an implied understanding. We don’t name the axiom of course until we begin to study philosophy.

Estudia: What about consciousness and identity? Are they implicit too?

Philo: Yes, but it takes a while. The child has to gather a lot more information over time before it can become aware that it exists and perceives reality. He has to identify things first and come to the understanding that you can distinguish between objects. Then identity becomes implicit in everything and the child implicitly understands the concept of entity.

Estudia: Entity, as in this thing as opposed to that thing?

Philo: Yes. The child has to integrate all the sensations he is experiencing. First he has to perceive that objects exist. The first axiom we discussed. Then he has to take the sensations of objects… babies are good at this… and form precepts of things or objects. The brain is wired to make this automatic for a healthy baby. We don’t have to think about the axiom of identity to use it. The child knows implicitly that the something is something different from other things. This concept of entity is so basic to all our thinking that it is an axiomatic concept.

Estudia: Another axiom?

Philo: An axiomatic concept, not a basic axiom. You have to point to what you are referring to, that means you specify it ostensively. You can only perceive an entity using your sense perception.

Estudia: What about a business? Isn’t that an entity?

Philo: Yes and so are lots of complex things. But in the primary sense, entity refers to something you can point at like a person, a pebble, or a table. A business is complex but it can be broken down into a collection of components or things that you can point at. Primary entities.

Estudia: So entities are things we perceive? The something referred to in the axiom of Identity?

Philo: Yes, entities are all there is to observe. A child first perceives things in the primary sense and as its knowledge grows it comes to understand your extended sense. It learns what a business is, a town, or the solar system. All entities that are a part of existence, but far above the primary sense.

Estudia: That’s interesting to think about. I think I see why entity is an axiomatic concept then.

Philo: Good. Next time we’ll talk about the attributes of entities and I’ll show you how the way entities behave says something about reality. A self-evident implication of the axioms we’re discussed so far.
Estudia: I can’t wait. Later.