Since existence between objects is relative–that is, movement between two or more objects in a vacuum (of space) means that depending on how an observer chooses to measure the relationship, either object at any given time can serve as the reference for said measurement–the only thing which can be said to be fundamentally equal between objects is their existence.
Now, before I go any further, and before one of my many philosophically astute readers observes and comments upon the inevitable rational dilemma involved in taking “existence” as the metaphysical primary to its logical conclusion, let me provide you with the following disclaimer:
I submit that existence isn’t actually the metaphysical irreducible–that honor is reserved for “ability”. The ability to exist (which really has its foundation in the ability to conceptualize existence), in other words, must precede existence. But for the purposes of this article, and to use a concept that is more readily understandable and familiar to most people, “existence” as the assumed foundational metaphysic is acceptable. In any case, whether we assume “existence” or “ability” as the metaphysical primary does not significantly change the argument within the specific context of this article.
Now, what I mean by “the only thing equal is the existence of the respective objects” is merely that the being–the IS–of object A is equal to the being–the IS–of object B. This is due to the fact that objectively, and necessarily, each object, empirically apprehended, must be said to possess absolute existence. In other words, each object is not an amalgamation or an integration of existence and NON-existence, for this would constitute an impossible contradiction. Because the objects exist, they cannot, by definition, NOT exist in any measure. You cannot integrate a NOT with an IS; and since clearly each object IS, then they are by no means any value of not. And further, because there can be no such actual thing as nothing–for nothing, by definition, cannot be something–each object must be entirely, infinitely, and categorically something. Put another way: each object must have existence, and they must have it absolutely. And since the existence is in equal measure absolute, or infinite, there is absolute, or infinite, equality between the two objects.
This is validated by the fact that there is no way to observe a distinction between each object’s relative and respective existence, for all we can say about existence is that it is relative, which in no way mitigates or limits existence as the absolute metaphysical primary. (On the contrary, I would argue that in order for existence to be relative, it must be infinite…it must be absolute and limitless; and the the contradiction is only ostensible, not actual.) The identity distinctions between objects are based upon the premise that they each possess absolute existence first, in order that they can then be defined (conceptualized) relative to one another. In other words, existence must precede any relevant application of relativity.
To put this in simpler terms, we can say that the moon, for example, absolutely exists, and likewise the apple. One cannot be said nor measured to exist in a greater or lesser degree than the other. “Lesser” and “greater” are concepts which require relative distinction, which is only relevant if the objects exist first in order that distinctions, which then are relative, can be made. In other words, the relativity of existence is predicated upon existence, itself. And…well…at the very least, relativity and existence are corollaries.
Because of the fact that existence between objects is utterly equal to an infinite degree, any attempt to apply equality beyond the application of the truth that both object A and object B exist, and this infinitely, and therefore literally, and unambiguously and, in the literal sense, indistinctly, is a gross logical fallacy. The reason for the logical fallacy is as follows:
The absolute existence of object A demands that it, by definition, is simultaneously absolutely not object B, and vice versa. As object A and object B have utterly equal (even, identical, really…but that’s another, even more nuanced article) existence, they are also simultaneously infinitely distinct from one another. What this means is that these objects are infinitely different once we concede their absolute existential equality. A succinct way of putting it is: as their existence is infinitely equal, their identity is infinitely distinct. Their identity is distinct to the same infinite degree as their existence is equal.
This is why any attempt to cultivate “social justice” based upon “equality” of individuals (a contradiction, since “social” is a collectivist, not individualistic, philosophical ideology) must fail. It is rooted in the false notion that there can be an equality of identity, and not existence. The notion is false because it violates the Law (as postulated by myself) of Existence as Inversely Correlate to Identity: If A is itself absolute, it is likewise and simultaneously absolutely not B. Or, stated more abstractly:
Where A(Existence) = B(Existence), A(Identity) ≠ B(Identity)
Practically applied, what this means is fairly obvious: I (for example) am not you and you are not me–our identities are infinitely distinct. We are each One…we are absolutely ourselves whilst being absolutely NOT each other, which makes us infinitely individual at the most basic level: existence; and only here, at existence, is equality rationally applied to society. And by this I mean that equality simply means that one individual in society may not deny the other individual the right of pursuing his/her own life as he/she chooses and is able as an extension of their infinite existence. And thus this individual, distinct, existence, being ipso facto and therefore necessary, must be both True and Good. And therefore pursuing such existence as one chooses–also by virtue of being the only one who possesses the singular frame reference of Self, absolutely, from which to manifest his or her life, and thus CAN be the only one who can rationally choose how to manifest his/her own life–can only be considered an explicit right. Equality cannot mean that one individual has the right to impose his own, or a collective’s, wholly abstract standard of “equality’ upon a society of individuals. For this (irrationally and contradictory) subordinates the absolute individual to the “group”, contradicting his/her existence entirely. Which means that instead of making individuals equal, “social equality” denies them entirely. And once individuals are denied, there is no frame of reference for either “social” or “justice” or “equality” at all. Once the individual is eliminated from the existence equation, there is no way to define existence in the first place. And without existence, you have no relative relationship between people or objects; and without those, there are no distinctions. And without distinctions, there are no definitions, no concepts, and no values. And without definitions, concepts, and values, there is no reality.
Because I am infinitely me and infinitely not you, how we express ourselves within the environment –being an extension of our unique individual Selves–must also be infinitely different. But to demand “society” to give us equality of resources in the hopes of fostering an equality of outcomes is logically untenable. Giving equal amounts of resources to distinct individuals, who are distinct at the the the most basic level, their identity, cannot possibly create equality in any practical sense because equality is not about identity, and doesn’t belong to it. It is not about how we express our utterly unique and distinct Selves upon the earth. Rather, equality is about existence. Or, more formally, t is about sharing the same fundamental metaphysical absolute: existence.
And how do we exist?
And individuality is how we apply and express ourselves upon the environment. The way we express ourselves, practically, or socially, is via not our existence but via our identity; that is, via that which we are as infinitely and always distinct from that which we are not. And in the “social” sense, what we are NOT…is other people. We are NOT, then, the GROUP. Because if we are the group, then we are not ourselves…in which case, we loose our identity, and thus the idea of “group”, or “society”, or “justice”, or “equality” (in the false collectivist sense) becomes entirely, and ironically, irrelevant. You cannot advocate the equality of individuals without also advocating the identity of: “individual”. And once there are no individuals, there is nothing to make “equal”, in the social sense. And thus, the only way to make individuals “equal” in the social sense is to destroy that which makes us equal in the real sense (the rational, efficacious, moral sense): our existence.
And this is why all forms of collectivism (e.g. fascism, communism, socialism, religious gnosticism) will always destroy humanity, and horribly, violently so. Collectivism can never prosper humanity because it fundamentally denies the REALITY of humanity.
Now, this is all, of course, merely the petals on the flower of metaphysics; and also, it’s really important to understand that “existence” as a metaphysical primary breaks down spectacularly once we climb several rungs deeper into the ontological discussion (but not in a way that necessarily effects the veracity of this article’s assertions or its conclusions, I submit, as I mentioned in my disclaimer, above). Nevertheless, the discussion of absolute equality of existence as an inverse corollary to the absolute distinction of identity is helpful in analyzing the practical applications of collectivist ideologies in general, and specifically the morally defunct and ultimately humanity-razing Marxist notion of “social justice”.