Objectivism 101: Law of Identity

It says in this section - last paragraph:

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

Am I reading this wrong? The first two sentences make it sound like existence HAS identity rather than existence IS Identity.

Just wondering.

http://objectivism101.com/IOP/Metaphysics_Identity.html

Post 1

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 9:14am

Each thing that exists, exists as something. Nothing can exist without an identity.

"Existence" is a concept whose referents are all things that exist. "All things that exist, exist as things that possess identity." My understanding of "Existence is identity" is simply a shorthand for "To exist is to exist as something" - i.e., that nothing can exist without an identity. They are inseparable. One does not come before the other metaphysically - that is, in the sense that a thing can come into existence without an identity but somehow acquires and identity in some fashion. Nor could it be that there is some identity, without an existant, just waiting till that existant comes into being so they can join together. The only seperation is mental, as categories. In that sense "existence" without reference to identity is only valid to distinguish from non-existence.

Technically, to say "This thing has an identity," is practically redundant. To become a subject of the sentence, to be discussed, there has to be an identification - an assertion of identity, a presumption of a uniqueness. For us, as conscious beings, perceiving and grasping reality is identification. Without identity... no identification.

Because of that we are only able to abstract existence or identity for conceptual purposes since metaphysically they are always joined. But it is important to abtract them to grasp their connections to our consciousness - to epistemology.

I don't find any problem in this sentence: "The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions."

Sometimes the distinctions between "has" as in posesses, and "is" as in an assertion of equivalence are about conveying an aspect of a relationship. That sentence is showing that 'identity' is what makes knowledge possible and that does not contradict the fact that existence is identity.

From Galt's Speech:

"Existence exists�and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two�existence and consciousness�are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was�no matter what his errors�the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

Post 2

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 4:57pm

Hi Tim -

What kind of problem does this present for you, since you asked?:

Am I reading this wrong? The first two sentences make it sound like existence HAS identity rather than existence IS Identity.

Things have identity, therefore, a thing has identity. A Windsor has the identity of a Chair, thus, a Windsor is a Chair.

Genus (chair) and species (Windsor).

;)

Post 3

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 5:35pm

"Reality has an identity" isn't the best way of putting it. Existence is identity, a particular thing has an identity. Particular things have locations, causes, beginnings in time. Reality - existence - what is - the universe does not. No problem as long as you remember the distinction.

Post 4

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 7:58pm

Teresa - its not so much that I have a problem with it as I think it is a little bit misleading. Peter says exactly what I was thinking. Steve, thanks for all your effort there but like I said I just thought the paragraph might throw someone new to Objectivist ideas off just a bit. It isn't wrong per se. Just wondering if there were a better way to say it.

Thanks guys.

Post 5

Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 11:39pm

Peikoff says that it's technically wrong to say that an existent "has" identity, because to say that it "has" identity suggests that identity just happens to be one of its attributes and that it could conceivably exist without that attribute. To be precise, one must say that existence "is" identity. "The 'identity' of an existent means that which it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics." (OPAR, 6)

Post 6

Friday, November 12, 2010 - 6:11pm

Bill,

There are two concepts there. One is the assumption that to say that "it has identity" suggests that identity just happens to be one of its attributes and that it could conceivably exist without that attribute. Someone would have to convince me of that, because I'm not buying it. I have life, but that doesn't make it optional for me.
-----------

The other assumption is: "The 'identity' of an existent means that which it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics." (OPAR, 6) That is the concept, unless I'm mistaken, not the identity. Identity and concept and entity are not the same (not "identical" :-) It is okay to say, the identity of an entity means the entity with all of its characteristics and attributes.

If Identity meant all of the characteristics and attributes then identification either becomes a floating abstraction or is impossible since identification would become a conscious process involving all characteristics and attributes. Not just those that are adequate to differentiate the entity from others in the context such as to serve the purpose of the thought being constructed.

I might have a paper cut on my right thumb, and that would be an attribute of the entity in question, and the concept of Steve Wolfer refers to an entity that does have that characteristic along with all others, but I do not see it as a necessary part of my identity unless you find two Steve Wolfers that are identical in every way except that the real me has that paper cut. Then it would be needed.

Post 7

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 8:59pm

In replying to my previous post,. Steve wrote,

There are two concepts there. One is the assumption that to say that "it has identity" suggests that identity just happens to be one of its attributes and that it could conceivably exist without that attribute. Someone would have to convince me of that, because I'm not buying it. I have life, but that doesn't make it optional for me.

What is it that "has" life? It is your physical body, and it only makes sense to say this, because your physical body could die, in which case, it would no longer "have" the attribute of life.

The other assumption is: "The 'identity' of an existent means that which it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics." (OPAR, 6) That is the concept, unless I'm mistaken, not the identity. Identity and concept and entity are not the same (not "identical" :-) It is okay to say, the identity of an entity means the entity with all of its characteristics and attributes.

An entity IS the sum of its attributes or characteristics. It's identity is (includes) all of its characteristics.

If Identity meant all of the characteristics and attributes then identification either becomes a floating abstraction or is impossible since identification would become a conscious process involving all characteristics and attributes. Not just those that are adequate to differentiate the entity from others in the context such as to serve the purpose of the thought being constructed.

A thing's identity includes all of its attributes and characteristics, known and unknown. You can identify something (differentiate it from other existents) without identifying every single one of its characteristics and attributes. What a thing is is everything it is; it is not just those aspects of it that one is aware of. That would make its identity subjective -- dependent on knowledge and observation -- which would smuggle the primacy of consciousness in the back door.

I might have a paper cut on my right thumb, and that would be an attribute of the entity in question, and the concept of Steve Wolfer refers to an entity that does have that characteristic along with all others, but I do not see it as a necessary part of my identity unless you find two Steve Wolfers that are identical in every way except that the real me has that paper cut. Then it would be needed.

You're confusing identity with essence -- with an entity's essential characteristics. Identity is metaphysical; essence is epistemological. Things don't have essences; concepts have essences, and a concept's essence is dependent on the context of one's knowledge and can change with the growth of one's knowledge.

"Objectivism holds that the essence of a concept is that fundamental characteristics(s) of its units on which the greatest number of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all other existents within the field of man's knowledge. Thus the essence of a concept is determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge. The metaphysical referent of man's concepts is not a special, separate metaphysical essence, but the total of the facts of reality he has observed, and this total determines which characteristics of a given group of existents he designates as essential. An essential characteristic is factual, in the sense that it does exist, does determine other characteristics and does distinguish a group of existents from all others; it is epistemological in the sense that the classification of "essential characteristic" is a device of man's method of cognition -- a means of classifying, condensing and integrating an ever-growing body of knowledge." (Rand, ITOE, p. 52) (Emphasis added)

For instance, the �essence� of the concept �bird� for a child will be different than for an adult, because the child�s knowledge is not as great as the adult�s. For a very young child, the essence of a �bird� might be �a thing that moves in the air.� This allows the child to distinguish birds from things on the ground. But once he discovers kites, the essence of a bird will change to �a thing that flies under its own power,� which allows the child to distinguish birds from kites. When he discovers airplanes, the essence of a bird will change again to �a living thing that has wings and can fly,� which allows him to distinguish a bird from a plane as well as from a kite. When he discovers flies and moths, the essence changes once more to �a warm-blooded vertebrate that has wings and flies,� which allows him to distinguish a bird from flying insects as well as from airplanes and kites. (Examples cited from Leonard Peikoff's course on Objectivist Epistemology)

Thus, essence can change with the growth of one's knowledge. You can't define a concept in terms of an "essential" that is guaranteed to cover all future contingencies and discoveries. You have to define it in terms of what is essential within the context of your presently existing knowledge. You can then expand your definition as you discover new and relevant information.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 12/01, 9:32pm)

Post 8

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 10:21pm