A is A and the Law of Causality: Basic Metaphysics
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 3 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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
I will add that book to my list. It sounds quite interesting.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I quite agree. Some of Aristotle's work can be quite challenging, but gathering what you can is definitely a worthy endeavor. I agree on Aristotle's "Ethics" it is one of the more accessible, especially if provided one of the better translations.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I am going to try to produce more of these types of blogs in the future, because I feel the same as you. Galt willing... :)
Regards,
O.A.
I believe they have been long inculcated with a twisted sense of morality that revolves around altruism and a singular connotation of the word selfish. Perhaps this is why Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness, is so essential to the understanding and clarifying of the distinctions between their conception of selfishness and the ethical bedrock of self interest, and the true egoist.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...
Regards,
O.A.
Epistemology: How do we know? Which is primary, existence or consciousness?
Ethics: If consciousness is to be primary, then whose consciousness is to rule, yours, or mine? (Or perhaps I have a whole gang, making up a "group" consciousness. Or a Higher Power consciousness that rules over us from Above.) If--on the other hand-- existence is primary, then what methods should we be using to live our lives? How can we know? (Back to epistemology for the answer.)
Politics: How are we to interact with each other? Should there be individual liberty, or not? In the creation of some system of government, which we can call "the state," does it exist to serve the individual, or does the individual exist to serve the state? (Another way of stating this dichotomy is the witticism, "If you cannot OWN property, then you ARE property.")
It is particularly enlightening for Objectivists to read not only the words of Rand, but the books by Aristotle. His answers to the questions of ethics and politics do not match those of Objectivism, but cover the same issues in a way that can seem modern to us, especially when compared to most of the more mystical tracts, both ancient and modern.
To me, Aristotle appears to be working on correcting the errors of Plato.
Aristotle's "Ethics" is very accessible to the modern mind, and interestingly answers the question of slavery by suggesting the requirements for ending it--"when the looms weave themselves and the mines dig themselves" in one translation. James Watt's practical steam engine thus freed the slaves.
I did my own research. Like a good student, I did not plagiarize and use their exact wording, but translated the material into my own different wording that would convey the same messages. I have studied Aristotle and I know of the link to Leibniz and the differing opinions. They are immaterial to the lessons. Before writing this article I did review/consult entries on both of these laws from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand- Peikoff, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, imoportanceofphilosophy.com, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online, and informationphilosopher.com. I don't know what you call research, but in my world that is.
As for A is A, you might be interested in this link, http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...
I am not unique in recognizing the pre-existing foundation of Leibniz's claim. In fact according to some sources, in some form it was recognized and recorded as early as Plato's dialogue Theaetetus (185a).
I have one nuanced variation on your recap that I might add; and I am currently pondering this, have encountered it recently in a nice little book on applied epistemology for the non-philosopher entitled "The Whys Way to Success and Happiness by Betsy Speicher, a fellow Objectivist. (I found the book to be over-pedantic for me, but containing a few nice, nuggets, clarifications and applications, btw)
She proposes that a cause of anything is not and action or an entity; rather, causes are always particular characteristics of entities or actions. Through various examples, she presents a worthwhile case and at least show the value of that distinction in the methods of determining causes.
"It can not have multiple identities." Agreed. Even bipolar people have a particular, albeit unfortunate, set of characteristics defined by the term "bipolar". (The phrase "manic depressive" is not per se a contradiction in terms in that mania is not necessarily elation and depression is not necessarily sadness.)
"Entities can not be one thing and another simultaneously. Explicit in the concept of identity is the corollary that reality has a specific nature."
Indeed. This is critical. Take politics as one example.
Much of the new left derives from a kind of amalgamation of the old left. Rand describes the differences well, as I recall. The new left does not posit class struggle not from an economic perspective (i.e. capitalist vs. proletariat), but from an racial, ethnic, linguistic, gender, gender preference, environmental, or other perspective. Yet the new left continues to be based in the old left's method. The method, specifically, is a dialectic process. In this process, a "social construct" (here lacking a better phrase) is negated. This negation is then supported with certain examples and negated vocabularies.
"Animal rights", "environmental justice", "economic justice", and "working class solidarity" are common phrases. But, as we agree, A is A. Rights are properties of conceptual beings. Animals do not have rights. Justice is achieved within a court system. A court system is a political entity. The environment itself has no political status. There is no environmental justice beyond the protection of property rights. Solidarity is unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group. Yet individuals who have multiple characteristics belongs to multiple groups. Not every person who works belongs to the "working class"? An analogous question: Not every verifiable scientific claim belongs to "science", but is perhaps "Jewish science"?
The point here is that A is A, the law of identity, means that a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. But it also means that reason, logic, and definitions unlock the correct method of identification. Without it, we are left to a chaos where the ethical treatment of animals, environmental science, civil courts, and manual laborers receive not proper philosophy, but the very disintegration the new left intends.
Thanks for your bright, concise analysis of these fundamental principles. Your post is wonderful for me as a student of the objectivist philosophy. The video provided in Ayn's own words will now become a part of my daily mental exercise .I will listen to it with a feeling of joy , having the basis of my existence to be my own self interest.
I have a question if you would be so kind. There are many things that I feel good and happy about , such as personal freedom, accomplishment, working towards a goal ,discovery , comprehension, learning ,athletics , family ,social interactions with like minded folks , but I also find joy in mentoring and sharing my experience and knowledge hopefully assisting other people on my own terms. I don't think that I am unique in that type of charity. In fact it is a unique and wonderful feeling, very satisfying that a person who assists someone else gets. I think that behavior is totally compatible with the premise of self-interest .
Critics see ethical self-interest as just greed.
The question is.
Why don't the critics understand that objectivist's can be Generous and charitable and are just as interested in the people's well-being?
Is it because they ignore the ethical part?
With respect,
DOB