robstercraws

Thanks. And I like your quote about getting up and being it. Very cool attitude.

That is exactly my point, the burden of proof rests on proving an assertion without using your beginning propositions not disproving them. Your statement is identical to saying that Leprechans exist because I can not disprove it wiithout using the concept of Leprechan. Science doesn't work that way, you must carry the burden of proof. Also, I'm interested in your reasoning of why you say these are irrefutable concepts? Is it because we assume them to be true based on the concept of axiom or because of your belief in their validity? You can't have it both ways simultaneously. BurgessLau does make a good point about words as meaningful. It's a very interesting and worthwhile discussion but one that perhaps could be addressed in as a different forum. And lastly by "logically" I mean only that the concepts mentioned play no role in the formal development of abstract mathematic concepts. Perhaps, she was talking about instances of these abstract concepts which is quite different and could indeed involve these concepts. I must add that I found your questions very insightful. Thanks for the input.

I'm not sure how you could logically support that statement considering you can recreate all of mathematics without every mentioning existence, identity or consciousness. Any textbook on the subject such as Bertrand Russell's Introduction to Mathematic Philosphy will easily show that. Also, yes you can verify the validity of an axiom but not when it is the assumed proposition of the argument. Doing so is the very definition of circular reasoning. For instance, you could prove certain events in the Bible to be valid such as the birth of Jesus through all sorts of scientific and historic evidence. But what you can't do is to use the Bible as part of its own validation process otherwise you get circular reasoning. So the moment you accept these Objectivist statements as axioms and therefore true by defintion, any attempt to use them in your validation process automatically produces circular reasoning. Also, LauricAcid is absolutely right when she said that words have different meanings in different arenas. That is exactly my point. I was simply pointing out that the word "axiom" used in this discussion is different that what is meant in formal logic. Many people see the word axiom and believe that it has the same meaning, carries the same formal weight and often use it in arguments as if they did have these meanings. As long as you know that in this useage it means only to be assumed propositions and nothing more, then that's fine.

I'm very surprised to hear that and I thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Umm, back to the main topic of Objectivist axioms. I just want to clarify a few things... 1. The statement "they (axioms) can be verified directly through sense perception" is wrong. Axioms by definition are accepted to be true. To try to verify an axiom means you don't understand the meaning of axiom. Again they're true by definition not verification. 2. Also be aware that in these "axioms" are axioms in only the most general sense (as assumed truths for purposes of argument) but aren't logic axioms as defined in formal logic. These Objectist "axioms"don't display the propery of being axiomatic or atomic. Meaning they're comprised of multiple ideas allowing for abiguity and implied meaning. Look at Peano's axioms of mathematics if you want to see true axioms. These are true logical axioms because they can not be broken down in any simpler ideas.

Reading the Wikipedia entry for Rand, it says that Objectivism isn't being taught at the Graduate or Phd level of any major university's Philosophy program. Can someone list a graduate or Phd level course currently teaching Objectivism as a comtemporary theory? Please don't list undergraduate courses because many undergraduate course are taught more for historical background rather than current relevance. For example, undergrad courses often include Freud or Marx's for historical context instead of contemporary theory relevance. Thanks for your input