The Number of the Beast

Michael: “When you perceive that something exists, you are perceiving that, "It is." You are perceiving the self-evident fact that "It is", which means it exists, and the self-evident fact that "It is", which means it possess identity.”

Michael, as I understand it, Ayn Rand’s view of perception is that it is an automatic, brain-directed process, whereas a concept is the product of a volitional, mind-directed process. Yet above you appear to be saying that the concepts existence/identity are perceptually evident, even though that doesn’t square with Rand’s views on perception.

Further, you appear to be equating ‘existence exists’ with a ‘fact’: ‘something exists’ or ‘it is’. This is fine, but that’s a quite different meaning to ‘all that which exists’, which is the other meaning assigned to existence, as per the original quote from Rand in ITOE: “The units of the concepts ‘existence’ and ‘identity’ are every, etc…”

There’s simple way to resolve both these issues. Demonstrate how the concept ‘existence’ is formed via Rand’s method – perception, differentiation, similarity, measurement omission and so on.

Brendan

Post 121

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 7:59pm

Hi Bill,

I only became interested in this thread after I read your other one about bigots, as I usually find religious debates boring because religious argument always lose. Anyway, it's not my intention to argue that here with you.

You bring up a good dilemma that eludes attention because of the godly aspects of this thread. Let me paraphrase you (correct me if I'm wrong) : without God, Objectivism is at it's core materialistic and prone to nihilism. The material world has no meaning, only God does or only God can give it the material world meaning.

For your part, you'll have to define what you mean by 'God giving our lives meaning' or what not, because I'm not sure what you mean. You may have already described this earlier, but I regretfully don't have time to weed through all those posts. I'm not going to hound you about proof that God exists. Just state your definition of 'meaning' which may or may not include God.

First, let's define nihilism: nothing exists or has any meaning. By definition it's self-negating, because if nothing exists or has meaning, then nihilism doesn't exist or have meaning.

Objectivism asserts that existence exists. It is our metaphysical given. I can't argue it away; it will exist regardless of my wishes. How do we know it exists? I am sensing it right now. I have to make concessions to it. I am bound by it's laws. It is non-contradictory, entirely consistent.

Post 122

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 4:38am

Brendan:

Existence and identity are axiomatic concepts. Their formation by perception, differentiation, similarity and measurement omission is explained in chapter 6 of "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". Do you have access to that book?

Post 123

Thursday, May 6, 2004 - 5:47pm

Michael,

Thanks for the reference. I checked the chapter you mentioned. Most of it deals with what axiomatic concepts are and how they function in cognition, and Rand says little about how they are formed, beyond the claim that they are somehow present in perception. But one thing she does say is that “axiomatic concepts are not formed by differentiating one group of existents from others, but represent an integration of all existents”.

On the other hand, in chapter 2 on concept formation, she says that differentiation and integration are two “essential parts” of concept formation, and: “All concepts are formed by first differentiating two or more existents from other existents”. (p 13).

She reiterates this in her discussion with the professors, on p 138, where she says: “…you cannot form a concept by integration alone or by differentiation alone. You need both, always”.

This is puzzling. It seems that axiomatic concepts are not formed by differentiation, even though differentiation is essential and always needed to form concepts. Perhaps you could throw some light on this apparent anomaly.

Brendan

Post 124

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 6:06am

Brendan:

I think what Rand would say is that axiomatic concepts are a special case, necessitated by the nature of man's consciousness. As such, axiomatic concepts are not formed, they are identified, i.e. they are a conceptual identification of three facts inherent in any state of awareness and any claim to knowledge.

In ITOE, she says, "An animal's perceptual awareness does not need and could not grasp an equivalent of the concepts existence, identity and consciousness; it deals with them constantly, it is aware of existents, it recognizes various identities, but it takes them (and itself) as the given and can conceive of no alternative.

"It is only man's consciousness, a consciousness capable of conceptual errors, that needs a special identification of the directly given, to embrace and delimit the entire field of its awareness -- to delimit it from the void of unreality to which conceptual errors can lead."

I interpret this to mean that the purpose of axiomatic concepts is to identify, i.e. to name, the three implicit, inescapable facts that are inherent in any claim to knowledge -- and thus to provide a check on any process of thought. That is, any process of thought that involves a denial of existence, identity or consciousness, we know to be false. From the bottom of page 59 through page 61 in ITOE, Rand gives examples of how various philosophies of mysticism and irrationality always involve an explicit denial of one of the three axiomatic concepts.

In effect, Rand has given us a protection against the fact that our minds can conceive of (false) alternatives to things which are perceptually obvious. For example, by identifying the concept of "existence" we can show the inherent contradiction of those who imagine that some external entity created the universe.

It would have been better in ITOE if she had included the disclaimer, "except in the special case of axiomatic concepts" when stating that concept formation always requires differentiation and integration.

Anyway, that is my interpretation. I would be interested in everyone else's.

Post 125

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 9:16am