The concept of language would not be an axiom according to Objectivist epistemology. Here’s Ayn Rand’s definition: “An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge.” A glance at a dictionary shows that this description is not true of language: “The use by human beings of voice sounds, and often written symbols representing the sounds, in combinations and patterns to express and communicate thoughts and feelings.”
Now apply the dictionary test to the actual axiom of “existence”: “The fact or state of existing; being.” You can see that there are no other concepts in terms of which the concept can be explained. If one does not grasp it, one simply has to keep trying. (And one should, as it is nothing trivial—especially in philosophy.)
In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand states that the first and primary axiomatic concepts are existence, identity, and consciousness. This seems to imply that there are other, secondary axioms; if so, I do not believe Rand ever elaborated on them. Perhaps she was thinking of axioms in specialized fields such as geometry, with its “point,” “line,” and other ideas.
Your use of the idea of begging the question here is not quite right. What you may have meant to say was that any attempt to deny the existence of language would involve “using a stolen concept.” However, I hope I have shown that even this idea does not really apply in the present situation.
(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/20, 2:33pm)
|
