DBCA

AIM: explodinator (it seemed clever in highschool )

Doug, these are good points, now that I've looked all this over I'm a little embarrassed. I can see that I was being overzealous and I really need to study the subject of axioms more before I undertake something like this. stephen_speicher mentioned a "proof without words", I'm very interested in that and like very much to hear more about it. Also, Daniel, I can't see what else there would be to the existence axiom; can you recommend some more in-depth reading on that? Thanks everybody

sorry for not responding sooner, ive written up a first draft of the axiom proof. I'm going to present it on friday so I'd really appreciate any comments you all might have. I think the identity section is a too sparse and perhaps the fallacies section could be more thorough. The Axioms of Metaphysics By Donald B.C. Allen “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. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.”1 “What is self-evident need not be evident at once, or to everybody; the intelligible is intelligible only to the intelligent. In calling anything self-evident we mean not that it is evident without need for understanding, but that we need consider nothing but the terms of the judgment, to see its necessity.”2 The following is a proof that the ideas “existence”, “consciousness”, and “identity” are axioms, that is to say, that they are irreducible primaries at the base of all knowledge. The proof consists of making explicit the fact that it is impossible to reject these ideas, because in any attempt to deny them one must first implicitly accept them. This is not a proof that the axioms are true per se, only that them are axioms. Axiom I: Existence “The concept of ‘existence’ is the widest of all concepts. It subsumes everything—every entity, action, attribute, relationship (including every state of consciousness)—everything which is, was, or will be.”3 Existence exists; something, as against nothing, is. By denying that there is something and asserting, “no, there is nothing” one implies a subject matter about which something is trying to be determined. The objection requires that there be something in question about which one can disagree, an untrue statement about that thing to object to, as well as the objection's own existence. Note: Axiom I says nothing about the specific nature of existence, e.g.- that it is physical or otherwise, it says not what it is but only that it is. Axiom II: Consciousness The act of grasping Axiom I implies a second axiom, that you exist possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of awareness of existence. It is impossible to argue against this axiom because doing so would necessarily involve making purportedly true statements about existence. Even making a sophistic refutation of this axiom would imply that the objector is conscious of existence, the fact that it has a specific nature, and the notion that the rejected statement does not represent this nature i.e.—that it is untrue. “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.”4 Axiom III: Identity To exist is to exist as something. To reject that existence has a specific nature, is to identify existence as something, that something being a “nothing-inparticular” which nonetheless is an identification, albeit a fallacious one. Notes on Some Fallacies of Knowledge If one argues that ideas are in some way true and false at the same time and in the same respect, one assumes that this property does not apply to itself. That is to say, the idea that “ideas can be true and false at the same time and in the same respect” is absolutely and universally true, in effect negating itself. Likewise, if one asserts that that “nothing can be known about existence” then one upholds this idea as knowledge about existence. To assert that “nothing can be known about existence, but this idea itself is only true for me and may not be so for anyone else” implies that it is possible to know the pluralistic nature of knowledge. Endnotes: 1. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand 2. An Introduction to Logic, H.W.B. Joseph 3. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff 4. Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Daniel, I think what you say is true, that it is abstract and controvertial, but that is really what I want in this context. Firstly, one of the drugged-up communists in my class has everyone pretty well convinced that geometry has nothing to do with reality because it is so abstract. He's convinced everyone that it is just arbitrary, I want to demonstrate to them that abstract does not mean arbitrary and that there are rules (such as non-contradiction) that must be observed. Secondly, if it wasn't controvertial I'd have little interest in it; I already know that things can be proven, I just want to sock it to the skeptics. What do you think?

yeah, I know that the axioms can't be proven to be true...What I was going to do would be to prove that they were axioms, thanks though.

Last week in math class (I'm a freshman at St. John's College) we were demonstrating and discussing some propositions from Euclid's Elements when I made the comment that the propositions were not proofs per se, because they were derivations of conclusions from a set of definitions, postulates, and common notions, and not self-evident axioms. The tutor (we call our professors "tutors") asked me what a "self-evident axiom" would be, I told him that "existence exists"; he seemed skeptical . Anyway, wonder of wonders today he gave me an assignment to "prove something" it doesn't have to be mathematical, just anything. I want to keep it simple, my first idea was to just prove that the axioms of Objectivism are in fact axioms (i.e.- that you have to accept them before you can deny them). I'd like your suggestions, and, since I must have the proof thought out and typed up (to hand out after copying) by Wednesday 1:00 PM EST, your help. It is a very informal thing, I won't be graded on it so don't worry that you cheating for me (for a fuller explaination of why help on this wouldn't be cheating, see "Who is the Final Authority in Ethics" in VOS I believe). Thanks y'all!

I've been thinking about a certain aspect of ethics which is of paramount importance but seems often to be neglected. I have listened to Gary Hull's introductory lectures on Objectivism (offered by ARI, I quite recommend them) in which he says of the basic choice confronting all living things, life or death, "you want to remain alive" (this might be a paraphrase). Now I wonder, in what sense is "want" meant here? Certainly I want to remain alive so that I can be happy. So is happiness an end in itself? Probably, but that isn't the part that's bothering me. What can be said to the person who lives irrationally, and after having it been explained to him that choosing to live irrationally is in fact choosing to die (as said Gary Hull, essentially), says "ok, fine, I am choosing to die then. I accept it and will go on living this 'life of death'." That is his choice to make of course, and as far as a rational society is concerned it makes no difference if this choice is arbitrary or not, because it doesn't affect the reason involved with enforcing capitalist laws (let us say this irrational person is a cannibal or something else that violates other people's rights). But this too is not the issue. The question is: can there be said to be anything intrinsically wrong with a living being renouncing his life and choosing to die through unreason? Perhaps my problem lies in my use of the word "intrinsically". After all, there is no intrinsic morality, only objective ones based on the results of actions (in full context of course). But even then, it seems that the man who would choose to die (by the way, I know full well that there are times in which suicide is rationally justified, I do not mean that) is not making a philosophic choice since philosophy is a guide to living, and therefore, begins after one has already chosen that he wants to live. This is tentative, but, I believe, thought provoking and as far as I can tell, correct. When I first came up with this, I thought that it perhaps changes the truth Objectivism, which I am a student of. It does not. It only changes my attitude towards irrational people really, I don't care so much about them (not that I really did to any great extent before), in fact it seems that I really shouldn't think of them as needing help, it is their choice after all, and though it would not be mine under any circumstance (to renounce life without reason, that it), that is not relevant, since it isn't my choice for them. ps - the page number in the title is for OPAR, it contains a short discussion on this subject which, though I have the utmost respect for Dr. Peikoff, I believe is inadequate.