A is A and the Law of Causality: Basic Metaphysics
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 7 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
A is A and the Law of Causality: Basic Metaphysics
A is A is Aristotle's Law of Identity. Rand adopted this as a basic axiom. It is one of the cornerstones of Objectivism. The law states that everything that exists has a specific, particular nature. Every thing one perceives has characteristics that are inherent in its nature. These characteristics are apprehended and can be described. An entity may be described as smooth, blue, round, etc. A person may be tall, slim, and intelligent. These traits give an entity its identity. The particular traits or characteristics are not important. The number of traits is not important. The fact that every entity has traits is what matters.
An entity without form, without traits, is a non-entity. It does not exist. It would be nothing. To exist is to have identity. Identity is the concept of the aspects of existence. Existence requires something to exist as a particular something, with a particular identity. It can not have multiple identities. It is what it is and can be nothing else. A horse is not a camel and a house is not an automobile. Every characteristic of a specific entity is part of its identity.
There can be no contradictions. Entities can not be one thing and another simultaneously. Explicit in the concept of identity is the corollary that reality has a specific nature. Having a definite nature and an identity means it is knowable. Existing according to its nature and identity is without contradictions.
Man has fallible perceptions and can perceive an entity rightly or wrongly, but the entity itself is not subject to one's perceptions or whims. It is what it is. The characteristics of its existence are not subject to the will of man. If a color blind man cannot perceive properly, the color of an entity, it does not change the true nature or color of the entity. A magician and an observer see the same event, but only the magician has the better perspective and understanding. Either way, knowledge of the characteristics of an entity is independent of its nature; its nature is what it is, whether someone or no one knows it.
The Law of Causality is also a fundamental law essential to Objectivism. It is related to the Law of Identity. It is the result of the interactions of entities, or the action of a single entity, having identity, applied over time. Actions, identified are the result of the Law of Causality. No action can occur without an entity. Action, presupposes existence of an entity for an action to occur or exist.
Actions themselves have a particular nature and depend upon the entity or entities' individual identity and characteristics. Action is the change of a particular characteristic of an entity. If a moon changes location while it orbits its planet, it has changed, but it is bound to the nature of its characteristics and those of the other objects involved. The gravity, mass, speed, etc., are factors and characteristics of the entities involved which the actions are dependent upon. Actions change the nature of an entity, but only within the confines of the nature of the entity or entities involved in the action. They cannot produce an action contrary to their nature. Change is dependent upon and determined by the properties of the entities involved whether the action is momentary or continual. For example: A body such as a moon may impact another body and stop or it may bounce off and continue on a new path, continuously changing characteristic of location or speed. For something to change it must be acted upon by some prior action. This is a cause- thus the term Causality.
A change is an effect of a cause or action. A cause is the result of a prior cause or causes, and each cause is the result of and dependent upon the specific nature of the agents and their identities that affect the change. Newton's laws of motion are a good example.
The Law of Identity and the Law of Causality are interrelated. According to objectivist metaphysics all existents in existence are subject to these laws. The law of Identity declares that all existents are real, with identifiable attributes, but not subject to one's apprehension. Existence exists and the Law of Causality explains the means by which that which exists operates. These laws are the essential foundation for a philosophy congruent with logic.
Objectivism: More of the Basics
Introducing Objectivism - Rand's own words in less than ten minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBG...
"Reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts." Ayn Rand (Time frame 2:24)
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: A is A (though commonly referred to as Aristotle's law of identity) has been claimed by some to be more properly attributed to Gottfried Lebnitz, while the law of non-contradiction is that of Aristotle.
Regardless, together they are essential elements of the law of identity.
A is A is Aristotle's Law of Identity. Rand adopted this as a basic axiom. It is one of the cornerstones of Objectivism. The law states that everything that exists has a specific, particular nature. Every thing one perceives has characteristics that are inherent in its nature. These characteristics are apprehended and can be described. An entity may be described as smooth, blue, round, etc. A person may be tall, slim, and intelligent. These traits give an entity its identity. The particular traits or characteristics are not important. The number of traits is not important. The fact that every entity has traits is what matters.
An entity without form, without traits, is a non-entity. It does not exist. It would be nothing. To exist is to have identity. Identity is the concept of the aspects of existence. Existence requires something to exist as a particular something, with a particular identity. It can not have multiple identities. It is what it is and can be nothing else. A horse is not a camel and a house is not an automobile. Every characteristic of a specific entity is part of its identity.
There can be no contradictions. Entities can not be one thing and another simultaneously. Explicit in the concept of identity is the corollary that reality has a specific nature. Having a definite nature and an identity means it is knowable. Existing according to its nature and identity is without contradictions.
Man has fallible perceptions and can perceive an entity rightly or wrongly, but the entity itself is not subject to one's perceptions or whims. It is what it is. The characteristics of its existence are not subject to the will of man. If a color blind man cannot perceive properly, the color of an entity, it does not change the true nature or color of the entity. A magician and an observer see the same event, but only the magician has the better perspective and understanding. Either way, knowledge of the characteristics of an entity is independent of its nature; its nature is what it is, whether someone or no one knows it.
The Law of Causality is also a fundamental law essential to Objectivism. It is related to the Law of Identity. It is the result of the interactions of entities, or the action of a single entity, having identity, applied over time. Actions, identified are the result of the Law of Causality. No action can occur without an entity. Action, presupposes existence of an entity for an action to occur or exist.
Actions themselves have a particular nature and depend upon the entity or entities' individual identity and characteristics. Action is the change of a particular characteristic of an entity. If a moon changes location while it orbits its planet, it has changed, but it is bound to the nature of its characteristics and those of the other objects involved. The gravity, mass, speed, etc., are factors and characteristics of the entities involved which the actions are dependent upon. Actions change the nature of an entity, but only within the confines of the nature of the entity or entities involved in the action. They cannot produce an action contrary to their nature. Change is dependent upon and determined by the properties of the entities involved whether the action is momentary or continual. For example: A body such as a moon may impact another body and stop or it may bounce off and continue on a new path, continuously changing characteristic of location or speed. For something to change it must be acted upon by some prior action. This is a cause- thus the term Causality.
A change is an effect of a cause or action. A cause is the result of a prior cause or causes, and each cause is the result of and dependent upon the specific nature of the agents and their identities that affect the change. Newton's laws of motion are a good example.
The Law of Identity and the Law of Causality are interrelated. According to objectivist metaphysics all existents in existence are subject to these laws. The law of Identity declares that all existents are real, with identifiable attributes, but not subject to one's apprehension. Existence exists and the Law of Causality explains the means by which that which exists operates. These laws are the essential foundation for a philosophy congruent with logic.
Objectivism: More of the Basics
Introducing Objectivism - Rand's own words in less than ten minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VSBG...
"Reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts." Ayn Rand (Time frame 2:24)
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: A is A (though commonly referred to as Aristotle's law of identity) has been claimed by some to be more properly attributed to Gottfried Lebnitz, while the law of non-contradiction is that of Aristotle.
Regardless, together they are essential elements of the law of identity.
Mike
Although you have addressed rbroberg, I shall endeavor to help you.
"The climax (to date) of the campaign against "rights" is the detachment of the concept from the human species altogether, i.e., the claim that animals have rights.
Rights are moral rules enjoining persuasion as against coercion, and there is no way of applying morality to the amoral or persuasion to the nonconceptual. An animal needs no validation of its behavior; it does not act by right or by permission; it perceives objects, then simply reacts as it must. In dealing with such organisms, there is no applicable law but the law of the jungle, the law of force against force.
An animal (by nature) is concerned only with its survival; man (by choice) must be concerned only with his-- which requires that he establish dominance over the lower species. Some of these are threats to his life and must be exterminated; others serve as sources of food or clothing, as subjects of medical research, even as objects of recreation or surrogate friendship (pets). By its nature and throughout the animal kingdom, life survives by feeding on life. To demand that man defer to the "rights" of other species is to deprive man himself of the right to life. This is "other-ism," i.e., altruism, gone mad.
A man must respect the freedom of human beings for a selfish reason; he stands to benefit enormously from their rational actions. But a man gains nothing from respecting the "freedom" of animals; on the contrary, such a policy would seriously jeopardize his survival. How can man morally inflict pain on other species or treat them as means to his own ends? He can do it. Objectivism replies, when such treatment is necessary or advisable as judged by the standard of morality; he can do it because man's needs are the root of the concept "moral." The source of rights, as of virtues, is not the sensory perceptual level of consciousness, but the conceptual level. The source is not the capacity to feel pain, but the capacity to think.
There are no rights to the labor of other men, and no right of groups, parts, or nonhumans. There are only the rights of man, his right to pursue on his own a certain course of action." Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pg. 358
More: http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresul...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Social Construct: Animal rights as a non-example (lack of a better word) regarding rights are properties of conceptual beings. I am a conceptual being, therefore, I have rights, and I know that I have rights, rights given to me by my very existence as a conceptual being. Animals are unable to conceptualize what rights are, but does this leave them without rights as animals? In essence, if my morality dictates that Animals' rights are real, then I will acknowledge as such. Statement of my morality: Entities that exist and are perceived as living have an inherent right to life due to their very own nature to live. That right does not need to be protected or enforced by myself or others, but nevertheless it ought to be acknowledged as such.
Now, help me understand the fallacies in my argument, so that I may have a better understanding moving forward with these concepts.
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Point being that existence depends on a rapid and veridical response to perceptions in a dog eat dog world until the time binding aspects of information in language and writing enable information to be passed between generations and centuries.
Reasoned thought (Bayes Theorem) and scientific process in theory, experimental, and engineering branches example movement beyond the strictly genetic inheritance of survival to breeding which evolution alone gives its "blessing."
Objectivism functions to give thoughtful species reproductive advantage in the macro-world and quantum theory with Bayes in the areas of incomplete knowledge that promotes a timely learning that enables survival until genetics can "lock" an environmental adaptation. Baldwin Effect http://satirist.org/learn-game/inspir...
I'll tell you what Mike, I am feeling particularly magnanimous today and since you are such a stickler for detail... I will make an addendum to my original post and provide more satisfactory attribution for A is A and the law of non-contradiction. Now, if you would just stop the ad hominem and pedantry, I, along with others, would be most appreciative when we are not being insulted with your erroneous estimation of our mental inferiority.
Thank you. I know the reference/link I provided does have the proper meaning listed among the others. I am not in the habit of underestimating and insulting the intelligence of our members... I trust they can gather proper meaning without a philosophy dictionary.
Regards,
O.A.
Is their objective certainty in metaphysical axioms that is NEVER invalidated by observations?
2. I will accede to the fact that Leibniz first coined the term A is A and published his formulation. However the concept preceded him and is a necessary precurser and is implicit in Aristotle's non-contradiction. Without identity there can be no contradiction. There is nothing. Attribution is immaterial to the lesson, but if it pleases fine. Sleep well Leibniz.
3. Yes. This is all spelled out in Introduction to Objectivist Epitemology. Again, the word perception has more than one connotation. One is related to the apprehension of the mind... a mental image: concept. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...
Your last paragraph: Again see 3. above (ref. perception). Also, re-read the beginning of my fourth paragraph. I wrote "Man has fallible perceptions" not fallible senses. Do not besmirch the intelligence of "everyone else here." If I wrote what you said I did somewhere else (though I can't seem to find it) it was in error. Generally I find your criticisms in this case to be akin to the logical fallacy of nit-picking. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/t...
GHB: Gamma Hydroxybutyrate (C4H8O3) is a central nervous system (CNS) depressant that is commonly referred to as a “club drug” or “date rape” drug.???
GHB: Bug Out Bag vs. Get Home Bag. A lot of people are talking about bug out bags these days. People want to be prepared for disaster when it strikes ... ?
GHB: George Herbert Bush ???
(1) "Ayn said the same things as other philosophers on this matter too... So what?" Actually, while you can find similar ideas all along the route to the present - the works of Willem Quine, for instance; the Catholic scholasticism of Cadinal Désiré-Félicien-François-Joseph Mercier, also - Ayn Rand pretty much figured this all out for herself. Her journals have been published and she was a voracious reader. She did not work in a vacuum. However, Ayn Rand did not just take bits and pieces from a lot of other people and glue them into a philosophy.
(2) Ayn Rand did not like Leibniz because his rationalism (which as bad enough) tended to idealism (which is fatal). She disliked him so much that she never mentioned him. But "A is A" was Leibniz's formulation, not Aristotle's; and that's a fact.
(3) Man has fallible perceptions and can perceive an entity rightly or wrongly... It is arguable that any misperceptions happen in the brain or the mind, not in the sensory organs themselves. Our amusing so-called "optical illusions" seem to be culturally learned and not inherent in human perception. Ten teams of anthropologists took these and other experiences from our culture out to other cultures including nominally isolated tribes and found that so-called "primitive" are not misled.
It is an axiom of Objectivist epistemology that we perceive reality as it is. Errors are the result of percept formation or concept formation, not of perception, which is always immediate. Your innocent claim of our fallible senses was easily accepted by everyone else here. That indicates an emotional, non-judgmental conformance of opinion: groupthink.
You can find students of Objectivism with degrees in physics and related fields who accept or deny some or all of quantum mechanics. The field is open for discovery. I will point out that "Schrödinger's Cat" is often misunderstood as a statement of Heisenberg indeterminancy, but Schrödinger was with Einstein on that and suggested the Cat only as a reductio ad absurdum of Heisenberg indeterminancy.
Among the arguments that you can have with Objectivist physicists is whether or not GPS actually depends on Einstein's special relativity. (I have no dog in that hunt.)
When black swans were discovered, they were called just that: black swans, not something else. They were properly integrated into their class.
BTW: The exception does not prove the rule. That is a common misstatement only more sophisticated than "irregardless" and "Valentimes Day." Everyone says it, but they do not know what they are saying. The word prove in older English only meant "to test" similar to our word "probe" whence "problem" and "probation." Logically, an exception to a rule does not validate the rule.
Load more comments...