Objectivism Vs Coherentism

I've just read a short story that mentions Howard Roark, thus referring to Objectivism, although the protagonist of the story is writing a paper on Coherentism. I'm having real trouble getting a grip on, not what Coherentism is, but more precisely, it's philosophical points of departure with Objectivism. Has anybody come across coherentism before and can help clue me in? (As I'm still pretty clumsy on the finer points of Objectivism).

Post 1

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 3:01pm

Hi Mark,

Objectivists are typically foundationalist, which means they think all true propositions can be justified with reference to other true propositions, and those can be justified with yet other true propositions, and so on, until the chain of justification comes to a proposition – called an axiom – that requires no further justification. For Objectivism, it’s improper to ask for justification of axiomatic propositions.

Coherentism rejects foundationalism. For coherentists, a true proposition is justified not with reference to other true propositions, but rather by how well it coheres with some (mental) system or model. The truth of a proposition can be determined by how well the proposition coheres with other true propositions, but those propositions themselves do not justify the truth of the proposition in question.

Gotta run. Hope that helped.

Jordan

Post 2

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 4:36pm

Wikipedia gives a respectable explanation of coherentism, and contrasts it with foundationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism
Jordan wrote:

Objectivists are typically foundationalist, which means they think all true propositions can be justified with reference to other true propositions, and those can be justified with yet other true propositions, and so on, until the chain of justification comes to a proposition – called an axiom – that requires no further justification. For Objectivism, it’s improper to ask for justification of axiomatic propositions.

I agree that Objectivists are foundationalists, but not wholly in the manner Jordan gives. The chain of justification would not end at axioms, but rather concrete facts of reality, preferably based on perception. Examples: It is raining now. Salt dissolves in water. An unsupported object heavier than air will fall toward earth. Etc. Axioms are justified in the same way, but are far more general.

Nor do I agree with Jordan's last sentence. Axioms are justified by the facts. In one place Ayn Rand put it this way: "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" (ITOE, 73).

Relatedly, Ayn Rand subscribed to the correspondence theory of truth, at least roughly, but expressed it this way: "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality" (ITOE, 63).

Post 3

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 4:56pm

Absolutely excellent answers. Thank you both. You've very succinctly given me the major differences: indeed, with this in view, the protagonist of the story concerned becomes a very interesting character, and, more importantly, explicable.

Post 4

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:36am

Hi Merlin,

Interesting post. I don’t think Objectivists think that axioms are justified by the facts. Like Rand was saying, an axiom is a “primary fact” that can’t be “reduced to other facts.” Peikoff said as much in OPAR. He said something like, “axioms can’t be proved, just validated.” In other words, reference to other facts won’t help justify (i.e., give reason to accept, believe, use, rely on - explain how you know) an axiom.

>The chain of justification would not end at axioms, but rather concrete facts of reality, preferably based on perception. Examples: It is raining now. Salt dissolves in water. An unsupported object heavier than air will fall toward earth.

Then what are the axioms for? I thought Objectivists use them to justify perception, i.e., those concrete facts of reality.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 8/10, 7:37am)

Post 5

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 10:25am

Hi Jordan,

You wrote:

I don’t think Objectivists think that axioms are justified by the facts. Like Rand was saying, an axiom is a “primary fact” that can’t be “reduced to other facts.”

What Rand said makes sense to me only if she is speaking on two levels at once -- general and specific. Axioms are clearly general. While they may not be "reduced to" specific facts, they are generalizations from specific facts. Specific facts do explain and justify them.

Peikoff said as much in OPAR. He said something like, “axioms can’t be proved, just validated.” In other words, reference to other facts won’t help justify (i.e., give reason to accept, believe, use, rely on - explain how you know) an axiom.

I agree on the first part, but not the last sentence. Validation is a kind of justification in my view. Also, Peikoff wrote:

One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception. When one perceives a tomato, for example, there is no evidence that it exists, beyond the fact that one perceives it; there is no evidence that it is something, beyond the fact that one perceives it; and there is no evidence that one is aware, beyond the fact that one is perceiving it. ... What is true of tomatoes applies equally to oranges, buildings, people, music and stars.
What philosophy does is to give an abstract statement of such self-evident facts. Philosophy states these facts in universal form. ... The above is the validation of the Objectivist axioms (OPAR, 8).

You wrote:

Then what are the axioms for? I thought Objectivists use them to justify perception, i.e., those concrete facts of reality.

I would turn the second sentence around -- perception justifies (validates) the axioms. Ayn Rand gave some answers to the question.

Axiomatic concepts are the constants of man's consciousness, the cognitive integrators that identify and thus protect its continuity" (ITOE, 56).
It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity" (ITOE, 57).

I also refer you to Tibor Machan's essay Evidence of Necessary Existence in Objectivity 1, 4 (1992), which includes:

Rand seem[s] to be simultaneously committed both to rationalist foundationalism, which seeks foundations in the broadest, most abstract principles, and to empiricist foundationalism, which seeks foundations in sensed or perceived particulars.

Post 6

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 11:41am