How is knowledge obtained, according to O'ism?

[Woxor]

I apologize if this isn't the proper place to put this thread, and I'm sure it can be moved without incident if necessary.

My knowledge of Objectivism is limited, and, though I intend to someday study it directly (i.e. to read a Rand book or two), I have not done so yet. I agree with many of the Objectivist stances I know of, but one thing that has always troubled me is the fundamental epistemology. I was told by some that the Objectivists I had encountered were misrepresenting Rand's ideas, and that true Objectivism does not necessarily "begin" in the way that these Objectivists claimed it does.

Since this seems to be the place to find Objectivists who are probably well-informed as to Rand's ideas, I'm fielding the question here (before I finally get around to reading everything I've been meaning to).

How is knowledge obtained, according to Objectivism? I do plan on questioning or challenging answers I find illogical, though I do not intend any hostility. Of course, if that is not the kind of interaction this board welcomes, let me know and I'll leave.

(The answers I have heard so far involved certain basic axioms, but I don't know whether that's an Objectivist universal or a quirk of the individuals I encountered.)

[nimble]

I have yet to read a basic intro to objectivist epistomology. But I can help a little. The only way we can obtain knowledge is from our senses. Objectivist know that reality is objective (that should be obvious). It exists outside of our consciousness. So that automatically rules out other philosophies theories that there is collective knowledge or that we create our world. Each object in reality, to be real, must have an identity. That identity is made up of characteristics, which are five senses can interpret and intergrate into our minds. Once you classify something in your mind, you must then make sure that it doesnt contradict anything you have learned before. If it passes that test then you have obtained a bit of knowledge. I dont know where else to go...so someone who has read IOE should probably take over from here.

[Woxor]

Objectivist know that reality is objective (that should be obvious).

I agree with everything you posted except for part of this. While I do believe that objective reality exists, I don't believe that obviousness is a valid epistemic method. (For example, Euclidean geometry is "obvious," but is no truer than its partial negation, hyperbolic geometry.) Is there any justification for believing that objective reality exists, or is it simply assumed?

EDIT: Unless you meant that "reality," by definition, is objective, which I would agree with, but that leaves the question of its existence unanswered.

[DPW]

I apologize if this isn't the proper place to put this thread, and I'm sure it can be moved without incident if necessary.

I moved it to the Metaphysics and Epistemology folder, which was my first act as a moderator. Ahhh...the power!

How is knowledge obtained, according to Objectivism? 

Well, there's the long answer and the short answer. The short answer is: through sense experience, and logical inference there from. The long answer is...

...really really long.

[DPW]

Is there any justification for believing that objective reality exists, or is it simply assumed?

Ask yourself what "justification" means, and you'll have answered your own question.

[Woxor]

I moved it to the Metaphysics and Epistemology folder, which was my first act as a moderator.  Ahhh...the power!

Awesome. I just figured I'd start in Basic Questions in case that was expected of noob threads.

Well, there's the long answer and the short answer.  The short answer is: through sense experience, and logical inference there from.  The long answer is...

...really really long.

Well, your short answer seems entirely agreeable to me. When I spoke to Objectivists beforehand, though, it seemed that a heavier emphasis was placed on a sort of a priori method. Perhaps this was a misrepresentation of Objectivism; I don't know.

[Woxor]

Ask yourself what "justification" means, and you'll have answered your own question.

Well, I would just loosely define it as a logical reason for me to believe something. I'm more interested in how Objectivists define it, though, since its their reasoning I'm after.

[DPW]

The only way we can obtain knowledge is from our senses.

That's the only primary means of obtaining knowledge. Objectivism does not endorse empiricism: sense experience is the starting point for all knowledge, but from sense experience we are able to conceptualize and to infer that which isn't directly perceivable.

Objectivist know that reality is objective (that should be obvious). It exists outside of our consciousness.

Strictly speaking, reality isn't objective in the sense that Objectivists use the term "objectivity." Yes, we do recognize that reality is independent of consciousness, but "objectivity" in the Objectivist view refers to a certain relationship between consciousness and existence: it does not mean "independent of consciousness."

Each object in reality, to be real, must have an identity.

That's true but not exact. Things don't have identity; existence is identity.

That identity is made up of characteristics, which are five senses can interpret and intergrate into our minds. Once you classify something in your mind, you must then make sure that it doesnt contradict anything you have learned before. If it passes that test then you have obtained a bit of knowledge. I dont know where else to go...so someone who has read IOE should probably take over from here.

This is more or less correct. But your advice is good: it's not smart to try to understand the Objectivist epistemology before you read and understand Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

[DPW]

Well, your short answer seems entirely agreeable to me.  When I spoke to Objectivists beforehand, though, it seemed that a heavier emphasis was placed on a sort of a priori method.  Perhaps this was a misrepresentation of Objectivism; I don't know.

Objectivism does not recognize an a priori / a posteriori dichotomy. Yes, Objectivism begins by naming its starting points, the self-evident axioms that underlie all knowledge, but even these require sense experience to grasp.

[DPW]

Well, I would just loosely define it as a logical reason for me to believe something.  I'm more interested in how Objectivists define it, though, since its their reasoning I'm after.

To begin with, Objectivism doesn't start by defining things - it starts by identifying what they are.

That aside, the point I was trying to make is that when you asked, "Is there any justification for believing that objective reality exists, or is it simply assumed?" what you were in fact asking was: What facts about reality prove that there is a reality?

To justify an idea means to identify its relationship to reality. Reality, therefore, must be the starting point of any such inquiry. It is the self-evident irreducible fact without which you can get no where.

[Woxor]

To begin with, Objectivism doesn't start by defining things - it starts by identifying what they are. 

That aside, the point I was trying to make is that when you asked, "Is there any justification for believing that objective reality exists, or is it simply assumed?" what you were in fact asking was: What facts about reality prove that there is a reality? 

To justify an idea means to identify its relationship to reality.  Reality, therefore, must be the starting point of any such inquiry.  It is the self-evident irreducible fact without which you can get no where.

That's fine with me, but it causes the acceptance of reality to be arbitrary. If belief in objective reality cannot be justified without circular reasoning (which I would agree is the case), it must be assumed. So long as this assumption is recognized as such, the epistemology sits very well with me.

However, your usage of "self-evident" leads me to wonder whether the Objectivist position holds that this is, in fact, an arbitrary assumption, or makes some claim as to the necessity of the axiom.

[DPW]

That's fine with me, but it causes the acceptance of reality to be arbitrary.

Your use of "arbitrary" here is what Objectivism calls a stolen concept. "Arbitrary" has no meaning apart from the prior acceptance of reality and of a means of grasping facts about reality.

If belief in objective reality cannot be justified without circular reasoning (which I would agree is the case), it must be assumed. 

Maybe it would help if you could define what you mean by "arbitrary," "assume," "justify," and "reasoning." I'm not trying to make you jump through hoops, but I can't imagine what they could mean unless one has already accepted the fact that reality exists independent of consciousness, and that consciousness can grasp that reality by a certain method.

However, your usage of "self-evident" leads me to wonder whether the Objectivist position holds that this is, in fact, an arbitrary assumption, or makes some claim as to the necessity of the axiom.

Sure axioms are necessary. All facts are necessary except those subject to human choice.

[Woxor]

Maybe it would help if you could define what you mean by "arbitrary," "assume," "justify," and "reasoning."

Well, "arbitrary" would be the opposite of "necessary." If something is arbitrary, it need not be assumed, but may be assumed.

That brings me to "assume," which means, "to state without justification." That, in turn, leads to "justification," which is the reason for believing an idea, and we finally end up at the pivotal definition of "reasoning." A reason for believing something (at least the way I've been using the word) is a sound, logical argument for that thing -- it requires true premises and a valid logical method for concluding something from those premises.

With axioms, there can obviously be no reasoning behind them (by definition). They cannot have prior premises, or they would not be axioms. Thus, I fail to see how one could make a logical case for the necessity of an axiom. I do, however, see a perfectly logical method of arbitrarily assuming an axiom.

[Bowzer]

That's fine with me, but it causes the acceptance of reality to be arbitrary.  If belief in objective reality cannot be justified without circular reasoning (which I would agree is the case), it must be assumed.  So long as this assumption is recognized as such, the epistemology sits very well with me.

You must be or have been a philosophy student because in no other context has the "arbitrary acceptance of reality" "sat well" with anyone...the existence of reality is axiomatic and this is where your misunderstanding seems to lie.

One does not simply "assume" an axiom as an arbitrary starting point. Aristotle, for example, introduced the notion of reaffirmation through denial. This means that anyone trying to deny an axiom assumes it in the very act of denial. If you deny that reality exists, you are making certain assumptions.

  Existence, consciousness, identity are presupposed by every statement and by every concept, including that of "disagreement." (They are presupposed even by invalid concepts, such as "ghost" or "analytic" truth.) In the act of voicing his objection, therefore, the objector has conceded the case. In any act of challenging or denying the three axioms, a man reaffirms them, no matter what the particular content of his challenge. The axioms are invulnerable.

  The opponents of these axioms pose as defenders of truth, but it is only a pose. Their attack on the self-evident amounts to the charge: "Your belief in an idea doesn't necessarily make it true; you must prove it, because facts are what they are independent of your beliefs." Every element of this charge relies on the very axioms that these people are questioning and supposedly setting aside.

A second important fact about axioms are that they are self-evident, i.e., they are implicit in every act of consciousness. Axioms are only defined ostensively and there is nothing more to them then just looking out at reality.

This is far from making axioms an arbitrary assumption but perhaps you now see why one cannot prove an axiom: they are prior to any proof, in fact, they are a part of all cognition as such.

[Woxor]

You must be or have been a philosophy student because in no other context has the "arbitrary acceptance of reality" "sat well" with anyone...the existence of reality is axiomatic and this is where your misunderstanding seems to lie.

Nah, chemical engineering and math -- never took any philosophy.

One does not simply "assume" an axiom as an arbitrary starting point.

It's what we mathematicians do. There is no other option.

Aristotle, for example, introduced the notion of reaffirmation through denial. This means that anyone trying to deny an axiom assumes it in the very act of denial. If you deny that reality exists, you are making certain assumptions.

A second important fact about axioms are that they are self-evident, i.e., they are implicit in every act of consciousness. Axioms are only defined ostensively and there is nothing more to them then just looking out at reality.

This is far from making axioms an arbitrary assumption but perhaps you now see why one cannot prove an axiom: they are prior to any proof, in fact, they are a part of all cognition as such.

I'm afraid I can't accept self-evidence as a logical epistemic method without seeing exactly what it means.

If, as you, Peikoff, and Aristotle claim, denial of the axioms results in their assumption, then it should be easy to show the logical progression from "not X" to "X," where X is one of the fundamental axioms. I know of no such progression, though I would readily accept it were it displayed here.

EDIT: It just struck me that reaffirmation through denial is necessarily proof by reductio ad absurdum. If that's how you arrive at your axioms, they're theorems that follow from the law of non-contradiction, not axioms.

[DPW]

Well, "arbitrary" would be the opposite of "necessary." If something is arbitrary, it need not be assumed, but may be assumed.

That brings me to "assume," which means, "to state without justification." That, in turn, leads to "justification," which is the reason for believing an idea, and we finally end up at the pivotal definition of "reasoning." A reason for believing something (at least the way I've been using the word) is a sound, logical argument for that thing -- it requires true premises and a valid logical method for concluding something from those premises.

What are true premises?

[Woxor]

What are true premises?

Logical statements with the characteristic "true" that are used as a starting point in a syllogism. In a deductive context, statements are characterized as true if they follow logically from true statements. In a (weak) inductive context, statements are characterized as probably being true if sensory data (or implicating ideas) indicate that the statement applies to reality (or to said ideas).

I understand your implication that the notion of truth requires the notion of objective reality, but I fail to see why you would consider this an inductive context, and thus fail to see how your implication could be true.

EDIT: Beyond that, that route only attempts to show why one requires the notion of objective reality before one can employ the notion of truth, not why one must necessarily believe in objective reality.

[DPW]

I understand your implication that the notion of truth requires the notion of objective reality, but I fail to see why you would consider this an inductive context, and thus fail to see how your implication could be true.

Actually you've missed my point entirely. My point is, you have no epistemological right to ANY of the terms you use until you ackowledge the fact of existence. And why shouldn't you acknowledge it? It's all around you. Just look.

Now, you are a very intelligent person, and you will kindly explain to me that my advice ("Look") does not trap you in an argument such that you must admit to the existence of existence. And that's entirely correct. I'm not trying to trap you. I don't consider philosophy a chess game. My goal is to understand the world so I can achieve my values, and I say you don't understand the world by denying the self-evident foundation of all knowledge, of all values, of all of existence.

You do not safeguard the integrity of knowledge by destroying its foundation.

Where does that put us? If you are truly confused as to why your questions are literally meaningless, I will help you see that. But if you truly believe that the acceptance of existence is arbitrary, I have nothing more to say to you. Not because I think you're dishonest necessarily, but because I'm not interested in such a discussion. I want to know about reality, not play games with words.

[Woxor]

Actually you've missed my point entirely.  My point is, you have no epistemological right to ANY of the terms you use until you ackowledge the fact of existence.  And why shouldn't you acknowledge it?  It's all around you.  Just look. 

Now, you are a very intelligent person, and you will kindly explain to me that my advice ("Look") does not trap you in an argument such that you must admit to the existence of existence.  And that's entirely correct.  I'm not trying to trap you.  I don't consider philosophy a chess game.

It's not at all a matter of trapping, but I'm afraid you can't consider illogical methods logical no matter how you phrase it. If your starting point is illogical, e.g. unexamined acceptance, that's fine -- I have no reason to fault that, just so long as it's acknowledged as illogical.

Philosophy is a matter of logic, and (as you anticipated I would say) "just look" is not logical. Common sense, sure, but not logic.

My goal is to understand the world so I can achieve my values, and I say you don't understand the world by denying the self-evident foundation of all knowledge, of all values, of all of existence.

You do not safeguard the integrity of knowledge by destroying its foundation.

I don't understand why you would imply that identifying the notion of objective reality as an arbitrary assumption makes it any more difficult to understand the world than identifying it as a necessary truth. Even if knowledge has no more than arbitrary foundation, this can still be worked with. Calculus and geometry are built upon arbitrary axioms, but both are rigid, logical, and useful. Why should our axiomatic model of reality suffer from additional requirements that obviously do not hinder mathematics?

Where does that put us?  If you are truly confused as to why your questions are literally meaningless, I will help you see that.  But if you truly believe that the acceptance of existence is arbitrary, I have nothing more to say to you.  Not because I think you're dishonest necessarily, but because I'm not interested in such a discussion.  I want to know about reality, not play games with words.

I don't consider myself confused, just unsure of Objectivist epistemology. I am relatively sure that the questions I pose are not meaningless; if the meaning is not relevant, or if Objectivism has no answer to them, that is all that must be said for progress to be made.

[Bowzer]

Woxor,

The method that Euclid used in his Elements is a valid method in mathematics but it is emphatically not the proper method to use in epistemology. You will definitely have problems with Objectivism if you adhere to Euclid-like proofs of everything.

If you are sincerely interested in learning more about Objectivism then I wish you good reasons in your studies.

[DPW]

I don't consider myself confused, just unsure of Objectivist epistemology.  I am relatively sure that the questions I pose are not meaningless; if the meaning is not relevant, or if Objectivism has no answer to them, that is all that must be said for progress to be made.

They are meaningless for the reason I indicated, a reason which is at the core of the Objectivist epistemology: epistemological hierarchy. Concepts exist in a hiearachy, and therefore it is a logical fallacy to use a concept to ignore, deny, or attack a concept on which it logically depends. That's what Ayn Rand called "The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept."

Your posts in this thread have all been burdened by this fallacy. "Arbitrary" has no meaning apart from concepts such as "reality," "logic," and "reason." Furthermore, logic as no meaning until you acknowledge the self-evident fact of existence.

Consider what you're actually saying: you're saying there is such a thing as a proper method of cognition, such a thing as complex sciences like geometry, calculus, engineering, and logic, and yet you say you're not sure if there's a reality. That's like asking whether the people who got us to the moon knew how to count, only it's worse because your claim is an assault on all human knowledge, whether you want it to be that or not (I'm not saying that's your intention...you strike me as sincere).

But as I said, I am not interested in debating the fact of existence. I regard that as an illegitimate subject of discussion. One cannot prove existence by means of non-existence, or logic by means of illogic, or reason by means of unreason. And one most certainly does not take as one's starting point, as one's unquestioned absolute, so advanced a concept as "arbitrary" and use it to destroy reality and knowledge.

This is my last word on the topic - I simply don't have anything else to say on this topic. But I do hope you stick around the boards, and more importantly, read some of Ayn Rand's work.

Take care,

Don

[Woxor]

Woxor,

The method that Euclid used in his Elements is a valid method in mathematics but it is emphatically not the proper method to use in epistemology. You will definitely have problems with Objectivism if you adhere to Euclid-like proofs of everything.

(Ironically, a few of Euclid's methods were a bit flawed, but that's irrelevant.)

The method is nothing more than logic. I don't see why this shouldn't be used in epistemology.

[Woxor]

Consider what you're actually saying: you're saying there is such a thing as a proper method of cognition, such a thing as complex sciences like geometry,  calculus, engineering, and logic, and yet you say you're not sure if there's a reality.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that there are such things as all those, simply because the notion of the "existence" of concepts themselves strikes me as a misleading way to look at things, but that may be a topic for another thread. Beyond that, I could easily have uncertainty in my belief in cognition, etc. just as there is uncertainty associated with the notion of reality.

But as I said, I am not interested in debating the fact of existence.  I regard that as an illegitimate subject of discussion.

I'm not at all intending to question whether objective reality exists, just how it can be known and with what degree of certainty.

And one most certainly does not take as one's starting point, as one's unquestioned absolute, so advanced a concept as "arbitrary" and use it to destroy reality and knowledge.

Don't get me wrong; nothing has been destroyed, and no attempt has been made in that direction. All I've done is label our acceptance of reality as arbitrary, something which is apparently not palatable to all. I think this likely has more to do with the connotations with the word "arbitrary" than with an actually discrepancy in our logical methods.

(I'm not trying to provoke you into responding further if you intend not to -- this reply is simply for the thread's sake and mine if others choose to participate.)

[Tom Rexton]

Well, "arbitrary" would be the opposite of "necessary." If something is arbitrary, it need not be assumed, but may be assumed.

That brings me to "assume," which means, "to state without justification." That, in turn, leads to "justification," which is the reason for believing an idea, and we finally end up at the pivotal definition of "reasoning." A reason for believing something (at least the way I've been using the word) is a sound, logical argument for that thing -- it requires true premises and a valid logical method for concluding something from those premises.

(note: In Objectivism: "existence" is "all that exists")

In Objectivism, "arbitrary" means "unrelated to reality", not "unecessary"; in other words the concept "arbitrary" presupposes "reality". But even if we take your definition, accepting "existence" is no way unnecessary, for to deny it is to deny the existence of "truth" itself. Deny existence, and you deny the existence of everything. So how could it be "unnecessary" to assume it?

I doubt that you question the fact of existence itself. I believe what you question is the concept you call "objective reality", which in Objectivism is "the primacy of existence"--the fact that reality exists independent of any consciousness.

For that, I refer you to this excellent essay: The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy

[RadCap]

"I'm afraid you can't consider illogical methods logical no matter how you phrase it. If your starting point is illogical, e.g. unexamined acceptance, that's fine -- I have no reason to fault that, just so long as it's acknowledged as illogical."

This statement seems to be your fundamental premise in this discussion. It is false. And the error comes from not identifying the concept 'logic'.

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

The axioms of objectivism are identified, and are not contradictory. Thus they ARE logical. To claim that they are ILLOGICAL you would have to show how they are either contradictory or non-existent (thus unidentifiable). You have done neither. As such, you have no basis to claim they are illogical.

Now - as you acknowledge - the objectivist axioms cannot be PROVED via reason and logic (because they are the FOUNDATION for them). But they CAN be VALIDATED. They CAN be said to accurately identify facts of reality. And this is done via direct reference to the senses.

When you sense something - ANYTHING - that sensation is your validation:

If there is something that you sense, then there IS some thing you sense. (axiom - existence)

If there is something that you sense, then there is SOME thing you sense. (axiom - identity)

If there is something that you sense, then there is something YOU sense. (axiom - consciousnes)

Existence is a valid axiomatic concept because there IS something you sense.

Identity is a valid axiomatic concept because there is SOMETHING you sense.

Consciousness is a valid axiomatic concept because there is something YOU sense.

This is not 'mere' "common sense" as OPPOSED to logic. This IS logic. It is non-contradictory identification of three FUNDAMENTAL facts of reality - THE three fundamental facts of reality.

In other words, they are LOGICAL *and* EXAMINED, which makes your premise, and all the arguments which rest upon it, fallacious.

--

"I'm not at all intending to question whether objective reality exists, just how it can be known and with what degree of certainty."

How can existence be known to exist? By reference to the fact that you PERCEIVE it.

With what degree of certainty can existence be known to exist? Complete certainty, BECAUSE you perceive it.