Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The 3 fundamentals axioms of objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Incomprehensible abstractions? Only when they sever the tie between the mind and reality.

Intuition cannot be quantified or measured? Are you speaking of quick and ready insight (familiarity with a subject?) or the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference - and what is that, a lucky guess?

Irrational=Rational, by what standard?

Is there an issue with concept formation here? "The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought, and knowledge, rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions."

When you understand that all valid definitions are based in some way from perceptual observations, - you will see that reality gives rise to concepts. A concept not based or tied to reality is incomprehensible, because there is nothing upon which to base the comprehension.

Have you considered an epistemological housecleaning?

As I said I am a very simple minded individual maybe a bit too rational, if you tell me that your tomatoes are better that mine I will wait until I taste it, if they really taste better than mine I will ask you some questions about your gardening methods. I am only interested in results and fruits, I know what is good for me and what is bad for me and I decide with reason which way I move, I never involve emotions in my choices, all very rational choices. The taste of a tomato can be subjective but I am just interested in my perception, I don't like to be told what to think and never did.

Edited by hokken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David I am serious and I am sure that you know what I meant by that, does it need more clarifications ? As I said sleeping on a bed of nails is not wrong per se, it would just not be the favourite choice of the majority.
I remind you that my question to you (in response to your original statement about peace and harmony) was "why do you want inner peace and a general sense of harmony?". That implies that you consider "inner peace and harmony" to be your central purpose in life, following some version Stoicism or Buddhism. But your response suggests that really you are pursuing Hedonism or maybe Epicureanism.

At any rate, your ethics are in obvious contrast with Objectivism. So in asking "why", I want to see your justification for this as your central purpose in life. I particularly want to see why this doesn't lead you to immediate suicide, when faced with adversity. Especially if you are ever faced with the certain prospect of pain in the future, if you apply your ethics consistently, you should kill yourself. Of course if you also reject reason, you could just decide to ignore your ethics. In this instance, I assume that you don't really believe in the ethics that you appear to adhere to, and instead you reject reason. In its place, I think you approach questions emotionally, by intuiting how you feel about a specific instance (rather than following general principles).

Do you believe in logical consistency? I.e. do you accept the law of the excluded middle, or are you okay with contradictions. If you are, then from that flows an awful lot else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is an irrational feeling or concept that bring inner peace and a general sense of harmony wrong per se ? Shall I say is the tool worth focusing on as long as it does the job?

pragmatism.

Objectivism does not leave any room for subjective intuition (yet incomprehensible abstractions). Intuition cannot be quantified or measured but without it I suspect many scientists and inventors would not have discovered what they did.

intrinsicism.

I strongly believe that consciousness until a certain stage is designed in a way that limits its capacity to comprehend a higher type of abstractions. We are designed with limits, how could we comprehend the concept of infinity if we work in binary mode, but since I believe that conciousness like reason is a variable there is stages where new abstractions can be perceived, my main personal direct experience is the perception of the unity of substance, energy and consciousness. This is just the story of my peace nothing else...and nothing new.

bordering on mysticism.

This last post goes back to the begining in that it makes me think that you dont trust the evidence of your senses. All knowledge is based first on the evidence of our percepts, conceptual consciousness is what allows us to make higher abstractions. I agree that there are "stages" of consciousness, however the stage known as focus is the stage we use to think, and gain knowledge. Its an active volitional process that doesnt require any subjective or mystical rationalizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remind you that my question to you (in response to your original statement about peace and harmony) was "why do you want inner peace and a general sense of harmony?". That implies that you consider "inner peace and harmony" to be your central purpose in life, following some version Stoicism or Buddhism. But your response suggests that really you are pursuing Hedonism or maybe Epicureanism.

At any rate, your ethics are in obvious contrast with Objectivism. So in asking "why", I want to see your justification for this as your central purpose in life. I particularly want to see why this doesn't lead you to immediate suicide, when faced with adversity. Especially if you are ever faced with the certain prospect of pain in the future, if you apply your ethics consistently, you should kill yourself. Of course if you also reject reason, you could just decide to ignore your ethics. In this instance, I assume that you don't really believe in the ethics that you appear to adhere to, and instead you reject reason. In its place, I think you approach questions emotionally, by intuiting how you feel about a specific instance (rather than following general principles).

Do you believe in logical consistency? I.e. do you accept the law of the excluded middle, or are you okay with contradictions. If you are, then from that flows an awful lot else.

Dave, you are basically asking me why I like to sleep on a comfy bed, something doesn't sound right in that question does it? I am obviously talking using metaphors. Why would I prefer love over hate? Why would I prefer harmony over chaos? that is not a reasonable choice it is a natural inclination. No creature is naturally enjoying suffering unless you can in a very simple way demonstrates me the opposite. I am 100% in favor of logical consistency, no peace can be achieved without adhering to it. The perception of the unity of substance, energy and consciousness implies logical consistency since duality does not stand anymore.

Edited by hokken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, you are basically asking me why I like to sleep on a comfy bed, something doesn't sound right in that question does it? I am obviously talking using metaphors. Why would I prefer love over hate? Why would I prefer harmony over chaos? that is not a reasonable choice it is a natural inclination. No creature is naturally enjoying suffering unless you can in a very simple way demonstrates me the opposite.
I'm trying to clarify to you how the axioms relate to ethics in Objectivism. Whereas you take the preference of love over hate, comfort over discomfort to be ethical primitives which you cannot think about further, Objectivism explains the proper role of love and hate, comfort and discomfort, and furthermore correctly explains the circumstances in which hate is superior to love, discomfort is superior to comfort.

And anyhow, you're begging the question, quite literally, by countering that "No creature is naturally enjoying suffering". So what? I reject your hedonist position that enjoyment is man's central purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said I am a very simple minded individual maybe a bit too rational, if you tell me that your tomatoes are better that mine I will wait until I taste it, if they really taste better than mine I will ask you some questions about your gardening methods. I am only interested in results and fruits, I know what is good for me and what is bad for me and I decide with reason which way I move, I never involve emotions in my choices, all very rational choices. The taste of a tomato can be subjective but I am just interested in my perception, I don't like to be told what to think and never did.

Ayn Rand once stated, and this is paraphrased, there is only one Objectivist commandment: To think - but that this would be a contradiction, as the chosen is not forced.

The results (effects) are always based on the 'gardening methods' (cause).

The law of causality, which is little more than the law of identity applied to action - is immutable.

You appear to be spewing epistemolgical garbage rather than being in pursuit of grasping what has been freely offered here. Again, it is freely your choice. Enjoy the 'fruits' of your 'gardening methods'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to clarify to you how the axioms relate to ethics in Objectivism. Whereas you take the preference of love over hate, comfort over discomfort to be ethical primitives which you cannot think about further, Objectivism explains the proper role of love and hate, comfort and discomfort, and furthermore correctly explains the circumstances in which hate is superior to love, discomfort is superior to comfort.

And anyhow, you're begging the question, quite literally, by countering that "No creature is naturally enjoying suffering". So what? I reject your hedonist position that enjoyment is man's central purpose.

Dave let's go back on the track, where did I say that enjoyment was my central purpose, please quote. I am totally happy to clarify my point of view but it is important to try to listen to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand once stated, and this is paraphrased, there is only one Objectivist commandment: To think - but that this would be a contradiction, as the chosen is not forced.

The results (effects) are always based on the 'gardening methods' (cause).

The law of causality, which is little more than the law of identity applied to action - is immutable.

You appear to be spewing epistemolgical garbage rather than being in pursuit of grasping what has been freely offered here. Again, it is freely your choice. Enjoy the 'fruits' of your 'gardening methods'.

Does it really matters if you think my tomatoes are not tasty, it is my experience that counts, shame you think you reached your final destination, best wishes.

Edited by hokken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave let's go back on the track, where did I say that enjoyment was my central purpose, please quote. I am totally happy to clarify my point of view but it is important to try to listen to each other.
It's actually more important that you not try to mislead people with your responses. Stop answering questions with questions. Stop asking question. Make an assertion of fact, relevant to your philosophy. Speak literally -- don't be dishonest and imply something that you're not willing to defend as your actual position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to what many objectivists might think (unless they studied many other philosophical and metaphysical approaches of the universe), Ayn Rand hasn't invented the wheel with her 3 axioms of existence, conciousness and identity. The realisation of existence, consciousness and identity serve as the basis of many metaphysical system, now it all depends what do you want to cook with those ingredients and then fair enough objectivism has its own recipe, I personally don't find it very tasty but that is another debate.

Your original post.

You managed to ignore the statement that Miss Rand is the first individual to consistantly apply the primacy of existence throughout her philosophy - the distinguishing characteristic of Objectivism.

Yes, if you apply a primacy of consciousness, which is what you appear to be doing 'consistantly' through your prior posts, you can end up with mysticism, subjectivism, skeptism and many other 'isms. You may not find it very tasty - which brings us to the point, why, then, are you here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it really matters if you think my tomatoes are not tasty, it is my experience that counts, glad you think you reached your final destination, best wishes.

Final destination. Sounds like a good title for a bad movie.

As in martial arts, a black belt only indicates that you have reached the beginning of the journey.

In Objectivism, the beginning is that twofold choice mentioned earlier. The irreducible choice to 'focus', and then, once turning the 'switch of the mind on', choosing to tie the content of the mind to observations in reality. It is only then, that the journey can begin.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your original post.

You managed to ignore the statement that Miss Rand is the first individual to consistantly apply the primacy of existence throughout her philosophy - the distinguishing characteristic of Objectivism.

Yes, if you apply a primacy of consciousness, which is what you appear to be doing 'consistantly' through your prior posts, you can end up with mysticism, subjectivism, skeptism and many other 'isms. You may not find it very tasty - which brings us to the point, why, then, are you here?

I am here because I was interested to know more about objectivism, and I do now. I respect its consistent approach but it is not my way. I'll read more about it tho because I consider that any approach, good or bad is an experience and that we always get something out of it.

Edited by hokken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am here because I was interested to know more about objectivism, ...
If you really want to learn something about Objectivism, your approach will get you nowhere. Get a book like "The Virtue of Selfishness" so that you have some basic quantum of material to talk about. At least read the first essay (40 pages). This whole thread sounds more like a conversation by someone who read something on the back of a book and is chatting about it after one drink too many. In other words, not a conversation anyone would take seriously. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am here because I was interested to know more about objectivism, I respect its consistent approach but it is not my way. I'll read more about it tho because I consider that any approach, good or bad is an experience and that we always get something out of it.

Probably one of the best ways to learn more about Objectivism is to read, and comprehend Leonard Peikoffs book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. The forum can serve as an introduction, and some clarification, but not the most effective learning tool.

You state, however, you have already concluded it is not your way. That will be an obsticle to getting to know more about it.

Experience is always a good thing, when you are open to what it has to offer.

Why do you not step out in front of a speeding truck? Because you will be struck by an unforgiving nemesis, an absolute reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to learn something about Objectivism, your approach will get you nowhere. Get a book like "The Virtue of Selfishness" so that you have some basic quantum of material to talk about. At least read the first essay (40 pages). This whole thread sounds more like a conversation by someone who read something on the back of a book and is chatting about it after one drink too many. In other words, not a conversation anyone would take seriously.

I am not buddhist but even buddhism admit the existence of a divine selfishness with what they call the pratyekha buddhas (selfish buddhas) in opposition to the boddhitsatvas, the buddhas of compassion like Gautama --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha

softwareNerd, you attitude is very judgemental, I don't judge you so try to avoid to do the same about somebody you don't know, I am not as illiterate as you might think. I just tend not to spread my knowledge like jam on a toast that's all. Forgive my spelling mistakes here and there, I am french, nobody's perfect :) I am doing my best. I will definitely have a look at that book, thanks for mentioning it.

Prathyekha buddhas are said to be "more concerned" about self salvation and are not really looking to elevate anyone else by teaching, that is why they have been called "selfish buddhas" by the buddhist tradition.

Edited by hokken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

softwareNerd, you attitude is very judgemental, I don't judge you so try to avoid to do the same about somebody you don't know, I am not as illiterate as you might think. I just tend not to spread my knowledge like jam on a toast that's all.

By all means, judge, and be prepared to be judged. Youll learn why its a good idea if you read the book sNerd reccommended. Im sure no one here thinks youre illiterate btw.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means, judge, and be prepared to be judged. Youll learn why its a good idea if you read the book sNerd reccommended. Im sure no one here thinks youre illiterate btw.

j..

£4.35 on amazon, quite cheat, is that a sign ? :) I will read it, take some notes and come back with a potential list of flaws...or not, I am open to anything as long at it improves my capacity to reconcile apparent dualities in...how do you call it ? yes logical consistency.

Edited by hokken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[The Virtue of Selfishness is] £4.35 on amazon, ... I will read it, take some notes and come back... ...
If you do spend the time and effort on doing that, I'll have to judge you positively :)

Even if you do not agree with what you find, I'll bet you will find it thought-provoking (and perhaps even fun), and thus worth the money. And no, I did not imply that you were illiterate; for all I know you might be a brain surgeon. I was saying that your approach would not work with something like Objectivism. It is different enough that one needs to read a book rather than pick it up from miscellaneous web-pages and forum-threads.

All the best with your pending discovery.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prathyekha buddhas are said to be "more concerned" about self salvation and are not really looking to elevate anyone else by teaching, that is why they have been called "selfish buddhas" by the buddhist tradition.

According to that wiki page you linked to, Prathyekha buddhas are not "selfish", they are simply self-taught and thus unlikely to be able to teach others the full dharma. They are certainly not selfish in the Objectivist sense, which has nothing to do with being alone or avoiding people (Objectivists come in all flavors of introvert and extravert) but has to do with the beneficiary and motivator of your actions.

Because it is focused around personal enlightenment, Buddhism does contain SOME aspects that people might consider "selfish"--except that in order to attain personal enlightenment, you have to blank out the self. There's even a great line in The Fountainhead about this concept, when Ellsworth Toohey is talking to his niece Catherine and telling her that only when she has completely expunged her "self", will she be fit to enter heaven, and she asks (paraphrase), "but when the gates of heaven open, who is it that is going to enter?" How can anything be valuable to you, if YOU don't exist any more? This is why Buddhism is not *actually* a selfish philosophy even though it is focused around "personal" goals. Materialistic (as opposed to mystical) altruism is actually more consistent philosophically than ideologies like Buddhism or Christianity that offer some sort of bribe (enlightenment, salvation) as a "return" for intentionally bringing about the destruction of your mind and life. Ultimately, consistent materialistic altruism (such as that espoused by Kant) offers no reward, not even paradise, only categorical imperatives.

As you do more reading, you will learn that Objectivism does not deny the existence of "intuition" or "creativity"--Objectivists just know that these aren't mystical and inexplicable "irrational" processes. Their operation can be understood, controlled, and improved. They're just not processes that you have immediate, direct, conscious control over, any more than an athlete has immediate, direct, conscious control over every individual muscle fiber in his body. He improves his athletic performance by dealing with the whole system of his body, not individual fibers, and you must train your subconscious in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you prefer to sleep on a bed of nails it is up to you personally I like comfort.

Who is the conqueror of physical reality: the man who sleeps on a bed of nails or the man who sleeps on an inner-spring mattress?

- John Galt / Atlas Shrugged

You asked: "Is an irrational feeling or concept that bring inner peace and a general sense of harmony wrong per se ?"

It is a contradictory premise to begin with. You don't get a comfortable bed via irrational feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hokken, I recommend strongly that you read The Fountainhead first. You'll be intrigued by Roark who seems to renounce so much and seems to suffer so, or others like more materialistic pleause seekers, or Dominique who seems to renounce so much and actually suffers, but sees her heaven in art a la Schopenhauer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...