10 Questions for Objectivists

[colbyduck]

Hi, I'm new here but i don't plan on being a permanant member so i'm not going to formally introduce myself on the introductions board. I consider myself an objectivist, but i don't agree with Rand's and the ARI's position on everything. Most particularly, i'm an anarchist of the Rothbardian style (don't worry, i'm not gonna be a troll). There's a few critical questions i've been meaning to ask the more "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) objectivists for a while, so here's my chance. Pardon me if some of my questions don't pertain to you.

1. How do you reconcile the objectivist belief in free will with the objectivist belief in physical determinism? (I know objectivists shy away from that term but if you believe in an absolute, non-miraculous, non-chaotic universe, then it follows that you believe in perfect causality, therefore every action and decision was determined at the conception of the universe. (Let me know if you don’t agree.))

2. Why don’t you believe artificial intelligence is possible? (I read at ARI once somebody saying that the idea of creating intelligence/consciousness in a computer program was stupid and irrational or something like that. Let me know if this isn’t a particularly popular objectivist stance) Most critiques I’ve read of AI follow from a belief in either some sort of religious or Cartesian duality theory of mind, or something along the lines of Penrose’s quantum indeterminess as necessary for the existence of self. Niether of which objectivists would presumably subscribe to.

3. Do you believe in the blank slate theory of mind? I’ve read some objectivist literature that hints at this position but doesn’t outright say it. If you do, how do you reconcile such a belief with the overwhelming wealth of knowledge available on evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, etc.?

4. While epistemologically I side much more with objectivism than skepticism/solipsism, I’ve always found the objectivist cliché, “saying ‘we know for certain that you can’t know anything for certain’ is a self-defeating contradiction” to be a laughable refutation. How do you respond to the following critique of this line of thinking?

• If there's a 10% probability that we can be certain of nothing - say, a 10% probability that no proposition can have greater than a 90% probability - then even if there's a 90% probability that we can be absolutely certain of a proposition, there's still a 10% probability that we can only be 90% certain, and the total probability is ((90% * 100%) + (10% * 90%)) == 99%, which still isn't absolute certainty. In other words, if there's even a small possibility that we can be certain of nothing, then we can be certain of nothing.

"If nothing is certain, you can't be certain that nothing is certain; therefore, at least one thing is certain." This logic relies on a confusion between map and territory - between cognition and reality. In reality, everything is certain; it is either true or false. In our minds, nothing is certain; we can only assign probabilities. The fact that I'm only 60% sure of that statement doesn't magically create some specific belief of which I can be certain, much less create some truth about external reality.

5. Why do you eschew the label “libertarian?” While it’s understandable to not adhere to the efforts of the Libertarian Party, that doesn’t mean you can change definitions of words just because you don’t like how they sound on you. The first definition of “libertarian” (note the lower case “L”) at dictionary.com is “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.” The second is “One who believes in free will.” Both seem to fit objectivists pretty well. So why such animosity towards the word?

6. What exactly is the objectivist position on intellectual property? In Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar, Rand’s self-proclaimed most moral character, said “There is no such thing as conditional property.” This line of thinking rubs against most current copyright laws (if property can’t be conditional, then you can’t say, sell me a CD but tell me not to copy the information on said CD onto my computer hard drive and make it available to all members of any file sharing network I’m on), yet I’ve heard lots of support for copyrights, patents, etc. from the mouths of objectivists. Where exactly do you guys stand?

7. Presumably two different capitalist nations with objectivist influenced constitutions could coexist as neighbors peacefully. If so, then could two different corporations with objectivist influenced company policies coexist peacefully in the same geographic region? I assume any objectivist would say yes. Would that be possible if these two companies offered physical protection from criminals and arbitration as services? If the two companies were in different regions, and had monopolies over those areas, then they’d for all intents and purposes there’d be no difference between them and the capitalist governments objectivists desire and presumably the two companies would be able to get along and secure peace. What if the two companies offered their services within the same geographic region? By what logic would this “anarchy” that now suddenly exists necessarily degrade into chaotic warfare? (Remember, these private protection agencies are operating under a objectivist pretence.)

8. According to objectivists, laissez-faire capitalism follows from the ethical principle of the NAP. So according to the objectivist hierarchy, in the abstract, non-initiation of force is more important than capitalism, even if in reality they amount to the same thing. To keep a monopolized objectivist government in tact, such a state would have to prohibit companies from offering private protection from criminals, arbitration, etc., which is a blatent violation of the NAP, because such private ventures could easily be hypothesized as operating within the confines of the NAP themselves. How do you reconcile this conflict between minimal state and NAP?

9. Why do you support the United States’ military ventures in Iraq, Israel, etc.? While liberating people is noble (though I wouldn’t call what our military is doing in Iraq “liberation”), under objectivist ethics, no person, group, or nation can do “what’s good for society” or whatever at the expense of any individual. Currently our military is funded by hundreds of billions of dollars in stolen funds (taxes) every year. How can you support an agency of force, even if it’s theoretically doing a good thing, if it obtains its funding from armed robbery?

10. I don’t think there’s any objectivist position on this, but I’d like your opinions, what do you think would be better: anarchy (of the free market, Rothbard/Friedman style), or full-on socialism?

[Guest RadCap]

If your purpose here is actually to DISCUSS ideas, I would suggest you tackle them one at a time, so that a rational debate may occur. Otherwise you are merely preaching in question form.

So - is there a particular question you would like to address first?

Meanwhile, I will correct one of your non-question assertions. You say you consider yourself to be an "objectivist." According to what you say afterwards, however, I have to disagree with your characterization of yourself.

Objectivism has a SPECIFIC identity. That identity does NOT include anarchy. In fact, that identity stands in firm OPPOSITION to anarchy. Yet you claim to be an anarchist. This is a contradiction. Specifically, it contradicts the political identity of Objectivism. Therefore, while some of your premises may overlap with premises held by objectivism (dubious given your questions), your belief system is definitely NOT objectivist, and thus you cannot validly claim to be an objectivist - any more than a person who believes Jesus is the son of God can validly claim to be an atheist.

I would suggest the concept "libertarian" more accurately encompasses the beliefs you claim or imply in your post.

[AshRyan]

For someone who claims to be an Objectivist, you seem to know very little about that philosophy. The answers to most of your questions, and the deeper underlying premises upon which they are based, are addressed in the Objectivist literature--which one would think you would have read before identifying yourself as an adherent of that philosophy, but apparently you have not.

So, if you want to know what the philosophy says in regard to your questions, try reading about the philosophy and actually learning what it says.

That said, I would like to comment on a couple of your questions.

1. How do you reconcile the objectivist belief in free will with the objectivist belief in physical determinism? (I know objectivists shy away from that term but if you believe in an absolute, non-miraculous, non-chaotic universe, then it follows that you believe in perfect causality, therefore every action and decision was determined at the conception of the universe. (Let me know if you don’t agree.))

Causality doesn't imply determinism. This idea comes from a faulty understanding of the law of causality. You seem to think, like Hume (which led to his outright denial of causal law), that causality is a sequence of one action leading to another. This completely leaves out the entities which act. Properly, the law states simply that entities act according to their natures, and does not specify what those natures are. Seeing as how the nature of man includes free will (a phenomenon absent in other entities), causality applies differently to man than to the rest of existence, namely, in a non-deterministic way.

2. Why don’t you believe artificial intelligence is possible? (I read at ARI once somebody saying that the idea of creating intelligence/consciousness in a computer program was stupid and irrational or something like that. Let me know if this isn’t a particularly popular objectivist stance) Most critiques I’ve read of AI follow from a belief in either some sort of religious or Cartesian duality theory of mind, or something along the lines of Penrose’s quantum indeterminess as necessary for the existence of self. Niether of which objectivists would presumably subscribe to.

There is no theoretical basis for artificial intelligence at this point. Does that mean that there never will be? Not necessarily. But significant new discoveries would have to be made in several fields--including physics, neuroscience, and computer science--before we could know if it could be done. In the absence of the prerequisite theory, any discussion of the possibility of AI is just intellectual masturbation, which is how I would classify all philosophical work (such as Turing's) done on the subject up to now.

3. Do you believe in the blank slate theory of mind? I’ve read some objectivist literature that hints at this position but doesn’t outright say it. If you do, how do you reconcile such a belief with the overwhelming wealth of knowledge available on evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, etc.?

Yes, the mind is tabula rasa at the outset, in terms of conceptual content. There is no good evidence otherwise.

4. While epistemologically I side much more with objectivism than skepticism/solipsism, I’ve always found the objectivist cliché, “saying ‘we know for certain that you can’t know anything for certain’ is a self-defeating contradiction” to be a laughable refutation. How do you respond to the following critique of this line of thinking?

• If there's a 10% probability that we can be certain of nothing - say, a 10% probability that no proposition can have greater than a 90% probability - then even if there's a 90% probability that we can be absolutely certain of a proposition, there's still a 10% probability that we can only be 90% certain, and the total probability is ((90% * 100%) + (10% * 90%)) == 99%, which still isn't absolute certainty. In other words, if there's even a small possibility that we can be certain of nothing, then we can be certain of nothing.

"If nothing is certain, you can't be certain that nothing is certain; therefore, at least one thing is certain." This logic relies on a confusion between map and territory - between cognition and reality. In reality, everything is certain; it is either true or false. In our minds, nothing is certain; we can only assign probabilities. The fact that I'm only 60% sure of that statement doesn't magically create some specific belief of which I can be certain, much less create some truth about external reality.

Now this is completely incoherent. Concepts of probability are not only inapplicable in many epistemological contexts, but even when they are valid they are derivative from a concept of certainty. If you don't think we can ever have 100% certainty regarding any idea, then it's completely meaningless to say that we're 99% (or any other number) certain of it. A percentage indicates a part of a whole; but if you don't know what the whole is, how can you measure the part in relation to it? That is, 99% of what?

That's all I'm going to say for now, although I suggest reading Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand if you'd like to know what it is you're saying when you call yourself an Objectivist; and various other articles according to the topics of your questions (for instance, Ayn Rand has an article on intellectual property rights in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).

(Oh, and the quote from Ragnar, if he did say it, is used here completely out of context. It would mean that there can be no conditions set by a proper government on a property owner's rights; which is completely different from saying that a property owner can't set conditions on the use of his own property, which is what you're implying here, and which would completely obliterate the concept of property, intellectual or otherwise.)

Edited July 20, 2003 by AshRyan

[Atlas51184]

Here are some brief answers. If you want to discuss further, take them one at a time, all at once is to much. Also, you said you're not going to be a jerk, thank you. But if you start behaving like a different anarchist who posted here, get the hell out.

1. The issue is one of causality. According to Objectivism, the "billiard ball" view of cause and effect is inadequate. The cause of an event is not an action, but the nature of the entity acted on. Something happens to me, so according to my nature (my free will) I decide what to do. A human's nature is different then a subatomic particle's nature. In addition, "conception of the universe" would be a sketchy way of putting things for an Objectivist, if by conception you mean "beginning."

2. I don't know much about computer technology, so I won't say much, but if you are curious, Harry Binswanger has a lecture you can buy that discusses his view of the mind. In it, he describes himself as a dualist, but not in the Cartesian sense.

3. Yes Objectivism does, but you have to be more specific with this "overwhelming wealth of knowledge." I assume that this supposed knowledge contradicts a blank slate view, can you summarize it?

4. You are confusing omniscience with certainty. 'Certainty' is only coherent when speaking in a context. Objectivism says that when you are certain, you are certain in a specific context, the context being all the knowledge you have at the time. Where are these numbers coming from? How did you determine that there is a 10% probability that you are not certain?

5. I don't understand why everyone makes a big deal of this. Many people advocate laissez-faire and are not Objectivists, and they call themselves libertarians. I don't define my ideology by political beliefs, so when asked about politics, I say I am a capitalist or something like that. Libertarian is a clever word, but too many bad things are associated with it to call myself a libertarian. I used to do that, but then I would have to explain to people what I did and did not mean. It is easier and clearer to say "I am for unrestricted capitalism and individual rights protected by a strong government," than to say, "I am a libertarian"…"no not like Harry Brown"…"no not an anarchist"…"etc." Plus, a lot of people who like calling themselves 'libertarians' hate Rand and Objectivism, so I don't want to lump myself with them, either.

6. I don't remember that line, tell me the page number so I can reread that part. Objectivism favors intellectual property rights, read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand talks about patents there.

7. No, because coexisting governments don't control the same geographic area, that is part of the reason why they are peaceful. There is nothing wrong with a security company, but the problem is when a company sets the laws. Objectivism says there must be one institution that enforces a single set of objective laws. What do two government corporations do if they don't agree on the law or the facts in a specific case? What happens if my govt. thinks I am in the right and your govt. thinks you are? Where do they go to settle their dispute? That is why a security guard doesn't put people in jail, he just hands them over to the government. There has to be a final arbiter, and it is called government. Even two completely rational people could have a disagreement, and so could two companies.

8. An objective govt. would allow private protection. You could buy a gun, hire a security guard or the Sloman Shield, etc. What they can't do is retaliate and punish, they can just protect.

9. An Objectivist who supported the Iraq war would not justify it by means of liberating oppressed people, he would say it was an act of self-defense. Taxes are bad, and Objectivism advocates a no-tax government. However, since we will be taxed anyhow, we want the stolen money to at least be used for good.

10. Unimportant and uninteresting. Either way, they both suck.

[Atlas51184]

Question: How come every anarchist that has posted here writes so much at once? Why don't they just post one thing at a time?

[colbyduck]

Thanks theDude for your responses, they're appreciated (though i don't necessarily agree, except possibly with the issue of causality).

As for what Ragnar said, it's at the bottom of page 573. Rearden has just met Ragnar and Ragnar just handed him the bar of gold and says, "It is not a gift, Mr. Rearden. It is your own money. But i have a favor to ask of you. It is a request, not a condition, because there can be no such thing as conditional property..." and then asks him not to use the money on his business.

I took this to mean that when somebody trades or gives away property, they cannot stipulate what that person may or may not due with that property, because they have voluntarily given up all rights to it and it's not for them to say anymore. If you apply this to property such as books or CDs, then it stands to reason that you can't sell one of these things to somebody under the stipulation that they don't copy the information on it onto a new substrate, even if they then sell or give that away to somebody else.

Also, i defy the claim that you can own an idea. You can own physical things, such as a hardbound book with type on it or a plastic disc with bumps and indents on it. But you cannot own abstractions such as a particular arrangment of words or series of musical tones.

[colbyduck]

Objectivism has a SPECIFIC identity.  That identity does NOT include anarchy.  In fact, that identity stands in firm OPPOSITION to anarchy.  Yet you claim to be an anarchist.  This is a contradiction.  Specifically, it contradicts the political identity of Objectivism.  Therefore, while some of your premises may overlap with premises held by objectivism (dubious given your questions), your belief system is definitely NOT objectivist, and thus you cannot validly claim to be an objectivist - any more than a person who believes Jesus is the son of God can validly claim to be an atheist.

Very well, you don't have to call me an objectivist, i don't call myself one as if it's my official title. I admit that there are several positions and beliefs held by most objectivists that i don't agree with, but by and large i agree with objectivism a whole helluva lot more than any other well-defined philosophy.

If objectivism's identity is very specific indeed at what point do you draw the line? Must a person adhere to Rand's every statement to be considered an objectivist? Or must they simply believe that reality is absolute and objective, knowledge is attainable to human beings, people - if they hold their life as valuable - should live in accordance with their own self-interest but respect the right of other people to do the same, and society should be based on a recognition of natural law securing the rights of every individual? If the former, then i'm certainly not an objectivist, if the latter, then i definately am. If it's somewhere in between then it's a muddy issue... but i thought objectivists usually didn't like arbitrary definitions.

Oh, and in a sense i'm not really an anarchist anyway, nor a minarchist a la rand, the difference to me is a non sequitor because the only major political difference between the two lies in how crime is dealt with, more specifically who deals with crime. But I believe that with the legalization and deregulation of drugs, lifting of all gun restrictions, and opening up of job oppertunities to virtually everybody from all walks of life that unbounded capitalism is sure to bring, crime will really become a thing of the past. I think the competing, private defense agencies you hear about from anarchists all the time probably won't exist in an anarchist society. So to me the line between us is small and unimportant.

But maybe i'm just a bit too optimistic.

[Guest RadCap]

Where is the line drawn??? Have you READ anything on the philosophy of objectivism? I have to believe NOT given your characterization of what qualifies as an objectivist. I will ignore the first SPECIOUS choice you provide and refer to the second. You say:

Metaphysics: "reality is absolute and objective"

Epistemology: "knowledge is obtainable"

Ethics: "people - if they hold their life as valuable - should live in accord with their own self-interest but respect the right of other people to do the same"

Politics: "society should be based on a recognition of natural law securing the rights of every individual"

But objectivism is NOT defined by JUST these four phrases. Why? Because the concepts embodied in each rest upon other very specific concepts as well. Its called abstraction from abstraction.

For instance, Objectivism DOES say "knowledge is obtainable". However, it also identifies a very SPECIFIC MEANS of acquiring that knowledge: Reason. Your formulation leaves out that little tidbit, and thus, according to it, anyone who claims knowledge is obtainable through faith is ALSO an objectivist.

Furthermore, your ethics is woefully misinformed. Objectivism is not about mere self-interest. It is not about subjective selfishness, hedonism, or any other form of whim worship. Yet your formulation permits this, so long as the individual recognizes the "right" of others to behave in the exact same manner. In other words - sure, go ahead and kill your neighbor if it serves your self-interest. But realize he has the "right" to do the same to you. THAT is NOT objectivism.

Finally, your Politics is so undifferentiated as to be MEANINGLESS. HOW does one "recognize" so-called "natural law." What the heII IS "natural law"? What ARE rights? HOW does one "secure" them?

Objectivism has VERY specific answers to these questions. Why? Because a BRANCH of philosophy is built from more than just ONE concept. And it rests on more than just one concept. Objectivism, for instance, has a well-developed train of logic leading from the axioms of its metaphysics to the sense of life of its aesthetic. Each concept builds upon the prior concept to create a logical whole in the intellectual form of an inverted pyramid. To be an Objectivist, you must accept this pyramid of abstactions as a whole. If you reject some of them, then you reject objectivism itself. Whatever you ARE accepting, BECAUSE it involves DIFFERENT ideas and abstractions, it is therefore a different philosophy (if it can be called a philosophy at all).

You are accepting ideas and abstractions different from objectivism. Thus whatever you wish to call it, you cannot call it Objectivism nor yourself an objectivist (at least if you are interested in non-contradictory identification - ie logic).

As I said previously, what you seem to embrace is libertarianism. I would suggest, for purposes of intellectual accuracy and honesty, you identify your beliefs in this manner in the future.

--

Concerning your understanding of the Ragnar excerpt, you have not grasped its context. Ragnar states that the bar of gold is already Rearden's property. Thus Ragnar cannot place any conditions upon its use (because it is not his to do so, etc). In other words, Ragnar was not trading or giving away property.

If you ACTUALLY seek to understand the objectivist view of intellectual property, I would suggest a reading of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". It addresses the concept directly and succinctly. This way you don't have to guess or try filter out the artistic from the political/economic.

Oh - and another thing - by characterizing Ms. Rand as a "minarchist" (an invalid concept), you provide further evidence that you have not comprehended her philosophy at all. If your purpose is to show what is wrong with a philosophy, you must first UNDERSTAND a philosophy. Otherwise you merely attack straw men. And that wastes EVERYONE'S time.

[colbyduck]

Dude, chill. I agree with basically all the stuff you just said about the four main branches of objectivism, i was only trying to keep my post somewhat brief. Yes, knowledge attainable only through reason, self-interest only if rational blah blah blah. Trust me, i wouldn't call myself an objectivist if i didn't agree with a single tenant of the philosophy. I may not have read every book by Rand and Peikoff but i think i understand objectivism pretty well. Don't have an aneurism over my not specifying the entire axiomatic foundation and derivation of the philosophy.

And why exactly wasn't rand a minarchist? The word has no formal definition so maybe you're mistaking it for something i didn't mean. Among the broader libertarian circle it's usually taken to mean somebody who advocates a minimal state that provides only police, courts, and military. I guess i could be wrong, because as you say i know essentially nothing about objectivism, but this is what rand condoned, correct?

[Atlas51184]

Don't have an aneurism over my not specifying the entire axiomatic foundation and derivation of the philosophy.

Objectivism is not derived from axioms. If that is your understanding of Objectivism, you don't really understand Objectivism. May I suggest Peikoff's course Understanding Objectivism as the antidote to rationalism? It helped me a bunch.

I like the word "minarchist." I would much rather refer to myself as a minarchist than as a libertarian. The problem is that I don't hear it used much and there is already a better way to describe Objectivist politics - capitalism.

[colbyduck]

Objectivism is not derived from axioms. If that is your understanding of Objectivism, you don't really understand Objectivism. May I suggest Peikoff's course Understanding Objectivism as the antidote to rationalism? It helped me a bunch.

"We, the men of the mind, are now on strike against you in the name of a single axiom, which is the root of our moral code, just as the root of yours is the wish to escape it: the axiom that existence exists.

"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.

...

"Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two - existence and consciousness - are axioms you cannot escape..."

[Guest RadCap]

"Trust me, i wouldn't call myself an objectivist if i didn't agree with a single tenant of the philosophy."

Yet you DID call yourself an objectivist. And you called yourself an anarchist. Since anarchism is NOT a tenent of objectivism, your statement (as poorly worded as it is) is false. More examples to follow.

"I may not have read every book by Rand and Peikoff but i think i understand objectivism pretty well."

No, you don't. Your questions are proof of this:

1. You do not understand Objectivist Metaphysics.

2. You appear not to grasp the Objectivist concept of consciousness

3. You do not grasp Objectivist Epistemology

4. You understand neither the Objectivist concept of identity (nor even the logical fallacy "Stolen Concept")

5. You do not grasp the application of Objectivist Ethics, Epistemology, and Metaphysics to its Politics

6. You do not understand the Objectivist conception of property, including intellectual property

7. You do not understand the Objectivist conception of Politics in relation to government.

8. You do not understand Objectivist ethics when it comes to human interaction

9. And you do not understand the Objectivist

In other words, you claim to "understand objectivism pretty well" and yet do NOT understand fundamental "tenents" of ALL its branches! That is NOT "understanding" by ANY definition of the word.

Now, to your question about "minarchist":

You claim the concept has no formal definition - ie it has no specific identity. That right there should rule it out as a valid concept. However, you try to provide it with such an identity. Dubious as it is, let us take that at face value for a moment. Your assertion is that a "minarchist" is one "who advocates a minimal state that provides only police, courts, and military." You then ask if Ms. Rand did not condone such a position.

Since you apparently are SO well educated on Ms. Rand's philosophy, I will ask you - IS that the PRIMARY principle of Ms. Rand's political philosophy? Or is that ONLY an APPLICATION of a more FUNDAMENTAL political principle? For it is PROPER to describe a social system on the basis of its fundamental principles, not its DERIVATIVE principles and/or applications. At BEST such a description is pitifully inaccurate. At worst, it is intellectually dishonest (because it seeks to grant to the concept "minarchist" validity it does NOT have, by association or usurpation of a valid concept).

All in all, I can only repeat what everyone (including myself) has already stated: you do not understand the philosophy of objectivism. IF you wish to learn about it, then please ask individual questions. If your purpose here is OTHER than learning, that means you are indeed a troll, despite your initial assertion to the contrary. Given your posts up till now, I believe you ARE a troll.

You are free to prove me wrong through your future actions here.

[Atlas51184]

That stuff you quoted is important, but can you derive the Objectivist theory of concepts from axioms? I think not. How about ethics?

[John]

theDude:

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Chart.html

The above link is from a webpage RationalEgoistSG pointed out in a previous post. It shows how all concepts are derived from axioms.

I'm also pretty sure that all concepts in all philosophies are derived from their axioms.

[AshRyan]

John,

Concepts are originally derived (if they are to be derived correctly) from reality, i.e., via sense experience through a proper method of concept-formation by abstraction (and then induction, etc.). Philosophic axioms are important for the later validation of those earlier processes, but even those axioms depend on them. If one were to simply derive and validate all their concepts (even their philosophical ones) solely from axioms, it would be pure rationalism, and would have little or no connection to reality (as has been demonstrated historically by committed rationalists like Descartes).

Are axioms important in a fully integrated philosophic system? Absolutely. But it's very important not to exagerate their importance--to get carried away with them, so to speak. Axioms are a tool for validating one's previously arrived at beliefs deductively. But epistemologically, induction is prior to deduction.

[John]

In my notes I have:

Axiom:

perceptual self evidencies. Validation is: sense perception.

Axiomatic Concepts:

The identification of a primary fact of reality.

Proof:

The derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge. The starting

point is axioms.

As I understand it reality is the axiom (Existance exists), Concsiousness and Identity are Axiomatic Concepts (or corollaries which makes them axioms), and in order to prove or validate a concept you have to show how it is derived from axioms (reality). What do axioms depend on? I thought it couldn't be an axiom if it depended on another concept. I think axioms do depend on concept formation in order to explicitly state them but not in order to be true (reality can exist without concsiousness, does not depend on it to be real).

Is any of this wrong? If so how would I fix it?

[edit]

Objectivism, for instance, has a well-developed train of logic leading from the axioms of its metaphysics to the sense of life of its aesthetic. Each concept builds upon the prior concept to create a logical whole in the intellectual form of an inverted pyramid.

This is what I'm trying to say and what I think started the last few posts.

[/edit]

[AshRyan]

No, that sounds about right to me. I just misunderstood your previous post. (I had taken you to be referring to axiomatic concepts, and did not realize that you were using the term "axiom" in the sense that also includes perceptual self-evidencies.)

[Guest RadCap]

It is correct. However, I would be careful when you say things like:

"reality is the axiom"

This is the same as saying "existence is the axiom". However, since an axiom is a statement which identifies the base of knowledge, the proper phrase would be " 'Existence exists' is the axiom". I believe this is indeed what you had in mind, since you included that phrase in parenthesis. However, I thought the point deserved to be made explicit to avoid potential future confusion on the topic.

[John]

Thanks guys. I'm glad I understood it right.

Saying "reality is the axiom" doesn't include the fact that it is real. Or as OPAR says of existence "The concept does not specify that a phisical world exists." It also doesn't show that I can observe it and then identify it. Since I can observe it and identify it as existence I can say "Existence exists."

I still think other philosophies derive all of their concepts from false axioms which is why they are wrong.

I think the axioms are:

For the mystics "god says what is real", for the subjectivists "I say what is real."

They get their false concepts because their axioms are false.

I think that answers theDude. The chart shows how the concepts are derived from the axiom existence exists and its corollaries concsiousness and identity. I don't know if the chart is right because I don't know all of the concepts but I think it will help me make the connections between the 5 branches.

[Atlas51184]

What I meant was: How would you arrive at the conclusions Rand did in ITOE with just deduction from axioms. You can't. I remember hearing somewhere in Advanced Seminars on OPAR that Peikoff once asked Rand to derive her theory of concept formation from a set of axioms and she all but laughed at him. My point was that you can't set forth a set of axioms and deduce all of Objectivism like you can deduce theorems in geometry. I was trying to say that if colbyduck thought he could take existence, consciousness and identity and infer that concept formation involves measurement omission, man is rational and should be selfish, and capitalism is the way to go, then his understanding of Objectivism is rationalistic and wrong. I didn't mean to imply that Objectivism isn't formed by observing reality.

As a side note, an axiom is irreducible and perceptually self-evident. Perceptual evidence is self-evident, but not irreducible. You can break down the observation that my wall is blue, but not that existence exists.

Also, that website seems a little lacking and off, not to mention wrong. For example: Benevolence was not considered a major virtue by Rand, only a minor application of justice.

[ingok]

10. I don’t think there’s any objectivist position on this, but I’d like your opinions, what do you think would be better: anarchy (of the free market, Rothbard/Friedman style), or full-on socialism?

There is no difference between full-on socialism and full-on anarchy. They are two different kinds of dictatorships. In one, street thugs with clubs take your money. In the other, the so-called "government" does. Either way, it is anarchy.

[LaVache]

Also, that website seems a little lacking and off, not to mention wrong. For example: Benevolence was not considered a major virtue by Rand, only a minor application of justice.

The person on this website has essentially redefined benevolence. The way they express it is that in order to maximize trade opportunity you should be civil or polite to people that you don't know, and not automatically assume the worst about them.

Benevolence is a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence, and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours.

They seem to be completely redefining a word, and how they define it seems to fall under the other virtues. While their benevolence isn't a major virtue in itself, since it can be derived from the other virtues, at least it look like they made the mistake of repeating virtues instead of adding virtues. The rest of the chart does appear to be pretty handy, although obviously only a cursory overview of Objectivism's concepts. I like the way that visually ethics take up such a huge part of the chart =).

[softwareNerd]

...socialism and full-on anarchy. ... Either way, it is anarchy.

Either way it is dictatorship. Socialists soon find they need a dictator to be their voice and do their central planning. Anarchy is hard to find. Government --- of some type -- is so important, that people will settle for war-lords, others will wish Saddam couldm come back to deal with the terrorists.