A confusing rant on axioms, proof, and identity.

[W A Dunkley]

How can I evade that which I don't understand?

After discovering that apparently one of the people reading The Primacy of Identity, trying to understand and asking intelligent questions is only 13 years old, I am reminded that one should not get to frustrated by misunderstanding. If you have studied what I have said and sincerely do not understand, then there is no evation. There is important meaning, nonetheless, in the ideas that I submit. So I hope that you will continue to think about them and try to make sense of them.

[source]

Must we be so dogmatic as to refuse to see what right before us:

”Things are” by your interpretation, falls short of being an assertion of self-sameness, because it falls short of being an axiom. “A is” is not an axiom unless it is interpreted to mean “a thing is a thing”  “God is” is not an axiom; i It is not even true. “God is God” is an axiom and the only truth it asserts is identity!  “Something is” is just a more brief way of saying “something is something.”  By an other interpretation IT IS NOT AN AXIOM!

As I state in The Primacy of Identity, epistemologically speaking existence comes before self-sameness. The notion of a “thing” comes before the immutable truth is formulated, “a thing is itself.” This, nonetheless is not relevant to the metaphysical issue of primacy. Epistemologically, existence may be regarded as a basic fact. Metaphysically speaking however, existence is not a base, it is everything.

You're making very little sense here, possibly because you are trying to use sarcasm and I don't know where you're not being sarcastic. But I'm going to respond to your post as if the things you said you really meant.

"God is God" is not an axiom. Axioms are the fundamental truths of the sciences upon which (explicitly in mathematics, implicitly in other sciences) we come to judge the statement's validity. It is like a fundamental building block of logic and thus is abstract. God is God, Computer is computer, man is man; these are not axioms. There is nothing to be realized from this. These sentences are true, but they are not axioms. If they were, then we'd have infinite axioms and absolutely no use of them.

"Something is" is not a shorter way to say anything. It is a statement that conveys the existence of something. Nothing more. That in itself DOES mean that this "something" has identity, but I didn't say that directly. You DO separate the axioms and as such you are difficult to communicate with. You think that identity comes first. There is NO first axiom!

The simplest solution to this whole puzzle you're creating is: "you don't know what primacy of existence means." So I'm saying again: "Read OPAR, man!"

[W A Dunkley]

source source source

As I said before, after finding out that there is one in the audience that is only 13, I have vowed to be patient, but you loosen me here little buddy.

“God is God, Computer is computer, man is man; these are not axioms.”

Are you sure Ayn Rand and Objectivism would agree with this statement?

“There is nothing to be realized from this.”

What is “realized” from all these statements is the only thing that they assert, the existences of self-sameness. The statements you have given are self proving and do not require extrinsic support. The statements “God is,” “computer is” and “man is,” are contingent statements which would require extrinsic perceptual evidence to prove. If you do not want to interpret “something is” to mean “something is something” then be aware that in doing so, it falls short of being a self-proving statement, not requiring extrinsic support.

“There is NO first axiom!”

All axioms are first and they are essentially one, all axioms assert the same truth.

Please! rething what I have said.

[y_feldblum]

The statements you have given are self proving and do not require extrinsic support.

False. No statement is self-proving.

It's a lovely thing, arguing with people who do not accept the axioms of metaphysics. Are you sure this is the right forum for you?

[source]

“God is God, Computer is computer, man is man; these are not axioms.”

Are you sure Ayn Rand and Objectivism would agree with this statement?

I'm sure that what I said is correct. One of these things being that you don't know what primacy of existence is.

Are you sure of what YOU said? If you're so sure, why bother with us? Take it directly to Peikoff and if you're right, you might get a job at ARI. Or open a new institute: "W A Dunkley Institute of (his own) Objectivism". (Though ARI might press charges against you for this, so you might want to stick with "W A Dunkley Institute" only)

[source]

I've tried to convert "God is God" in mathematical symbols, replacing God with A.

A === A

Since there is no god, then it is true that there is no god and written in math symbols, that is:

!A === TRUE

If !A === TRUE then A === FALSE.

If you put that in the first symbolic equation, then you get

FALSE === FALSE

and this is true

(FALSE === FALSE) === TRUE

(0 === 0) === 1

Where '===' means identical.

However, God is God has no philosophical meaning because there is no God. God is not a part of existence. So I come to showing that it is not identity that philosophy should be concerned with, but existence, bearing in mind that all things that exists have identity (are themselves). Why speak of things that do not exist? This is corrected by the axioms that "Existence exists," and "Consciousness is conscious (of things that exist)." Things that exist are the only things of importance to philosophy and to living person.

[Capitalism Forever]

There is important meaning, nonetheless, in the ideas that I submit. So I hope that you will continue to think about them and try to make sense of them.

How will this benefit me?

[W A Dunkley]

I've tried to convert "God is God" in mathematical symbols, replacing God with A.

A === A

Since there is no god, then it is true that there is no god and written in math symbols, that is:

!A === TRUE

If !A === TRUE then A === FALSE.

If you put that in the first symbolic equation, then you get

FALSE === FALSE

and this is true

(FALSE === FALSE) === TRUE

(0 === 0) === 1

Where '===' means identical.

However, God is God has no philosophical meaning because there is no God. God is not a part of existence. So I come to showing that it is not identity that philosophy should be concerned with, but existence, bearing in mind that all things that exists have identity (are themselves). Why speak of things that do not exist? This is corrected by the axioms that "Existence exists," and "Consciousness is conscious (of things that exist)." Things that exist are the only things of importance to philosophy and to living person.

“Why speak of things that do not exist?”

Because sometimes, it can aid our understanding. Objectivism acknowledges the value of “concepts of method”. (e.g., The term “unreal” has no reference in reality. But the statement, “God is unreal” has meaning. It means this notion of God has no reference to something real. The notion exists, but God does not).

Let us not forget in what context that I concocted the now infamous axiom, “God is God.” It was an attempt to isolate precisely what truth and only truth, axioms (all axioms) assert and prove. Using a notion such as god or a unicorn is helpful in this regard. It makes bright minds such as yours (and, I am in no way being “sarcastic)" ask what truth it could possibly assert. The answer is: the existence of self-sameness!

“Things that exist are the only things of importance to philosophy and to living person.”

The thing that exists that is monumentally and fundamentally important to philosophy is the existence of identity, of self-sameness.

I know that I am asking you to reconsider the ideas of a philosophy and a philosopher that you love and admire and respect. I share this love for Ayn Rand and her ideas. All I would ever ask you to love more is the truth. If you do this you will never betray her or her grand ideals.

[W A Dunkley]

How will this benefit me?

In an age of relativism and nihilism, it is of vital importance to understand what truly is the ground of all knowledge, which is the axiom! This certainly implies that one understands what the axiom is and what it asserts! Recognizing that it asserts the existence of self-sameness, allows you to understand how one’s logic is hinges to reality. There are other reasons, but this is the most fundamentally important one.

[W A Dunkley]

False. No statement is self-proving.

It's a lovely thing, arguing with people who do not accept the axioms of metaphysics. Are you sure this is the right forum for you?

A is A!

This statement can never be proven by perception. This statement proves perception! If the statement “A is A” is not acknowledged as self-proving the claim to know anything is lost!!! For if we assume that A might not be A, then even first hand perception becomes dubious. This is why the mystic, who would steal your mind, launch there attacks at this absolute.

I was once at an academic conference presenting this thesis and an angry professor came up to me, pointing to the paper, and said: “You can’t prove that A is A. The Ink in that first A is not the same ink as in the second A!” (This is the world your in!) I am here for a better audience with better questions and statements than, “you can’t prove that A is A,” or “I have trouble with the word ‘is’” etc.

But your last post is degenerating to same level!

[y_feldblum]

It's a lovely story, Dunkley.

You cannot prove that A is A, because the axiom of identity is the basis of proof. You can validate the axiom by observing that things are, in fact, what they are.

Neither does A is A prove perception. Perception, ie, the validity of the senses, is itself an axiom.

[W A Dunkley]

It's a lovely story, Dunkley.

You cannot prove that A is A, because the axiom of identity is the basis of proof. You can validate the axiom by observing that things are, in fact, what they are.

Neither does A is A prove perception. Perception, ie, the validity of the senses, is itself an axiom.

Oh! Y-feldblum:

You really are putting the cart before the mule.

Accepting your premises, for argument, I might respond with a few questions:

If perception “validates” the axiom when can we know that perception has proved this axiom? Would one need to perceive what is on the other side of the universe, or for that matter were the socks that were lost in the washer went to, in order to prove that whatever is, concurs with “A is A?” Indeed would not one need omniscience?

If it happened that A is not A and perception is not perception, how can this means of “validation” be trusted?

Or are we to assume that “perception is perception” is immutable but, the things perceived must be examined before we decide that they are what they are? Why?

If these questions could be truly answered to, then there may indeed be no need for the “W A Dunkley Institute,” But, they cannot!

[y_feldblum]

Dunkley, all your questions have answers. But first they require you to have accepted the axioms of metaphysics. For a full explanation of them, read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

[W A Dunkley]

Dunkley, all your questions have answers. But first they require you to have accepted the axioms of metaphysics. For a full explanation of them, read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

In the first place, The primacy of identity does not constitute a denial of “the axioms of existence!" But all they prove as axioms (as such) is the existence of identity. The rest that they prove is derived from perception. But again! the validity of perception is grounded in the axiom, not the other way around.

My understanding of objectivism is that it would not deny that the statement “A is A” requires no extrincic support.

If there is something in your studies, that disputes this, and answers to the questions that I ask, perhaps you can provide a concise presentation.

And I got a nice little bridge in Brooklyn for sale, if you do.

[y_feldblum]

Dunkley,

If you were in the business of making people repeat themselves, you could be rich.

Study Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. In the first chapter, Peikoff discusses the axioms of metaphysics.

Every word that you write is in contradiction - explicitly and implicitly - to these axioms. It appears you have no idea what they are. Please take the necessary steps to acquire an idea.

[W A Dunkley]

What I have understood from all this is that WA Dunkley is saying that the Law of Existence is not a primary, only the Law of Identity is.

In other words, the Law of Existence can be derived from the Law of Identity.

This means that A is A is a primary and the fact that A exists can be derived from the former assertion.

But how can A be A when we do not assume that A exists? Isn't the Law of Existence a primary? Isn't the Law of Identity presupposing the Law of Existence to be true? How can the Law of Identity be primary then?

A correction: The young intellectual, tommyedison, is 14, not 13, as I has said. But still, no less amazing!

[Thoyd Loki]

Dunkley,

If you were in the business of making people repeat themselves, you could be rich.

Study Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. In the first chapter, Peikoff discusses the axioms of metaphysics.

Every word that you write is in contradiction - explicitly and implicitly - to these axioms. It appears you have no idea what they are. Please take the necessary steps to acquire an idea.

I noticed this in the "Time" discussion. I kept having to look back at my response because I didn't understand what the hell he was answering. Like my question wasn't my question; like someone who didn't understand what A is A meant.

[Thoyd Loki]

A is A!

This statement can never be proven by perception. This statement proves perception! If the statement “A is A” is not acknowledged as self-proving the claim to know anything is lost!!!  For if we assume that A might not be A, then even first hand perception becomes dubious. This is why the mystic, who would steal your mind, launch there attacks at this absolute.

I was once at an academic conference presenting this thesis and an angry professor came up to me, pointing to the paper, and said:  “You can’t prove that A is A. The Ink in that first A is not the same ink as in the second A!” (This is the world your in!) I am here for a better audience with better questions and statements than, “you can’t prove that A is A,”  or “I have trouble with the word ‘is’” etc.

But your last post is degenerating to same level!

You claimed in the Time thread to be an old "punch-drunk" quarterback. What academic conference was this?

I think you should also get used to the idea that we are not hear to learn from you. We don't have to study your essays. You are not saving us from "Ayn Rand's blunders of Axioms". Her metaphysics being something you have either never read or completely misinterpreted ( I think you more than likely read a third parties critique of her metaphysics thus compounding your confusion).

[Thoyd Loki]

y_feldblum

Ayn Rand did not rebut the primacy of identity, because it had not yet been formulated. (And you cannot convince me that she would be quick to cast it aside.)

At the risk of sounding like I an evading, I sincerely can't follow what your getting at in this first paragraph. If you can explain to me what I am missing, I will try to respond.

I will grant you, I am more of an ideas man that a scholar. Nonetheless, I have read what Rand said about the primacy of existence and I was profoundly influenced. I do not present this thesis to rebut the primacy of existence. I present it as an idea that is inspired by the primacy of existence, but better states the truth that Ayn Rand was playing of the edge of. Metaphorically stated, the primacy of identity is on the tip of the tongue of the primacy of existence. The primacy of identity accepts the theme of the primacy of existence: that the axiom resolves the issue of primacy. It is a clarification of what the axiom asserts and of what it is asserting as primary.

As to the compliment, let me say that (other than one slip) I can say no less of you.

Ha! I almost forgot.

Here is a quote from Ayn Rand from Atlas Shrugged - Galt's speech.

Existence is identity.

Consciousness is identification.

So much for your "Primacy" scheme!

Bye bye!

[source]

I know that I am asking you to reconsider the ideas of a philosophy and a philosopher that you love and admire and respect. I share this love for Ayn Rand and her  ideas. All I would ever ask you to love more is the truth. If you do this you will never betray her or her grand ideals.

If I was afraid of betraying Ayn Rand for denying the axioms of her philosophy openly to the board here, I would have already denied them subconsciously in my mind and it would be myself I'd be betraying. I'd be something like the Brandens were when they were still associated with Ayn Rand.

I doubt that a true knower, or even a wannabe objectivist would even have suggested such a thing, especially after calling me "bright". Not if you meant it, at least.

[Capitalism Forever]

In an age of relativism and nihilism, it is of vital importance  to understand what truly is the ground of all knowledge, which is the axiom! This certainly implies that one understands what the axiom is and what it asserts!

I have never disputed the axiom "A is A." I am asking what benefit I will gain from understanding your argument against the Primacy of Existence and in favor of "the Primacy of Identity."

[W A Dunkley]

OK……everybody relax……..get a paper bag and breathe into it.

It is stated that I am “incomprehensible” but the more clear my position becomes, the more it is met with emotionalism! It is stated that I no little or nothing about Objectivism. This is not true. I understand that the fundamental metaphysical concepts of objectivism cannot even be consistently denied. But what consistency is required of the mind that does not acknowledge the existence of self-sameness? What consistency would be required of a world where self-sameness does not exist? If one fails to acknowledge the truth asserted by the statement “a unicorn is a unicorn” then one has lost the truth asserted in the statement “existence exists!”

The philosophy conference I made reference to was the Midsouth Philosophy Conference of 2000. I do appreciate those responsible of allowing me to be there, but, the “professional academic” that was to respond the my paper backed out of the conference at the last minute, for undisclosed reasons. You should have seen the unhappy faces when I said the words: “Only a corrupt mind that is divorced from reason will fail to acknowledge that the law of identity must be universally true and all embracing.”

But, surely these are words that unite us here!

I was truly touched by the fact that a deep, intelligent and courageous question was asked of me from a 14 year old! Since then, I did some browsing of the website. Among others, I discovered a 15 year old who wants to be known as Non-contradictor. This brings me to tears, overwhelmed by emotion. A child faces a world of mysticism, of aggressive stupidity, of corruption, of hatred, of murder, and demand to be called non-contradictor. This is the courage of the Thermopolis and the Alamo raped in the untarnished soul of a child. I am here to insisted that the weapon this child is trying to raze agenced the hordes of evil, is real. It is self-sameness; it is identity!

And the almost "incomprehensible" courage of these children is the Objectivism that I know and love, and the only one that I acknowledged. Objectivism ultimately is what there courage and integrity will make it.

If anyone would like to try to further discuss the primacy of identity in a meaningful way, I am here and I will remain!

[y_feldblum]

Dunkley,

Congrats on the conference and congrats on accurately identifying my position as "emotionalism". But your position is incomprehensible because the fuzzy notion of self-sameness does not lend itself to an understanding free of incontextuality, floating abstractions, and undefined concepts.

In your objections to Ayn Rand's axioms of metaphysics, you desplay a fundamental lack of understanding of what those axioms mean.

Your defense of self-sameness amounts to bullying, not reason. Case in point, your defense of it here: you assert that those who deny self-sameness must be inconsistent and that they must also not understand Miss Rand's axioms of metaphysics. Neither assertion has merit, least of all because each one is unaccompanied by argument.

You are mistaken if you think those are words that unite us here. Words do not unite us here. Well-formed concepts unite us, but self-sameness is not one of them. Also, argument by intimidation (ie, bullying) does not unite us either. Argument by induction, integration, deduction, and every other facet of reason unites us.

Did your eyes tear when Kedwards mentioned Cheney's gay daughter? Emotionalism is emotionalism, whether you speak of the courage of underaged Objectivists or the courage of gay women Republicans.

[AisA]

It is an incontrovertible truth that A is A. Things are what they are. Everything (else) that exists must possess self-sameness.

This, the law of identity, is the most basic axiom. An axiom is a self-evident truth; (i.e., it proves itself). Axioms are also sometimes referred to as necessary truths because it is rationally inconceivable that they could be false.

No, an axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and is thus inherent in any claim to knowledge. Even an attempt to deny it requires its use. It is not “self-proving”, it is outside the province of proof. Identification is recognition of the fact that existence consists of different entities. As a step in cognition, grasping that different entities exist is necessarily secondary to grasping that something (existence) exists. It is in this sense that identity cannot be regarded as a primary versus existence.

Introducing the term “self-sameness” elevates tautologies to the status of axioms – thereby trivializing axioms proper.

[W A Dunkley]

No, an axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and is thus inherent in any claim to knowledge.  Even an attempt to deny it requires its use.  It is not “self-proving”, it is outside the province of proof.  Identification is recognition of the fact that existence consists of different entities.  As a step in cognition, grasping that different entities exist is necessarily secondary to grasping that something (existence) exists.  It is in this sense that identity cannot be regarded as a primary versus existence. 

Introducing the term “self-sameness” elevates tautologies to the status of axioms – thereby trivializing axioms proper.

Axions are trivialized when the existence of self-sameness is denied. The denial of self-sameness makes the basic facts referred to by axiomatic concepts unprovable, for they would be hinged to reality by nothing but a "floating abstract."

"...recognition of the fact that existence consists of different entities. As a step in cognition, grasping that different entities exist is necessarily secondary to grasping that something (existence) exists. It is in this sense that identity cannot be regarded as a primary versus existence".

As I have stated, (see The Primacy of Identity and my other posts) I agree, but this is not the fundamental existent thing asserted by the axiom.