Specificity of Objectivism's fundamentals

This last Thursday my university's philosophy club had only five members at its meeting and we were able to have a better conversation than usual because of that. So, I got into talking about Objectivism and that I've heard it is largely neglected in academia. (Note that I have not had one iota of university philosophical education, whereas they are both philosophy majors--I am a physics/math major-- and at least one year my academic senior.) The first response I got was from the club's VP: he said he "didn't like" it because "it" is dogmatic, at which point I chuckled and made the point that that is not a reason at all! But, we continued talking about Objectivism and the other guy (my dad and I were talking to two at this time, as another had left) said it's neglected because it (I suppose he meant the fundamentals) are not specific enough, or something to that effect. We all got into arguing about what "sovereign" and "freedom" mean, and to what degree, etc., etc., etc. Because I couldn't remember all the fundamentals off Objectivism and have a difficult time defining things, I was getting beaten, pretty much. I recommended that the latter guy mentioned above check out SOLO HQ and Capitalism Magazine, and he suggested I read B. Russel's "Problems in Philosophy".

Sorry for the disorganization there, but I'm having a problem justifying the philosophy to others who have only negative impressions of it (I also have a problem with accepting things at face value). Also, due to my lack of education in philosophy, I'm wondering if Objectivism really is the best one out there or whether there is actually one with more carefully worded or slightly different axioms/premises. As soon as I heard some of the philosophy, I latched onto it, but I know nothing of others (but can definitely say that at least some of their propositions and language are garbage). Can anyone help me here, and/or just give some general advice? Thanks.

Post 1

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:50am

Hi, Mark -

Sorry you got "beat up" at your meeting :( . Those with far more intellectual experience in the art of argument can sometimes make you doubt everything.

Philip Coates wrote an excellent essay a while back (that I wish he'd post here, hint hint) regarding the importance of thinking in "fundamentals." The reason you got mauled is the lack of fundamentals you could articulate, or articulate well.

Argument isn't easy. One of the things that make or break an argument is the use of fundamental principles in the context of the argument. Example: A sovereign nation isn't necessarily a free nation, followed by obvious examples.

Someone who throws "dogma" into an argument against Objectivism isn't familiar with the principles. Conclusions have to be backed up with facts, so make them back it up. Dogmatic how, exactly? Is reason dogmatic? How? Is rational self interest dogmatic? How?

If you're a math student, you should really enjoy some logic lessons, which will be invaluable help in working to distill an argument to it's fundamentals. My favorite book is "The Art of Reasoning" by our own David Kelley, Ph.D, but there are others out there. You want to learn the in's and out's of informal and formal logical techniques and fallacies. You'll be surprized how much fun it is picking out all of the logical flaws in everyday conversation with total strangers :) It's practice! Not an invitation to start arguments while standing in line at the bank!

Practice thinking in fundamental principles when you're not engaged in actual argument. While you're watching television, listening to the radio, talking casually with friends. You don't have to start an argument with them, but think in the fundamentals of what's actually being said. Are they concluding something? How was conclusion reached? Learn to quickly differentiate between a conclusion reached by emotion and one reached by a logical string of facts.

Practice. Have fun with it, because it IS fun figuring out the problems with conflicting arguments.

Teresa

Post 2

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 2:03pm

Thanks, Teresa!

The guy who brought up Objectivism's alleged lack of specificity also believes that rights do not exist (he never defined the term, however), even after I described them as being basic social constructs and nonexistent when one is in actual isolation, as well as when no humans exist. Perhaps I did Objectivism a disservice by reluctantly calling them "natural rights"-- natural because they exist (or do they?) when at least two reason-capable humans exist in proximity, and more basic to everything else in any mutually-productive interaction. However, apparently the term "natural rights" commonly connotes/denotes something entirely different, which is why I was reluctant to use it.

That, unfortunately, is one of the problems I'm facing. Perhaps it is because I haven't read much on the subject in a little while. Both of the guys were asking me this: if rights are a mental construct, how could they exist when there are at least two reasoning humans but neither has conceived of the idea? (I added some of that myself, but that's basically what they were asking.)

Also, I think I'm onto something in regards to the "no-rights guy"'s claim. So far I have not done anything but take note of what thoughts I could remember, but I believe I was able earlier to connect his claim to the primacy of consciousness. Help me not, though. I would like to do this on my own (if I ever get back to it!).

On another note, I realized that since philosophy is a tool, the axioms should be as clear as possible, which I don't think they (or at least the first) are with Objectivism. I think that, since words developed to describe objects and processes (*sigh* can we accept this before forming axioms, I wonder?), the axioms should cater as much as possible to our senses. Suppose I pointed to a mountain and grunted (pretending I'm a caveman :) ). That grunt would thereafter be associated with that mountain, or mountains in general. That grunt, because it is of the lowest order of abstraction, would be the best thing to use in an axiom. "Existence exists". While that is a good axiom, I think it does the whole philosophy harm by using a higher order abstraction (i.e. existence). I guess I'm just not one for redundancy! Besides that, existence is a blanket term for all things (not just one, but a group, the largest group) that our senses tell us about or for which we can deduce the existence of from prior observations.

Is my thinking on axioms too simplistic, since we obviously encounter more things than just a "grunt" (mountain) at one time? Or is it better, in a way, since saying "existence exists" is not only redundant, but an illegal kind of redundancy when trying to define anything else (e.g. can't use a word in its own definition, or any of its derivative verbs)? One should note here, however, that my comments presuppose the validity of the senses, making that an axiom.

Ha, well that brings me to a ridiculous proposition made by another member of the philo club -- that we can't know anything. What flawed thinking!

Post 3

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 8:06pm

"The guy who brought up Objectivism's alleged lack of specificity also believes that rights do not exist (he never defined the term, however), even after I described them as being basic social constructs and nonexistent when one is in actual isolation, as well as when no humans exist. Perhaps I did Objectivism a disservice by reluctantly calling them "natural rights"-- natural because they exist (or do they?) "

They certainly do to the actor! I think they just means doing what's natural for human beings, like thinking, and acting on those thoughts.

"That, unfortunately, is one of the problems I'm facing. Perhaps it is because I haven't read much on the subject in a little while. Both of the guys were asking me this: if rights are a mental construct, how could they exist when there are at least two reasoning humans but neither has conceived of the idea? (I added some of that myself, but that's basically what they were asking.)"

Social construct, not "mental." Understanding and respecting another's space has been around longer than the concept of "rights." If two individuals are ignorant of the concept, chances are they'll come up with something that will allow peaceful, productive co-existence. It may not work as well as a full understanding of personal autonomy, but it's something.

"Is my thinking on axioms too simplistic, since we obviously encounter more things than just a "grunt" (mountain) at one time? Or is it better, in a way, since saying "existence exists" is not only redundant, but an illegal kind of redundancy when trying to define anything else (e.g. can't use a word in its own definition, or any of its derivative verbs)?"

Well, Existence Exists isn't a definition, it's a declaration, a conclusion derived from a long string of prior conclusions that can only be reached through sensory evidence. There's no short cut that I know of.
Leonard Piekoff would tell you to stop wanting to be a "complexity worshipper!" ;)

"Ha, well that brings me to a ridiculous proposition made by another member of the philo club -- that we can't know anything. What flawed thinking!"

Thinking? What thinking? I always wonder how people can claim to "know" such things as "not knowing." Maybe you should ask him the next time you get a chance.

Teresa

Post 4

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 11:49pm

Mark,

Here is how I understand the Objectivist axioms - and this is from Peikoff's course on Objectivist epistemology that he gave some 30 years ago. Basically the same material is covered in his book OPAR, but I like the presentation that he made in his lecture course:

PART 1

Where do we begin when we begin in Philosophy? We have to start somewhere. In metaphysics, the starting point composes the foundation for the whole theory of knowledge. But where in metaphysics?

1. By the time we start, we already have many concepts and theories. We must determine which are fundamental and which are derivative - not chronologically derivative but logically derivative - not dependent in the sense of which we learned first but in the sense of which we must state first if we are to prove anything else.

We begin with the following: It is. That is. Things are. Something exists. That which is, is. Existence exists: first axiom. That must be the logical foundation, the first statement. Before you can propound theories about anything, you must acknowledge that there is something. If there is nothing, there is nothing to make a theory about, no reason to make it, and nobody to make it. If we were to rewrite Genesis, we would say: "In the beginning, there was existence."

2. Second axiom: There is something which you are aware of. There can be no discussion, thought and theorization unless you are, and are aware.

3. Third axiom: What does it mean for a thing to exist? To be is to be something, to have some nature, to possess identity. The opposite of something is nothing. Everything that exists is something in particular. If it's not a particular thing, it is nothing. Existence IS identity. Note that we don't say, "Existence HAS identity. Identity isn't an ATTRIBUTE of existence. If we said that it was, the logical question would be: but how do you know that existence will go on having the attribute of identity? If something IS, there is SOMETHING. If you're not aware of something, you're aware of nothing.

Thus, we have existence, consciousness and identity: the three axioms of Objectivism. But what is their status? Have we proved them?

PROOF entails the derivation of an idea from antecedent knowledge - from antecedently known propositions. We haven't PROVEN them. This is the BASE of knowledge. Nothing can be known prior to this. But how do we know them? We know them by perceiving reality. In any act of perceiving reality, these axioms are evident. To look at reality is to know that:

There is (existence) something (identity) that I am aware of (consciousness). In every form you are aware, you are aware of this. It is self-evident.

The concept of the self-evident has come under attack lately. But, as Aristotle himself demonstrated, if nothing were self-evident, we would have an infinite regress, and nobody could know anything. The concept of the self-evident also has a built-in defense. It must be used and assumed in order to attack it.

(I'm too tired to finish this tonight. I'll wrap it up tomorrow. To be continued...)

Post 5

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:01am

William,

I know that this is a parentheses, but I fully agree with you here.

Sometimes an issue gets raised because Ayn Rand only included a discussion of axiomatic concepts in Chapter 6 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, not at the beginning. The arguments I have seen is that this is some kind of proof that axioms come later in metaphysics than concepts do - that concepts come first.

I think it all depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about a theory of concepts, the method of conceptual integration takes priority and full conceptual integration of what an axiom is falls pretty late in the cognitive development process.

If you are talking purely about metaphysics, then man is one part of existence, not the contrary. Thus, it is proper to start with all-inclusive axioms.

I always view axioms as different aspects of the same thing, like different facets of the same gemstone. You cannot isolate one axiom from the others as a stand-alone difference in reality, it is merely a different attribute of the same reality that includes all of them. We isolate axioms to be able to understand the whole better, not to put the whole together from separate parts.

I hope this helps Mark somewhat, also.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/01, 9:03am)

Post 6

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 10:12am

AXIOMS - PART 2

ATTACK ON THE SELF-EVIDENT:
Some of the specific charges and the manner in which they may be refuted:

1. Since there can be no proof of axioms, what guarantees do we have that they are true? People have erred in the past. How do we know these axioms are not in error.

Refutation: Note that the critics use the concept of error to attack the self-evident. What does the existence of such a concept as error need or depend on in order to exist? It depends on the existence of something to know one is in error about, and the existence of someone to commit the error. For such a concept as error to exist presupposes the concepts of existence, consciousness and identity. This is clearly a case of our critics biting the concepts that feed them.

2. But people disagree over whether these concepts are valid. If there is no proof, there is no way to resolve the disagreements.

Refutation: Demonstrated by means of the following dialogue:

You: "But there has been no disagreement at all. How could there be? Nothing exists to disagree about."
He: "What do you mean nothing exists? Of course, something exists."

You: "There has been no disagreement, because there are no views to disagree about. And there are no views to disagree about, because no people exist to disagree about them."
He: But of course there are people. People exist."

You: "But what's wrong with disagreements? One idea is just as true as any other. All facts are relative anyway."
He: "What do you mean?! Facts are facts - A is A."

You: "Right. Then you accept the facts of existence, consciousness and identity."

3. These axioms merely express your own personal, subjective ideas. They don't tell us anything about the way things really are.

Refutation: In order to identify something as a subjective feeling, we must be able to distinguish it form something else (which is the only way for the concept to have meaning) - from an objective fact. To know a fact is to know a fact about something. But to know something is to know that it exists. Subjective ideas also require the existence of someone to hold them. Moreover, to be a subjective idea is to have a particular identity. For example, a subjective idea is not an objectively demonstrable idea. If it were, then axioms could also be objectively demonstrable. Thus, if subjective ideas do possess a particular identity, then one accepts the axiom of identity. When one says that we can't trust the self-evident to be objective, he forgets that the concepts "objective," "subjective," "trust," "we," "cannot," etc. would all be impossible and meaningless without the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity.

4. The Nature of the Self-Evident: But does our demonstration that one must use them in every attempt to refute them constitute a proof of these axioms? No. Axioms are not subject to proof, and it is irrational to attempt to prove them. We cannot prove their truth or their validity or their applicability. These concepts all presuppose and depend on the axioms. To demand "proof" of anything is already to have implicitly accepted the axioms. All we can do is to prove that existence, consciousness and identity are axioms. To do this, we simply show:

1) that they form the base of knowledge.
2) that they inhere (implicitly) in every percept.
3) that one must use them to attempt a disproof of them, and
4) that all argument presupposes them, including the argument that all argument presupposes them.

Post 7

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 10:27am

Heh, heh... :) I love this.

I think somebody's in for some shit when our associate Mark shows up again. Loooosy, you got some 'splainin' to do...!

This makes me absolutely insane. I have five daughters, 3 of which are still in college. Every goddamn time they get to their Phil 101 class I start going into pre-seizures, waiting for "the textbook(s)" to come home after the first day. If the teacher is working on a doctoral thesis, it is worse, much worse. Basically, the students are conscripted to help him with his research and writing, if you can imagine.

They used to let me help them with their studies, proofread their papers, discuss concepts and so forth, but the truth is it got them in trouble. They had to write, more or less, what the teacher wanted to hear (which to date has had nothing to do with objective reality), or else. They have found a way to write so that it shows they understand the concepts that are being panned off as real to them, without actually agreeing with it. We consider it a victory that none of them have ever bought into any of the bullshit, and there has been plenty.

Getting flushed out as an Objectivist in either a phil or lit class can get bring some heat on you, but dang it can be kind of enjoyable.

Post 8

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 10:35am

Consider it a training ground on minefields of life...

Post 9

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 10:48am

Here's another thing-

Not once have I seen a kid get a intro to philosophy class where they started out by spending any time (if at all) talking about the branches. The last time, the first reading that got assigned was Spinoza. I asked the kid if they explained to the class what metaphysics was all about, and they smiled and said "you're kidding, right?" So, since it was relatively low-risk for the student, I had her agree to go ask teach if they were going to learn about metaphysics. Answer: "That's way too complicated for a beginner to understand." On my mother's eyes. Sheesh.

I might mention to Mark that, if you haven't been there yet, there's a lot of very well-indexed material, nicely presented by our brothers over on www.importanceofphilosophy.com .

(Edited by Rich Engle on 11/01, 10:51am)

Post 10

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 3:23pm

Damn, I love a good refresher course. Bill, you'z the Wiz, man!

Post 11

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:06pm

Um, well... I guess... this... helped.

I'm still not comfortable with the wording of the existence axiom.

Post 12

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 9:11pm

Mark-

Wander around http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ The material written there is more organized and concise than what you will get in a forum methinks.

Post 13

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 12:38am

Mark, what about William's (or Peikoff's?) wording of the issue:

===========
Things are. Something exists. That which is, is. Existence exists: first axiom. That must be the logical foundation, the first statement. Before you can propound theories about anything, you must acknowledge that there is something. If there is nothing, there is nothing to make a theory about, no reason to make it, and nobody to make it.
===========

Are you comfortable with the wording of that?

Ed
[existing being that which is, seems necessary to any and all discussion, of any possible thing]

Post 14

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 6:02am

Mark,

You wrote:

I'm still not comfortable with the wording of the existence axiom.

Rather than trying to second-guess you, I have two questions.

1. How much Objectivist literature have you read? If you only read Anthem, for instance, your grasp of Objectivist principles will not be very strong. If you have done the basic reading, but too fast and out of focus, it also will not be very strong. I ask because by knowing what you have done, I can help point you to places were Rand speaks eloquently on what needs to be said, and we can possibly shed some light on something in her works you don't understand.

2. What specifically are you not comfortable with in wording of the existence axiom?

I know a lot of people have a devil of a time understanding the perspective thing.

For the universe as a fact - not even as a concept, it simple is. Human beings fit within it and it includes everything everywhere that is, was and will be.

For a human being, he can only think with concepts, which are fundamentally based on percepts, which are integrations of information that comes into his five senses. So his view of this "everything" is conceptual.

Actually, concept formation is a lot more complicated than that, especially the part about concepts being integrated into higher concepts, the relationship between words and concepts, measurement and so forth. But all concepts ultimately boil down to sense data.

Your call.

Michael

Post 15

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 9:02am

Jody - Thanks for the link and recommendation.

Ed - I am fairly comfortable with Peikoff's form of the existence axiom. The only thing I'm not comfortable with there is the statement "Existence exists." It would sound better and more meaningful to me to say, instead "Things/stuff exists." Of course, the axiom itself is so self-evidently true to me that even saying it seems pointless. I guess that since philosophies require claims for premises (as if there were any other kind), however, I'll just be stuck with the redundancy and awkwardness of the axiom.

Michael - I hope my response to Ed cleared some things up.

Here's to your questions:

1. As far as books go, I've only read a fraction (between 100 and 200 pages) of Atlus Shrugged. I really don't think I need to bother with so much of the literature if I agree with the axioms, do you?

2. Discussed in my response to Ed. The truth of the axiom is so self-evident to me that it is redundant, and just saying the word "existence" or "thing" would be enough for me -- though I understand that, since those aren't regularly-structured statements, they won't work as axioms (or maybe they could, actually, since they are the basis for everything else). My problem is with applying the state-of-being verb "exists" to "existence" itself. Since existence is not a rock, a tree, a frog, or an Ayn Rand, but rather a somewhat abstract concept, its inclusion in the primary axiom of a philosophy just makes me philosophically uncomfortable. We use the word to distinguish that which is from that which is not (whether dreamed-up, once-existing, or never real); and we distinguish which is which by sensory perception or by sound logical arguments.

Maybe it's the physicist in me (albeit a first-year college student in the subject), but the model of the universe in my head just makes those axioms silly, in a redundant sort of way. That is not to say they aren't required for a typical philosophy. They seem to be unnecessary but to counter those who would claim we don't exist (WTF?) or those who claim we can't have knowledge (again, WTF?).

Post 16

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 9:03am

I agree with Mark that the wording is poor. [Edit: Though for different reasons.] It's a bit too concise. Looked at outside of Rand's writing, the phrase is subject to changes in contemporary meanings of "existence" and "exist" and left too open to interpretation to be as hard hitting as Oist want it to be. That makes it pretty useless when trying to introduce someone to Oism. Like if I were to mention "no-self" without explanation to someone who hasn't studied Buddhism, it's almost certain that he's going to misinterpret it.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 11/02, 9:05am)

Post 17

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 9:05am

Michael - The last part of your post basically describes my thought pattern in the matter. It all goes back to sensory perception. It's just that that's where I think a fundamental axiom _may_ be better-rooted: where all things become known.

Post 18

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 9:11am

[I hate to do this, but I have a thread in the General forum that I have not received any responses to, and I would like some feedback. Thanks.]

Post 19

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 1:39pm