One thought on ““Existence, We”

  1. Previously, within “Primacies of Existence” (linked above), I had written:

    Primacy of existence runs also against Kant when he writes that “apperception, and with it thought, precedes all possible determinate arrangement of presentations” (KrV A289 B345).[7] Against Kant also, and in step with Aristotle, Rand writes: “‘Things as they are’ are things as perceived by your mind” (AS 1036). . . .

    Rand spoke in that passage against Kant of “things as they are” and not of “things in themselves.” She was right to avoid the latter phrase because of the well-known shading of it. That latter phrase, down from Kant, intimates a systematic inaccessibility of mind-independent Existence with its Identities by our cognitive faculties. In the same vein, rightly she would reject talk of the ‘transcendental object’ or talk of ‘noumena’ and their comprehensive contrast to ‘phenomena’, . . .

    Talk of “things in themselves” meaning things free of any situation is talk of nothing. “Things in themselves,” meaning merely all that they are, is a sound sense of the phrase and not Kant’s sense when he is contrasting things in themselves with those same things as they are in their external relations such as in their relation to human consciousness.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    To that, concerning Kant, I’ve now inaugurated “Dissolution of Kantian Space and Time” ~

    Under my theoretical philosophy set out in EW, a living tree growing in the soil would be an item of existence that is also an of-existence item, where the latter is my superordinate of consciousness and takes the place of consciousness in Rand’s fundamental division existence/consciousness. So the corresponding partition in my metaphysics is existence/of-existence. Of-existents are existents recruiting existents. Such would be a tree recruiting soil or us planting a tree or examining it.

    Another of Rand’s fundamental divisions of existence was her category-division entity/action/attribute/relationship. My replacements in this fundamental division were Entity/passage/situation/character. The capitalization of ‘entity’ signals a difference, a broadening, of the entity-concept vis-a-vis Rand’s concept, but that difference is modest, and Entity and character are not the categories brought to bear in the address to follow, which concerns Kant and the evaporation, by my system, of his doctrines of space and time in experience and in mathematics.

    My category ‘situation’ includes both spatial situation and all varieties of situation of existence with of-existence and vice versa. ‘Passage’ includes all temporal aspects of existence, all alterations, and all causes of alterations or stasis. I demonstrated the qualification of “existence is passage” and “existence is situation” for axioms in the final section of my paper EW.

    Rand’s fundamental division of concrete/abstract was replaced in my system by concrete/formal, in which some formalities (examples in the paper) belong to concretes, while other, related formalities are mental tools we have devised. Both types of formalities are accessible only in abstraction, which are in the division of existence that is of-existence.

    https://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/34262-existence-we/&tab=comments#comment-374222

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s