| | Michael wrote, If we are individuals, we are an individual something. Not individual processes. Yes, we are individual living organisms, but a living organism is characterized by a specific (biological) process; it is the individual that engages in the process. A living thing comes into existence. This is called birth. It goes out of existence. This is called death. That thing did not exist before birth and does not exist after death. Inanimate matter does not act that way, nor does it have that attribute. You're right, inanimate matter does not act that way--it does not come into existence and go out of existence, but things do--be they living organisms (like animals and trees) or inanimate objects (like houses, glaciers, planets and even stars). What may be confusing you is the following passage from Galt's speech, in which he states:
There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence--and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of llfe is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death.
This passage may appear ambiguous, given the reference to "inanimate matter" as unconditional. However, Galt also says, "Matter [not inanimate matter] is indestructible," which clarifies his meaning, because it is clear that both living entities and non-living entities are destructible. Both can come into existence and go out of existence. "Inanimate matter" in this context simply means matter (as such), understanding that the matter of which living organisms are composed is not itself alive; rather it is the particular form or organization of the matter that is alive; in other words, it is the entity or organism that possesses life (not the matter of which it is composed). There is no such thing as "animate matter" as a special constituent of living organisms in virtue of which they acquire the properties of life, which is how you may be construing it. As for existence or non-existence pertaining only to living organisms, Galt is referring not to existence or non-existence as such, but to the fundamental alternative of existence or non-existence. When he says that the existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not," he means that its existence depends on the necessity of goal-directed action in the face of an alternative. Obviously, there is a sense in which even the existence of an ice cube is conditional; its existence depends on certain conditions of temperature; lacking those conditions, it will cease to exist, just as life will if conditions do not support its existence. There is, as Dragonfly notes, no elan vital, no mysterious life force that exists over and above the laws of physics and chemistry. Teleological causation is not an alternative to physical causation, but a complex emergentist form of it. The action of living organisms is both physical and teleological. Life does use inanimate matter, but it also exists. I am more than a process of rearranged inanimate matter going through some mystical process that has no characteristics of its own. Life is an existent, just as much as an atom is. Life exists. On the contrary, life is simply a process of rearranged (inanimate) matter--rearranged in such a way that it acts in a goal-directed manner--that it exhibits the properties of final causation rather than simply mechanical or efficient causation (to use Aristotle's terminology). There is nothing mystical about it, however. On the contrary, it is the vitalist conception of life, which you seem to be defending, that has a mystical connotation, because it suggests an immanent "life force" or entelechy that governs and regulates the organism's action over and above the physical properties of the entity itself. It's really strange discussing this on an Objectivist forum. Not at all; this is precisely the sort of thing that one might expect to be discussed. :-)
- Bill
|
|
