Eiuol

I was hoping you'd be interested. I'm thinking a weekend is best, tentatively the 16th or 23rd of August. I'm thinking meeting at a place for lunch is best, nothing fancy, maybe a pizza place or diner since that's the most agreeable for food anyone wants. Somewhere near Central Park probably.

Right, and axiomatic concepts are not perceptual content... I think Don would agree with me that "could be wrong" applies to failing to properly represent perceptual content. That's what I've been saying. I think Don has been saying the same thing, or similar. What looks like a concession to you I think is you coming/starting to understand the ideas being presented.

The possibility isn't arbitrary, but that a woman in Finland is eating an egg is arbitrary since there is no evidence. Similarly, I'd reject a person's claim that the axioms are false as arbitrary. Still, I may be wrong to the extent that I misapprehended reality. However, in one case, it is metaphysically possible for a woman in Finland to be eating an egg, while it is metaphysically impossible that eggs are also not eggs. Knowledge isn't "out there" though, so that's why even metaphysically impossible is "possibly" wrong. Fortunately it is plainly validated all the time that A isn't also ~A, making it self-evident and axiomatic. This is a logical positivist sort of argument. This is stated as an analytic truth, where it is true by logical necessity, verifiable by logic alone, absent observation. On top of that, 2+2=4 isn't axiomatic.

But nonetheless, you went through a process to determine that an axiom is in fact an axiom. A big thing in philosophy is if you can have axioms without begging the question. In other words, not all axioms are actually axioms, that's why some beg the question. If I say "the Earth orbits the sun is an axiom", I'm right that the Earth orbits the sun, but I'd be wrong to call it an axiom, or even call "orbits" axioms. So going around saying something is an axiom is not going to convince anyone that you are truly holding an axiom. All sorts of things really are treated as axioms, especially the existence of god, even more so if "god is everywhere" and "god is existence". Why do you say that is wrong? Doesn't some scientific knowledge add onto you knowing that god's existence is not an axiom?

Decent interest so far, obviously I got some people aside from posts here. I'd guess sometime in August, not sure about where to meet in the city, I'd like suggestions!

Some chatgoers and I have decided to set up a meetup sometime this summer in or near NYC. There are no plans set in stone for a date or time yet. Right now, I'm gauging the interest level of a meetup before I set anything down. Really, you could bring anyone along, provided they are into Objectivism as more than just a passing interest. Make a post here if you're interested! So far, the people interested are (I'll edit as people post): August 16th @ Noon, corner of West 59th and Avenue of the Americas. Eiuol thenelli01 splitprimary suptiche12

Nor do I... All I've argued is that marriage does not improve love, and the reason is contracts cannot secure love. Change of heart is not sufficient to breach a contract. In fact, how you feel is irrelevant. But you've argued that feeling love is relevant based on how you say marriage secures love, so clearly if love fails to be secured, the contract is broken. Then, here, you're maintaining that change of heart is not sufficient to break any contract, so it is not sufficient to say the other person fell out of love in order to claim a marriage contract is broken. In that case, the marriage contract isn't securing love. I see a contradiction. Look, I get it. A witnessed event is great, and so is declaring love. That says nothing about how a marriage contract succeeds in securing love.

Right, but legal accountability isn't the only kind of accountability, and accountability can only be in regard to choice. Falling out of love means feeling like not performing on an agreement to love, because that is a feeling. The person ceases to feel the reason to maintain the agreement. My revised case is an example where two people are doing the right actions, until one day, it hits one of them: their values changed slowly, in ways that love didn't disappear or do anything at first. They no longer feel like continuing the agreement. No one can predict love disappearing except for moral failing like abuse for instance or ignoring the other person. That is, unless you CONSTANTLY say EVERY little THING you do, which I'd say undermines love because that demands people stifle their independence.

1. You didn't respond to my revised example. 2. Needing agreements doesn't mean all agreements can and ought to be legal agreements. Nor does it translate into failing to maintain an emotional feeling is a moral failing. The vibe I get from you is that if one person falls out of love, it is a moral failure to take the actions required for love. I disagree because falling out of love can happen for completely moral reasons, like in my revised case.

No, it's not a contradiction, but you didn't show how your claim that I quoted follows from the 3 points.

Just a comment on 2, that's usually a semantic argument. It's sensible to say we live in a universe comprised of multi-verses. Not a problem any more than saying there are many galaxies in the universe. Whatever you call it doesn't matter a lot metaphysically speaking, it doesn't succeed in being anything other than a reaffirmation that there is only one reality...

No, that's not what I mean, it's backwards! Knowledge of what is an axiom is fallible. An axiom itself, when correctly identified as an axiom, cannot be mistaken, that's what makes it an axiom. "God exists" can easily be an axiom. But as it turns out, that contradicts more fundamental facts, so I'll proceed to say the person's understanding is mistaken. The whole topic by now is questioning my and Don's understanding of axioms! You're already saying we've mis-identified an axiom. That makes my point for me. EDIT: Probably as in either that, or they're insane, or it was a dream, or it was only a schematic sketch. The "probably" is referring to how the scientist came to the conclusion. Usually, it's a wacky experiment. The "probably" was conveying a lack of certainty about why a scientist would say something so absurd...

I'd probably laugh while saying "show me" because it was probably a wacky experiment that doesn't show what the scientist claims, so no. I never was arguing that I'm uncertain, nor that all viewpoints are worth listening to. Axioms are defined ostensively, which means you can't define it with words. So, what you can be wrong about is the language you use to talk about it. Defined ostensively, yes, but as you know, concepts are fully formed once a concept is given a word. We then use more words to talk about that word. The result is that it is possible to be wrong with regard to what we *say* about an axiom. It is not possible to be wrong with regard to what we *perceive* about an axiom's referent. Rand does an incredible job at linking the two together, where in the past many have failed, ending up with total skepticism of one's own perception (Kant, but Hegel probably more so), or trusting only direct perception but not concepts (a logical positivist maybe?).

I'll talk more about it in another thread, but the point related to this thread is that it is important to distinguish between the language I use to talk about direct perception, and direct perception which is by definition concept-less and language-less. The language I use is fallible of course, even though direct perception can't be wrong or even right (it's how you know how to conceptualize right or wrong anyway). We can call the language used to talk about direct perception and our experience of it a "metaperception" in the sense it is *about* perception. Indeed, I can't be wrong about what I perceive with my senses, but I can be wrong with the very language I use to say all this and formulate my thinking. Lest the whole discussion seem off topic, it is related to how the future can't be random because the question in the OP has to do with thinking on the level of axioms and existence itself.

I'm curious, what is your goal in studying physics? Do you want to be a research physicist, for example?

I never was talking about perception. I've been emphasizing in different ways that I'm talking about one's understanding and categorization of axiomatic concepts. As for the rest of your post, Don's post expresses what I'm thinking pretty well.

Clarification: "will ever acquire" is wrong, it should be "it applies to past, present, and future".

This is a lot of what I am trying to say. The only other thing I've been saying it is possible to misapprehend what I experience and create an invalid concept *of* my experience. My formulation may be wrong. That is, it is metaphysically possible to be wrong in the same sense it is metaphysically possible for my computer to explode in that it is consistent with the identity of humans and computers. I do not need to go into a fetal position worried about skepticism, precisely because I am implicitly experiencing existence at all times. I am certain that my computer won't explode. I am not possibly wrong epistemologically, in the way existence is unavoidable and in all the knowledge I ever acquired (and will ever acquire, just as ALL concepts work). My certainty is absolutely dependent on the axioms, yeah, unless I as an individual discover Rand to be wrong, just as Rand as an individual discovered Descartes to be wrong. Just as Rand discovered "existence exists" is more fundamental than god's existence, which utterly invalidates god. It's not as though Rand discovered a form of infallibility. If you think Rand really thinks that axioms are infallible knowledge, for the sake of this being an Objectivist forum, I'd really like to see this claim drawn out from Rand's writing. I don't doubt any of the axioms, I know them to be true. I'll put it this way: How do you know Descartes was wrong about his axiom? He arguably didn't get his axiom all wrong, but I doubt anyone here thinks his "cogito ergo sum" formulation and therefore apprehension of consciousness was right. This is a socratic question to help me understand your points. Yeah, that validates A is A. I don't see where first-level concepts are infallible is demonstrated?

Plasmatic, quotes are fine, but it is not an argument for anything you say. I can't put together your argument. Give me reasons and examples. First part you bolded is the question. Rand doesn't comment on where Prof. E said "infallible data". The response is saying that the foundation that stands in for the senses at a conceptual level is what you conceptualize directly. Given the whole book, "conceptualize directly" is a first level concept. The second quote is saying that subsequent knowledge does not itself "add to" an axiom. There is nothing more to say about existence. However, "grasped conceptually" is to learn by a conceptual method, that is, we are not given at birth knowledge at birth of axioms. To the extent of learning a concept, we all must volitionally consider information and only then can a concept be formed. Axiomatic concepts are no different. What you perceive is what it is, but what you say about what you perceive is fallible. I cannot say this any more clearly. Use your own words. Please don't quote ITOE again unless you use it to develop an argument. ************************ dream_weaver, that wouldn't be infallible knowledge, you are fallible with regard to misunderstanding or misapprehending what you learned tables to be. I don't mean mistranslation of the sort where what you call a trampoline I call a table. The concept may even be invalid. You may mislabel what sort of concept a table is. There are arguaubly infallible aspects of first-level concepts, but there is no Reality Guarantee that you formed it validly. In any case, the axioms aren't first level. It just so happens that what we refer to as the three axiomatic concepts are validated daily. So we call them axiomatic. They are undeniable and cannot be proven for this reason.

Uh, are you saying that some knowledge is infallible?

I was hoping you'd give an integrated response instead of a linguistic analysis. Discuss the ideas, not the particular words. I find Iud easy to understand, and my original post was to point out that the accusation of "bad philosophy" need not be a dogmatic clinging to ideas. In this case, it means that the physicists easily or frequently undermine the axiom of existence. I'm not going to make a big deal of terms, lest I become Wittgenstein and declare that all philosophical problems are only problems of language. All I see is a dispute over language in your post, not of content or of ideas. What is the point you want to make? I found it quite presumptuous of you, Marc, and Nicky to take it that the disagreement is rooted in denying axioms or thinking axioms can be proved. It is more productive to correct errors and point out better terms to use.

Sure, and at least two terms. You used one. I was pointing out that you didn't differentiate anything.

I don't think there needs to be another word. I suppose I'd say that possibility refers to fallibility either in regard to amount of evidence, or in regard to cognition being volitional. I'm open to using a better word if you have one in mind. I actually can't imagine a scenario where the three axioms are false, so I'm not talking about "possible worlds".

Possible is referring here to fallibility, where an individual could be wrong about what is true. I am not referring to the presence of counter-evidence. That's why I said "awareness of an axiom" rather than "evidence of an axiom". You can mistake a rhino for an elephant, even though there is no evidence that the rhino-mistake is an elephant because the trunk couldn't be seen. Similarly, you can mistake a provable fact for an axiom. This is fallibility.

"Axioms are, metaphysically speaking, the basis to knowledge, but our recognition of axioms must be discovered." -me Discovery =/= Proof. Your awareness of an axiom may be brought on by a specialized science, and if we EVER observe an inconsistency, as with Kepler, our philosophy may be wrong. Kepler probably had his mind totally blown that none of his observations worked with the universe of perfection created by god. From that realization, provided by special science of astronomy, that brought on the EVENTUAL axioms Rand discovered. So, this is what I mean by confusing metaphysical facts, ontology if you will, from our conceptual development. I am only making an epistemological claim that by the very reason we discover axioms, we can be mistaken in what we identify as an axiom. We could use poor methods. This is rhetoric absent of facts to support it. It sounds pithy, but explain yourself more. Descartes basically treated "cogito ergo sum" as axiomatic. But it had issues despite how great it sounds. He wasn't 100% wrong, and it can't be proven wrong, but further philosophical and scientific developments allowed for the realization that simply thinking isn't the whole story to consciousness being conscious. It is difficult to phrase it exactly right, so don't crucify me if I don't pass the linguistic analysis test. Yeah, axioms are themselves incontrovertible, but that doesn't mean 5,000 years in the future we won't find that Rand wasn't 100% right. Let's not go back and forth on interpretation though. Give me a whole argument. I'm trying to use Descartes and Kepler to illustrate my points, along with Rand's recognition that even axioms must be observed, and that we are fallible with regarding to recognizing what is valid.