pastoral engineer

The first of these paragraphs amounts to argument prior to axiom. The second amounts to dogma. Again, I am not arguing the axioms of objectivism, just the process of choosing to begin with supposedly foundational axioms rather than the non-foundational approach of evaluating based soley on coorespondence and cohearance. Further, if one were to simply promote the Axiom A=A, it would not be a useful axiom, but a truism. Any work built on this basis would necessarily inherit additional meaning before the first layer of inference that should have been evaluated as part of the original axiom. Finally, you have an additional unspoken axiom with your first two. That is Axiom P (for process) that the correct process for uncovering truth is to begin with an unquestionable set of axioms and then proceed with the formal system of pure logic to identify Truth. This is certainly not a proper axiom as it is in active debate - ie it's acceptance requires proof or faith.

An Axiom supported is not an axiom at all for then its support becomes the proper axiom (and so on) Is there a third option beyond accepting an Axiom for a reason or by faith? I simply chose the objectivism axioms for convenience. I have no need to argue them in this topic, just the more basic problem of foundational epistimology.

There can be no proof of an axiom for it to be properly axiomatic. If one claims, "I believe Axiom I to be true because..." than Axiom I is not axiomatic, but only a proposition supported by argument that is itself in need of evalution. OTOH, If one simply claims "Axiom I is true" this becomes an unsupported faith claim. (This should not have to be considered a bad thing) To this, one might suggest that the reason to claim Axiom I as being true is that it is unquestionable. This may fall victim to the first complaint in that it provides a reason to support Axiom I. Yet, even if that were rejected, one would objectively have to state that many, many people, including past adhearants reject (for example) the axioms of Objectivism. Even if, every one of those rejectors were mistaken, it would no longer be possible to suggest the Axioms were unquestionable, because objectively the Axioms are questioned. To suggest that no one has defeated the Axioms is only to say that their arguments against do not stand up to the arguments in favor, which would unfortunately return us to the first test suggesting they are not properly Axiomatic to begin with. In the end, to base one's philosophical structure on an Axiomatic base is a decision of faith. It is more helpful to think in terms of a non-foundationalist epistemology that recognizes that all Axioms, all prolegomenas are in play, subject to debate and consideration. The result is not a descent into relativism, but rather the noble persuit (quite in line with objectivism) of evaluating ideas based on their apparent corespondence with reality and their internal cohearance. Unfortunately, this does not result in unquestionably true results, but neither is it a flight from objective reality. Rather, it is a process intent on improving our otherwise approximate and as yet imperfect understanding of that objective reality.

Actually, he would not have said mre puffs of air. Rather the information in the speech is not restricted to the words, but occurs with the action of speaking (writing, etc.) The effect the speech has on the audience is part of the whole and takes into account the context of the audience. Merely discussing such issues does not further a philosophical argument, but the community formed in the discussion and any resulting action or transformation begins to form a greater degree of communication. Basically, you have your discussion and you have your meta-discussion. By taking into account what is going on in the meta-discussion, you have a more objective picture of what is going on the discussion. Recognizing that there is no easy solution to the problem of universals allows one to get closer to the actual solution. It is similar to carrying error calculations along with your work in science. By knowing all the ways you are likely wrong, you become more right. This is the sense where the value of an argument is not whether it is logically solid, but whether it is convincing to the audience. In this more important sense, pure logic is not always successful and analogy may be more so. Clinging to pure logic when even that which is supposedly axiomatic still needs to be checked (involving prior and prior premises) is a poor substitute for achieving the goal of persuading the audience.

Though it may not be the perfect choice for the word, I am reffering to all logical processes that attempt to begin with solid ground - a set of axioms - and attempt to build a structure of true facts. All such systems fail to create significant new knowledge as they all proceed directly from the set of axioms. They only result in an inherantly limited formal system. The very fact that premises need checking proves that one cannot rely on such logic. There is no firm ground on which to stand. Even if you wished to show a statement as axiomatic, you would need to either prove it as such or take it on faith. If you had to prove it as axiomatic, it would not be properly axiomatic. In the end, I am a great fan of logic. I will just refuse attibute to it unsupportable qualities. Analogy is not necessarily better at furthering an argument, but it may be. Quite likely, yet W was also quite correct - as long as you can make it up the ladder in that condition.

Language is simply grammar and definitions this is precisely a formal system that is subject to the incompleteness theorm. You begin with your definitions (arbitrarily fixed by culture) and your rules of grammar (likewise arbitrarily fixed) as axioms and the rest takes off from there. I have no doubt that a mathematician (which I am not) would be able to formulate number theory as a formal system. (or perhaps more than one) Actually Analogy is not a type of syllogism and several here have said it is not an argument. Your definition of syllogism suggests the conclusion flows of necesity, no such certainty exists in analogy. This is my point. Syllogism provides a false sense of security in the conclusion because the audience may begin with different premises. I remind you that my main point is simply that analogy may be more persuasive (with the objective of understanding or agreement) than a logically "perfect" construction. There does not exist a method that will prove a true, interesting, non-trivial statement to all sane comers. There are no philosophical problems, only language games - Wittgenstein

Using language with presise definitions to discuss objective reality is a formal system. There is no absolute starting point on which to fix an axiom. Any attempt to do so is inherantly artificial. If a chosen axiom is intended to directly relate to reality, it must subject itself to criticism and can therefore no longer stand as an axiom, but itself become a debatable proposition. The end that I described is achieving the brain state of understanding or even agreement in the audience.

Sylogism approaches information working up from an axiom to a more complex idea, while analogy approaches it by a non-systematic leap from a similarly complex idea. Both are approximations. The former is an approximation based on the insufficiency of the firmness of axioms as well as the limitations of working within such a system of preset limits. (see Godel's incompleteness theorm) The later is often more effective, in part, because it admits it's an approximation up front.

Perhaps you cannot say anything meaningful about the neurological basis of concepts, but there certainly is such. It is simple enough to understand the construction of both 'freedom' and 'sour' as being built up from a network of simpler, more basic ideas that obviously don't have to be visual in nature. The relationship between this discusion and analogy ought be clear. The object of a speach act is to produce understanding (or perhaps even agreement) on the part of the audience. The objective nature of the brain is such that an analogy may very well create the desired response in the audience more effectively than sylogism. This is precisely because our brains (and the symbolism that is language that our brains process) function on an experiential level. American Heritage would have you believe sour was:Having a taste characteristic of that produced by acids; sharp, tart, or tangy. Does this do the same thing to your mouth as watching someone suck on a lemon with the burning juices running down the corners of the mouth? Even within Rand's writing, isn't it fictional prose that brings more conversions of mind than systematic philosophy?

I believe you are mistaken. Allow me to suggest that rather than trying to say that words have no meaning, I am suggesting that words cause in a very real and objective way synapses to fire in the mind of the audience. These synapses are related to the networks of meanings based on community and experience in the mind of the audience. The fact (in which you are correct) that I know you were not talking about pancakes has much to do with our shared community and experience. Further, if you wanted a crystal clear definition of language (thought I would only provide a vauge attempt), I would think you would agree that letters, words, sentances are at their most basic level, symbols. TREE is not literally a tree, but is rather a symbol that through a shared sense of meaning puts a particular image in your head. The specifics of that image is likely conditioned by your local ecology (or the local ecology of your childhood). - I tend to imagine a white pine by default. I hope you now hear that this is not an escape to meaninglessnes, but rather a stricter, more objective definition of the function of language and the neurology involved with processing language.

Unfortunately, there is no absolute foundation of words you can use (like axioms) that will allow you to construct a series of crystal clear definitions that will cause complex statements to mean the same to all audiences. All language is conditioned by experience, culture, action and community. Even the choice of definitions is based on communal expectations rooted in a loose sense of shared experience. Therefore, if you desire a particular outcome in the mind of your audience, it may be more effective to intentially read a well chosen poem than by attempting to construct a specific detailed sylogism.

All language is analogical. That is the best, most formal arguments can only attempt to set up in the audiences' mind an analogical approximation for the intention of the speaker. Further, most interesting statements (those more complicated than one establishing a simple measurement), the intended meaning often exceeds the ability of language to carry the full intent. Therefore, explicit use of analogy may be a tool that carries more rather than less meaning than basic sylogism.