Specificity of Objectivism's fundamentals

Mark,

I didn't see your other thread, yet (I will look at it later), but you asked:

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?

(That's "Atlas," by the way.)

You certainly do need to do the basic reading if you want to understand Objectivism. Atlas Shrugged is a pretty big work to start with for some people, though. Those with more scientific minds might want to try some of her nonfiction. Even Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

For instance, if you don't do the basic reading, you will not understand right off that concepts are derived from sensory input (which is very clearly explained in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology)

Once the sensory basis for concepts is understood from an epistemological angle, and then you see how axioms are arrived at from an epistemological angle, it gets easier to accept the metaphysical formulations.

The phrase "from an epistemological angle" in Objectivism always means being able to trace concepts back down to data received by the senses.

If you think the redundancy is bothersome in the axiom, existence exists, how about a synonym: reality exists?

Sorry if this seems a bit redundant. Just musings right now...

Michael

Post 21

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 2:51pm

Argh, I have misspelled "Atlas" so many times!

"For instance, if you don't do the basic reading, you will not understand right off that concepts are derived from sensory input " -Michael

I thought I already understood that. That's why I kept circling back to physical existents and perception of them in my previous posts.

"If you think the redundancy is bothersome in the axiom, existence exists, how about a synonym: reality exists?" -Michael

That's just as redundant. I realize that if axioms are defined as statements with subjects and predicates, the best axioms will always be redundant. So my gripe is not with the axiom so much as it is with the sheer redundancy of it, which needs to be there in order for the statement to be axiomatic. I just don't like it when people utter words and say nothing simultaneously; know what I mean, Vern? The axiom is one of those things that would elicit a slow "So... what?" or "And..." reaction from me.

Post 22

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 4:38pm

Mark, while the axioms have a purpose, that purpose is not "new" knowledge acquisition -- instead, it is in guiding how "old" knowledge is epistemologically handled.

Axioms don't you something new, they tell you how to think straight about what it is that you already know. Vulgar empiricists don't like axioms (because they over-prefer propositions that tell you something new, at the expense of ones that are merely epistemological guardrails).

If someone says he's got something for sale, in a box, and the damn thing doesn't have any properties (it's not big, it's not small, it has no smell, it takes up no space) -- then you don't need him to open up the box to show-off this property-less thing. You simply bid the man ado and walk -- with your money still in your wallet. In a similar manner, axioms (by serving as epistemological guardrails) allow us to brush aside whole volumes of ludicrous philosophy (without having to "look into it").

Take the idea of an infinite, omnscient, omnipotent being -- for example. Something that supposedly exists without identity or limitation. Aquinas merely 'complained' that no positive assertion can be made of God (that all you can ever say is what He isn't -- never what He is). Rand followed the argument where it leads, by holding fast to reason (and never letting go). This philosophic difference stems from integrating axioms with lines of reasoning.

Ed

Post 23

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 5:48pm

Mark,

The questions you mentioned ("So... what?" or "And...") are realities I have had in discussing these things with "learned" others.

I merely say that this axiom (actually these axioms) is my starting point and everything else builds on it. Then I go on the attack and ask what their starting point is.

An axiom is not an argument anyway. It is a foundation - essentially epistemological (as it is a concept) but referring to metaphysics - to build on or reject. There is no middles ground with an axiom, like there could be with the existence of God, for instance.

You could say that one day if God shows up in a form accessible to the five senses, then He had been hiding all along, or something like that.

You cannot say that about existence exists. Either it does or it does not. The rub is that you yourself must exist to even contemplate the question.

The same goes for identity and consciousness.

Michael

Post 24

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:44pm

Mark wrote, "I realize that if axioms are defined as statements with subjects and predicates, the best axioms will always be redundant. So my gripe is not with the axiom so much as it is with the sheer redundancy of it, which needs to be there in order for the statement to be axiomatic. I just don't like it when people utter words and say nothing simultaneously; know what I mean, Vern? The axiom is one of those things that would elicit a slow "So... what?" or "And..." reaction from me."

It helps to be familiar with the history of philosophy. If you were a subjective idealist, like Bishop Berkeley, for example, you wouldn't agree with Rand's axiom, "Existence exists," because Rand is affirming the existence of an external world - of a world external to consciousness - whereas a subjective idealist like Berkeley would deny such a world. He would say that all that exists is consciousness or mind, because all we're aware of is our experiences. It would also help to have read Galt's speech, which you haven't gotten to if you've read only 200 pages of AS. There, the context of her hero's speech makes it more understandable. As Galt originally states it:

"Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness."

In other words, if you're not aware of an external world - of a world external to consciousness - then you're not aware of anything, because before you can be aware of your process of awareness, you must be aware of something besides that process; you must be conscious of existence - of an external world - since there can be no awareness without something other than your awareness for you to be aware of.

Post 25

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 6:13pm

For the others in your Philo club, I just heard a great line in a song by 'Bright Eyes.'

'You say there is no such thing as truth, but you say it like you know you're right.'

If you seek understanding, the reading is unavoidable. I would recommend the fiction to grease the skids but Rand's _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_ which can be a difficult read the first time, but I find I go back to that book when I am formulating a defense. Also, Peikoff's _Objectism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ which lays out the whole stretch fairly well; Piekoff's ritualism notwithstanding. The discussion here, "The Non-Art of Objectivism is quite good.

TrT

Post 26

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 7:09am

Just to continue from my Post 24, the subjective idealist denies the proposition that existence exists. He denies it implicitly, if not explicitly, for he says that all that exists is awareness, which implies that nothing exists, not even awareness, because awareness presupposes an object, and he is denying the object.

- Bill

Post 27

Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 9:02pm