Peikoff - Reality - Causality As A Corollary Of Identity Flashcards
(39 cards)
Chronologically, the 3 axioms are not learned by the developing child simultaneously.
Existence is implicit from the start. It is given in the first sensation.
To grasp “Identity” and (later) “Consciousness”, even in implicit form, …?
The child must attain across a period of months a certain perspective on his mental contents.
He must perform, in stages, various processes of differentiation + integration that are NOT GIVEN IN THE SIMPLE ACT OF OPENING HIS EYES.
Before a child can distinguish THIS object from THAT one, and thus reach the implicit concept of “identity”, he must first come to perceive that objects exist.
This requires that he moves beyond the chaos of disparate, fleeting sensations with which his conscious life begins; it requires that he integrate his sensations into PERCEPTS of things or objects.
At this point, the child …?
Has reached, in implicit form, the CONCEPT OF ENTITY.
The concept of “ENTITY” is an axiomatic concept, which is presupposed by all subsequent human cognition, although it is NOT a basic axiom.
In particular, the grasp of “entity”, in conjunction with the closely following grasp of “IDENTITY”, makes possible the discovery of the next important principle of metaphysics:
THE LAW OF CAUSALITY.
First, some clarification in regard to the concept of “ENTITY”:
Since it is axiomatic, the referents of this concept can be specified ONLY OSTENSIVELY, by pointing to the things given to men in SENSE PERCEPTION.
==> In this case, solid things with a perceivable shape, such as a rock, a person, or a table.
==> By extension from this primary sense, “entity” may be used in various contexts to denote a vast array of existents, such as the solar system, General Motors, or the smallest subatomic particle.
*But all entities like these are reducible ultimately to combinations, components, or distinguishable aspects of “entities” in the primary sense.
Entities constitute …?
The content of the world men perceive.
There is NOTHING ELSE TO OBSERVE.
In the act of observing entities, of course, the child, like the adult, observes (some of) their attributes, actions, and relationships.
In time, the child’s consciousness can focus separately on such features, isolating them in thought for purposes of conceptual identification and specialized study.
One byproduct of this process is …?
Philosopher’s inventory of the so-called “categories” of being, such as
qualities (“red” or “hard”),
quantities (“five inches” or “6 pounds),
relationships (“to the right of” or “father of”),
Actions (“walking” or “digesting”).
***The point here, however, is that none of these “categories” has metaphysical primacy;
NONE HAS ANY INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE; all represent merely aspects of entities.
There is no “red” or “hard” APART …?
From the crayon or book or other thing that is red or hard.
“5 inches” or “6 pounds” presuppose …?
The OBJECT that extends 5 inches or weighs 6 pounds.
“To the right of” or “father of” have no reality apart …?
From the things one of which is to the right of another or is the father of another.
And, especially important in considering the law of cause and effect, …?
There are NO FLOATING ACTIONS.
THERE ARE ONLY ACTIONS PERFORMED BY ENTITIES.
“Action” is …?
What ENTITIES DO.
When a child has reached the stage of (implicitly) grasping “entity”, “identity”, and “action”, …?
He has the knowledge required to reach (implicitly) the LAW OF CAUSALITY.
**To take this step, he needs to observe an OMNIPRESENT FACT:
==> That an entity of a certain kind acts in a certain way.
An entity of a certain kind acts in a certain way - Examples:
The child shakes his rattle and it makes a sound; he shakes his pillow and it does not.
He pushes a ball and it rolls along the floor; he pushes a book and it sits there, unmoving.
He lets a block out of his hands and it falls; he lets a balloon go and it rises.
***The child may WISH the pillow to rattle, the book to roll, the block to float, but he cannot make these events occur.
==> Things, he soon discovers, ACT IN DEFINITE WAYS AND ONLY IN THESE WAYS.
This represents the IMPLICIT knowledge of causality.
==> It is the child’s form of grasping the relationship between THE NATURE OF AN ENTITY and ITS MODE OF ACTION.
The ADULT validation of the law of causality consists in stating this relationship (NATURE OF ENTITY + MODE OF ACTION) EXPLICITLY:
The validation rests on 2 points:
- The fact that action is action of an entity.
- The law of identity, A is A.
==> Every entity has a nature. It is specific, noncontradictory, limited.
It has certain attributes and no others.
**Such an entity must act IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS NATURE.
The only alternative would be for an entity to act …?
- Apart from its nature.
- Against its nature.
**BOTH IMPOSSIBLE.
A thing cannot act apart from its nature, because …?
Existence IS identity.
==> Apart from its nature, A THING IS NOTHING.
A thing cannot act AGAINST its nature, ie, in contradiction to its identity, because …?
A is A. Contradictions are impossible.
In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is ONLY ONE action possible to an entity …?
THE ACTION EXPRESSIVE OF ITS IDENTITY.
==> This is the action it will take, the action that is CAUSED AND NECESSITATED by its nature.
Thus, under ordinary circumstances,
if a child releases a balloon filled with helium, only one outcome is possible: the balloon will rise.
If he releases a 2nd balloon filled with sand, the nature of the entity is different, and SO IS ITS ACTION; the only possible outcome now is that it will fall.
If, under the same circumstances, several actions were possible, …?
Eg a balloon could rise OR fall (or start to emit music like a radio, or turn into a pumkin), everything else remaining the SAME …
==> Such incompatible (contradictory) outcomes would have to derive from incompatible (contradictory) aspects of the entity’s nature.
***BUT THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY ASPECTS. A is A.
Cause and effect, therefore, is a universal law of reality:
Every action has a cause (= THE NATURE OF THE ENTITY WHICH ACTS).
*And the same cause leads to the same effect (the same entity, under the same circumstances, will perform the same action).
The above is NOT to be taken AS A PROOF of the law of cause and effect.
Peikoff had merely made EXPLICIT what is known implicitly in the PERCEPTUAL GRASP OF REALITY.
Given the facts that action is action of entities, and that every entity has a nature - BOTH OF WHICH FACTS ARE KNOWN SIMPLY BY OBSERVATION -
==> it is SELF-EVIDENT that an entity must act in accordance with its nature.
“The law of causality”, Ayn Rand sums up, …?
“Is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities.
==> The nature of an action is CAUSED and DETERMINED by the nature of the entities that act.
***A thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.
Here again, as in regard to axioms, implicit knowledge must NOT be confused with explicit.
The explicit identification of causality (by the Greeks) was an enormous intellectual achievement.
==> it represented the beginning of a scientific outlook on existence, as against the prescientific view of the world as a realm of miracles or of chance.
(And here again the worst offenders philosophically are NOT primitives who implicitly count on causality yet never discover it, but the modern sophisticates, such as David Hume, who count on it while explicitly rejecting it.)
Causality is best classified as a …?
COROLLARY OF IDENTITY.
