Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Roderick Fitts

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Roderick Fitts

  1. Previous posts: William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 1) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 2) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 3) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 4) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 5) Introduction This final part of my series on Dr. William Whewell will discuss the four tests he believes can determine the veracity and applicability of a true colligation, an induction. I have named these four tests as (1) Deductive Consistency, (2) Prediction of Past and Future Phenomenal Events, (3) Consilience of Inductions, and lastly, (4) Simplicity and Unity. Additionally, this part will discuss what Whewell termed the “Logic of Induction.” Whewell’s “Logic of Induction” will cover how inductive generalizations can be expressed in Inductive Tables and how they can represent the criterion of truth. Lastly, this part will provide a summary of what Whewell believes scientific induction to be. Continue...Link to Original
  2. Previous posts: William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 1) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 2) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 3) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 4) Introduction This penultimate post will cover two of William Whewell’s three steps of induction. These steps are also his general theory of the generation of scientific hypotheses and theories. Whewell believed that these steps of induction are what scientists have followed in some form throughout history to discover and create conceptual knowledge and propel scientific inquiry. This progress in the creation and use of conceptual knowledge impacted all of the various, interconnected fields of science. Continue...Link to Original
  3. I can't believe it's been 10 years since I started Inductive Quest! This blog's content has shifted along with my attention and focus over the years, so thank you to those who've stuck it out over the years to learn my thoughts on the topic of induction. Continue...Link to Original
  4. Previous posts: William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 1) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 2) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 3) Induction as a True Colligation of Facts Colligation and Induction William Whewell’s theory of induction and of scientific methodology centers on the explication of conceptions and on the colligation of facts. Induction for him is mainly about what facts, propositions, definitions, and ideas we can draw out of our conceptions, and about how to find new and more productive ways to bind these elements up into a more exact, more appropriate conception. The ancient and prevailing theory of induction has been that it’s enumerative: a general statement or proposition that is applied to a collection of instances. Continue...Link to Original
  5. Previous posts: William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 1) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 2) The Structure of Knowledge Before Whewell can fully articulate the details of how induction works in scientific methodology and in theory-formation, he needs to explain several related issues. He has to express his views on the source(s) of knowledge, on how knowledge builds up, and on how we can justify what we’ve learned. In short, he has to first construct his epistemology (theory of knowledge) to then discuss how his theory of induction builds on that foundation. In Part 3 of this series on Whewell, we will cover his controversial notion of fundamental ideas, on how we produce conceptions and the complementary processes of explication and colligation. Fundamental Ideas As mentioned in his exposition on the fundamental antithesis of philosophy, knowledge has an inseparable dual nature, a nature that we can conceptually and philosophically analyze and investigate: sensations and ideas, the objective and ideal elements of knowledge. “Without our ideas, our sensations could have no connexion; without external impressions, our ideas would have no reality; and thus both ingredients of our knowledge must exist” (Philosophy I, 54–55). Knowledge has certain subjective and objective background conditions or givens: external objects, our bodies, our minds and their capacity to form thoughts. An important condition or given that falls on the subjective, ideal side of our knowledge is the class he refers to as fundamental ideas. Fundamental ideas include terms such as space, number, time, resemblance, symmetry, substance and cause. These ideas are exclusively supplied by the mind itself, and thus they are not derived from experience (Philosophy I, 74). Our sensory organs take in sense data from external objects, but it is the fundamental ideas within our minds that structure and organize the disparate sense data to give us our perceptual experiences. Being neither sensations nor things, Whewell remarks that they could be termed relations of things or of sensations (Philosophy I, 43). The fundamental ideas structure our sensory data through unconscious inferences and relations, making the perception and observation of external objects possible. “Perception is Sensation, along with such Ideas as make Sensation into an apprehension of Things or Objects” (Philosophy I, 43). For Whewell, the fundamental ideas are axiomatic, granted to us in some form by God, the Divine Mind and Creator of all objects, all events and the laws that express how the world works (On the Philosophy of Discovery, 360). As we gain more experiences and make more observations about the world, we will inevitably figure out certain necessary implications of the fundamental ideas, further elaborations of what makes our experiences possible. Axioms are self-evident statements that express certain aspects of these fundamental ideas, while axiomatic definitions identify the laws that clarify these fundamental ideas and how the world operates. “Thus the Axioms of Geometry express the necessary conditions which result from the Idea of Space; the Axioms of Mechanics express the necessary conditions which flow from the Ideas of Force and Motion; and so on.”(Philosophy I, 67). Each science (as they develop and become more formalized) is organized around a certain fundamental idea: cause is the fundamental idea of mechanics; substance is the fundamental idea of chemistry; space is the fundamental idea of geometry. All fundamental ideas have their respective conceptions, which for Whewell are “special modifications” of the ideas, special applications to particular sets of conditions or circumstances (Snyder, “William Whewell,” para 5). The history and the progress of both knowledge and science could be seen as progressively unpacking, unfolding the conceptual information and implications contained in each science’s axioms and fundamental ideas. (We will return to this idea about science a bit later in this Part.) Conceptions and Technical Terms Conceptions for Whewell are cognitive tools that we use to connect and unify our perceptual experiences. Ideas are broader conceptions that could be used to bind together the facts and information contained in less-abstract conceptions (Philosophy I, 51). Words are invented to record, fix and make these conceptions available for more efficient and widespread use; meticulously-honed words that are employed in scientific research and theorizing are known as technical terms (Philosophy I, 51). The regular and cyclical use of concept-formation (i.e. building conceptions from other conceptions) leads to a contextual hierarchy of conceptions: for instance, the conception “electricity” is an idea in Whewell’s sense when compared to “direct current (DC),” but it would be considered a conception when compared to our postmodern idea of “energy,” which is more abstract and broader in scope than “electricity.” Of course, at the apex of this conceptual hierarchy are Whewell’s fundamental ideas, the class of the most abstract ideas that are possible to the human mind. According to Whewell, scientific discoveries are not usually made when scientists discover new facts; rather, new discoveries tend to be made when a scientist applies a conception that is appropriate for the observed facts. For instance, both Kepler and Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) had the Martian orbital data points (collected by Brahe), but it was only Kepler who thought to apply the conception of an ellipse/elliptical curve to the data (after 5 years of meticulous research and curve-fitting). In doing so, Kepler discovered the true orbital path of Mars (and of the other planets) as a type of ellipse, the first of his three laws of planetary motion. While at least some of the fundamental ideas are with us from the beginning, they cannot be cognitively used in their initial forms. Whewell notes that “the Ideas, the germs of them at least, were in the human mind before [experience]; but by the progress of scientific thought they are unfolded into clearness and distinctness” (On the Philosophy of Discovery: Chapters Historical and Critical, 1860, 373). In Whewell’s view, the development of both the sciences and of scientific conceptions involve discovering more and more aspects of each science’s respective fundamental idea, along with their respective axioms and definitions. In connection with this, discovering the appropriate conceptions to apply to facts is a fundamentally important goal in all fields of science, as they can be used to further flesh out the axioms and definitions within the all-important fundamental ideas. We’ve now discussed our particular, perceptual observations about the world, the progressively abstracted conceptions and ideas, technical terms and the fundamental ideas that are the highest, most general abstractions in our minds. However, it’s still an open question how we can reach an understanding of, and expand upon, both fundamental ideas and reach more informed observations, let alone form theories. To give Whewell’s answer to this question, we’ll have to penetrate his “Discoverer’s Induction.” The Philosophy of Discovery Briefly, it’s possible to sum up Whewell’s “Discoverer’s Induction,” his view of our knowledge’s structure, the inductive process and scientific theorizing with two complementary processes: the explication of conceptions and the colligation of facts. Explication is a process of conceptual analysis that is a precondition for scientific discovery and is used extensively within the development of scientific theories. Colligation is a complementary process of conceptual synthesis that typically completes a given scientific discovery and is equally crucial to the advance of science. A fuller treatment of these two terms will occupy us for the remaining sections in this series on Whewell. Explication of Conceptions Explication is Whewell’s philosophical name for this process of “unfolding” of ideas and of conceptions. There can be multiple goals in a given explication: to gain a clearer understanding of the conception to facilitate further research, to create a more exact definition, and/or to assist in a subsequent colligation of facts. Many actions can be involved when a scientist explicates a conception. A usual start is for a scientist to survey a given scientific field for examples and to examine them thoroughly. McCaskey notes that Whewell explicates symmetry by making a list of symmetrical examples: for instance, the three faces at the pyramid-like summit of certain crystals and a comparison of the different sides of animals (2014, 171). In his explication of symmetry, Whewell notes that pentagonal symmetry appears abundantly in many vegetables, but never truly on the faces of crystals (Philosophy I, 441). Identifying the types of a conception is another type of explication. Whewell notes that the types of symmetry are found to be triangular/“trigonal,” tetragonal, pentagonal, simple and oolong (Philosophy I, 441). Explication can also involve the search for and articulation of implications of the conception. Whewell announces an implication of symmetry that applies to the fields of zoology, phytology/botany and crystallography: symmetrical members are impacted in the same manner by the same factors or circumstances. “The parts which we have termed symmetrical, resemble each other, not only in their form and position, but also in the manner in which they are produced and modified by natural causes” (Philosophy I, 445). Determining in what way the conception is an example or a modification of a more abstract idea is another task in explication. In the case of symmetry, Whewell notes that this idea is either a fundamental idea or that it includes one. He remarks that some people could claim that symmetry is a modification of certain other fundamental ideas such as space and number, but he notes that with symmetrical arrangements there is implied a “Fundamental Idea of regularity, of complete ness, of complex simplicity, which is not a mere modification of other ideas” (Philosophy I, 444–445). Some, but not all, explications lead to a concept’s definition. Definitions state the essential nature of the facts subsumed under a conception or idea, with the exception of fundamental ideas. They can be very helpful in determining the truth or falsehood of propositions relating to a given conception. The establishment, therefore, of a right Definition of a Term may be a useful step in the Explication of our Conceptions; but this will be the case then only when we have under our consideration some Proposition in which the Term is employed. For then the question really is, how the Conception shall be understood and defined in order that the Proposition may be true. (Novum Organum Renovatum, 36) Definition can be the final step in an explication, but it doesn’t always have to be, and it is certainly never the first or initial step. McCaskey notes that for Whewell, the conception must logically be formed before it can have a valid definition (2014, 171). Whewell states: “Definition and Proposition are the two handles of the instrument by which we apprehend truth; the former is of no use without the latter” (Philosophy II, 13). It is possible for a science to advance with sufficiently clear conceptions that nonetheless lack a formal definition: Whewell gives examples in mechanics, polarization, minerology and geology in which advances occurred even without scientific definitions of the major conceptions used in those sciences (Philosophy II, 14–15). Definitions only serve a cognitively useful purpose when they make a conception more distinct by clarifying the propositions concerning the given conception such that we can express true principles. If our definitions genuinely clarify the terms used in our scientific propositions, then we’ve made an important advance in our explication efforts and in our search for scientific truth. Snyder notes that for Whewell, explication plays an important role in the history of science: the “history of scientific ideas” is more often than not a series of careful explications succeeded by the colligation of these unfolded, explicated ideas (Snyder, William Whewell, para 9). For Whewell, explication is a process of “unfolding” a conception, which can mean examining examples, discovering implications, determining the more general idea that subsumes the conception being investigated and/or constructing propositions or a definition. The essential point is that a proper explication clearly and distinctly identifies the facts that are bound within the conception. The Colligation of Facts Colligation is the process of “binding” facts together, in many ways doing the opposite of the complementary actions performed in an explication. Anytime that we can create a precise, cognitive connection among the things or facts that we observe in the world through our conceptions, we have properly colligated facts. Whewell is adamant here that the process is an integration of facts, not just the characteristics that certain objects seem to share or have in common. McCaskey echoes the need to be clear on what is meant here by a colligation: [Colligation] is rather a cognitive binding of the facts themselves—not just the common attributes, not just the definition, but indeed all the attributes and even propositions associated therewith. The conception of universal gravitation, for example, includes the fact of heliocentric motion, includes the fact of the precession of the equinoxes, includes the conception of terrestrial weight, and so on. (2014, 172) It’s also important to note here that there is no necessary sequential or logical order between colligations and explications. In a sufficiently advanced body of knowledge, an explication could be the unfolding of a conception that has already been bound together, colligated, by past scientists or even by the same person in the past. Science is the accumulation and systematization of the knowledge gained from the conceptual connections made through successful colligations (Philosophy II, 36). It is in connection with colligation that we can see what Whewell means by induction. For him, the whole process is about creating precise, distinct, properly formed conceptions which allow us to truly understand the facts of the world and advance in our fields of science. Due to this, he generally believes that induction refers to the combination of the methods of explication and colligation: The two operations spoken of in the preceding chapters, —the Explication of the Conceptions of our own minds, and the Colligation of observed Facts by the aid of such Conceptions, —are, as we have just said, inseparably connected with each other. When united, and employed in collecting knowledge from the phenomena which the world presents to us, they constitute the mental process of Induction; which is usually and justly spoken of as the genuine source of all our real general knowledge respecting the external world. (Philosophy II, 47) While true, it’s also the case that Whewell believes that colligation is a normative set of actions. We can perform it correctly or incorrectly. Performing a normatively proper colligation is what he really means by an induction. “Induction is a term applied to describe the process of a true Colligation of Facts by means of an exact and appropriate Conception” (Philosophy II, “Aphorisms Concerning Science,” Aphorism 13). (Whewell also notes in this aphorism that induction is also used to mean the proposition that can be stated as a result of the inductive process. I take it that he means the scientific law, principle, definition or other significant proposition that the induction has warranted to be inferred by properly binding together the relevant facts with an appropriate conception.) Induction—a true colligation—has three steps. As Malcolm Forster notes: According to Whewell, “the Colligation of ascertained Facts into general Propositions” consists of (1) the Selection of the Idea, (2) the Construction of the Conception, and (3) the Determination of the Magnitudes. In curve fitting [for example], these three steps correspond to (1) the determination of the Independent Variable, (2) the Formula, and (3) the Coefficients. (“The Whewell-Mill Debate in a Nutshell,” 2006, 5, words in brackets mine) An exposition on the three steps of colligation will occupy us in the next part of this series on Whewell. References Forster, M. (2006). “The Whewell-Mill Debate in a Nutshell.” [Online] Retrieved from: http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/249/Darwin%20and%20Philosophers/ Forster%20-%20Whewell-Mill%20in%20a%20Nutshell.pdf McCaskey, J. P. (2014). Induction in the Socratic tradition. In L. F. Groarke & P. C. Biondi (Eds.), Shifting the paradigm: Alternative perspectives on induction (pp. 161- 192). Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 161-192. doi: 10.1515/9783110347777.161 Snyder, L. (2012). William Whewell. E. N. Zalta (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/whewell/ (Original work published 2000) Snyder, L. (2006). Reforming philosophy: A Victorian debate on science and philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Whewell, W. (1847). Philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history (2nd ed. in two volumes). London: John Parker. Whewell, W. (1858). Novum organum renovatum (3rd ed.). London: John Parker. Whewell, W. (1860). On the philosophy of discovery: Chapters historical and critical. London: John W. Parker. Link to Original
  6. Previous post: William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 1) The Fundamental Antithesis of Philosophy The purpose of the Philosophy was the determinations of both the nature and the conditions of human knowledge (Philosophy I, 16). His theory of induction was framed as a part of the full articulation of the dimensions and powers of knowledge. But before Whewell could present his theory of induction to the reader, he wanted them to wrap their heads around a foundational issue, a division of knowledge at the base of science, of philosophy and of human life itself. This was the dual nature of knowledge, which he termed the “fundamental antithesis of philosophy.” Continue...Link to Original
  7. Abstract This series will summarize the major elements of William Whewell’s (1792–1866) theory of inductive reasoning, which he termed “Discoverer’s Induction.” Whewell (pronounced “Who-ell”) was a 19-century philosopher of science and a polymath, who believed that the true purpose of science was to form the clearest and most beneficial concepts that we possibly could manage. Continue...Link to Original
  8. A short post on what I plan to do with Inductive Quest in the future. Continue...Link to Original
  9. In the free will-determinism debate, Objectivism stands in rare company with those philosophies that adopt the libertarian view of volition (which is free will considered as incompatible with determinism). Most philosophies embrace one of the alternative theories to libertarian free will: hard determinism, soft determinism (compatibilism), and indeterminism. Responses to the hard and soft versions of determinism will be forthcoming. This current essay will present an overview of the indeterminist perspective on free will. Afterwards an Objectivist response to the indeterminist position will be explored, both to explain the differences between the two theories as well as to point out errors on the part of the indeterminists. Continue...Link to Original
  10. The previous essays in this series presented the Objectivist concept of free will, and demonstrated how it operates in the mental and physical realms. In this essay, the Objectivist view of volition will be compared with some past theories of free will. Three broad views of volition will occupy the first half of this paper: free will as the choice of actions, as the choice of motives, and finally, as the choice of ideas. Afterwards, a response will be given to each of these views, pointing out certain missing information or other flaws. The essay’s conclusion will discuss how the Objectivist theory of free will is a more holistic version of human choice than these past theories have offered. Continue...Link to Original
  11. Human action has several forms. Involuntary actions exist, such as reflexes and subconscious prompts like involuntary recall of a memory. In the realm of voluntary action, we’ve established that the primary choices are focus and non-focus (as either drift or evasion). The choice to be completely out of focus prevents a person from carrying out a wealth of other actions that were otherwise possible to them. A mind fully out of focus can merely react passively to whatever stimuli reaches their consciousness. However, the choice to focus opens up endless possibilities, possibilities which can be explored only if the person chooses a goal and directs his mind and body towards its attainment. I’ll elaborate a bit on the idea that untold amounts of actions, both mental and physical, become available once a person chooses to focus. Mentally, a person can choose what one wants to think about, whether it’s about the next day’s weather forecast, which math problem will be solved first, or what workouts will be included on a weekly fitness schedule. We can think and make decisions regarding our personal lives, social lives, family ties, and careers; in short, we can decide what we want to want to cognitively deal with. Physically, we control our bodies’ muscles and thus can decide where we want to go and what we want to do, whether it’s going to the movies, cooking a steak dinner, or investing in a promising company. Our control of our respective minds and muscles allows us to tie our thoughts to our bodily actions in order to perform a wide diversity of complicated actions, sometimes only lasting a few seconds (e.g. carrying food to throw it out in a nearby trashcan), sometimes spanning the course of years (e.g. training to compete as an Olympian) or even the majority of one’s life (e.g. a life-long career or raising a family). I’ll start with the relationship between causality and the primary choices which I discussed in the previous essay. Following that, I’ll show how cause-and-effect operates with our choice to think and what causes can affect our thoughts. After that, the causality involved in human actions will be discussed. The conclusion will focus on this principle as another intuitive induction, and word of caution about “living” an unfocused life. Continue...Link to Original
  12. In my earlier essay about the perceptual level, I mentioned that the sensory and perceptual levels of consciousness are automatic, but the conceptual level is not. Our brains, nervous systems, and minds as well as those of other animals are biologically set to have sensations or perceptions with an environmental stimulus or a change in one’s perceptual field. There is no choice or alternative in the matter. But the same cannot be said for the conceptual level of consciousness. Continue...Link to Original
  13. This essay is a follow-up to “The Perceptual Level as Given.” It will discuss a philosophical school that tried to answer the question of what the mind starts with: the sensualists/empiricists. The bulk of this essay will be an extended presentation of the sensualist approach of consciousness and knowledge as expounded by key sensualists like Hobbes and Hume. That section will be followed by a couple of my own problems with sensualism as they relate to the perceptual level of consciousness. (My issues with the sensualist view of the conceptual level will have to wait until I work through the inductions of concept-formation. I’ve also modernized the words in Hobbes’ and Hume’s quoted statements.) Continue...Link to Original
  14. One of the questions that philosophy asks is, “what information does the mind start with, what is ‘given’ with regard to our consciousness”? To answer this question, let’s briefly survey the levels of information that the mind deals with from the Objectivist perspective. As this principle sort of encapsulates the Objectivist view of perception, I’ll elaborate on some aspects of perception that I covered in previous essays. After giving this overview, I’ll discuss this principle’s relation to the previous intuitive inductions I’ve written about. The conclusion will discuss some overall lessons to be learned about epistemology from the Objectivist principles about perception that have been explained. Continue...Link to Original
  15. My previous essay on sensory qualities indicated that past philosophies generated doubts about the validity of the senses. As would be expected, historically there have been criticisms levied against all of the standard forms of gaining knowledge: perception, as we’ve already seen, but also the conceptual faculty/faculty of reason, and the art of logic. The principle that consciousness has identity gives a general answer to these kinds of criticisms. It also highlights what should be regarded as the proper starting point for an epistemology. Continue...Link to Original
  16. If Objectivism had been created earlier in history, perhaps a mere mention of the validity of the senses combined with the consciousness axiom would have sufficed. However, this is not the case: centuries, even millennia of philosophical debates have clouded and casted doubts on the issue of sense-perception. Several problems and purported solutions were advanced long before Objectivism was formed, and merit responses or clarification. This principle, the validity and metaphysical status of sensory qualities, is one such issue that will be tackled in the foregoing. The Metaphysical Status of Sensory Qualities Philosophy acknowledges that perception is an activity that people engage in. Epistemology generally holds that an “object” is “that which a cognitive subject perceives, knows, is aware of, describes, refers to, etc.”[1] A perception is understood to be a type of awareness of an object by means of a sensible system. Continue...[url={url}]Link to Original[/url]
  17. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and means of human knowledge. The field lays out the rules and principles to guide the formation of concepts, the construction of logic, and generally how to gain knowledge and show its validity. Objectivism holds that metaphysics and epistemology combined are the theoretical base of any philosophy.[1] There is a little more context needed than metaphysics to fully confront the issues in epistemology. We must first discuss 2 topics that make the field of epistemology possible: sense-perception and volition (free will). I’ll also cover the axiomatic concept of “self” at the end of this series, as I think it’s a subject that needs to be discussed for a complete understanding of Objectivism. Now we can begin with the role and validity of human sensory-perception. Continue... Link to Original
  18. This will probably be my last response to the metaphysical axioms for some time. A commenter raises the following issue: Continue... Link to Original
  19. Objection: The Axioms Equivocate on Their Content This objection concerns exactly what it is that the axioms are explaining and implying. It highlights a seeming equivocation:[…]In the Logical Structure of Objectivism, David Kelley makes the following observation: In other words, she draws from these axioms: (1) that the universe is permanent and can neither be destroyed nor created; (2) the universe is not ruled by will or chance, but by the ‘law of identity’; (3) everything that happens is caused by the ‘identities’ of the elements involved. She also implies that the basic constituents of the universe, whatever they may happen to be, are non-mental (i.e., atoms, particles, or forms of energy). How does Rand draw all these things from these axioms when, according to Kelley Continue... Link to Original
  20. Objection: The Axioms are Circular The Validity of the Axioms The (basic) axioms do not rely on each other for their validity. Direct experience or sense-perception is the means of validating the basic axioms.[2] Derivative axioms like "self" and "volition" rely on the fact of the basic axioms and direct experience for their validity, but not the basic axioms themselves. Further, the basic axioms being part of the validation of derivative axioms does not mean that the derivative axioms are deductions from the basic ones, or logical consequences. In Objectivism, the material required to form the basic axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness are discovered simultaneously. Peikoff mentions in a lecture course that: "'A is A' is independent of consciousness for its truth, but it’s not independent of the existence of consciousness to be grasped."[3] Continue... Link to Original
  21. Question: “Are Axioms Proven or Merely Assumptions?” “Are first principles or the axioms of logic (such as identity, non-contradiction) provable? If not, then isn't just an intuitive assumption that they are true?[...]”[1] The axioms are neither “proven” nor “assumed.” (In the Objectivist view of axiomatic corollaries, Aristotle’s “Laws of Thought” are corollaries of the Existence axiom. And more specifically, the Law or Principle of Non-contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle are restatements/corollaries of the Law of Identity, which is a corollary of “existence exists.”[2] So I’ll consider this question as broad enough to encompass any first principle, including the Objectivist axioms.) I’ll make several points about why this can’t be the case when speaking of actual axioms. Continue... Link to Original
  22. This next objection is about the utility of the axioms. Objection: “Axioms Must Have Deductive Implications” Continue... Link to Original
  23. <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings></xml><![endif]--><br><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>TH</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]-->The axioms lay the proper foundation for a philosophy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But for any statement or expression, there is almost always someone who disagrees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Axioms are of no exceptions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of the people who are dismissive of Objectivism, I believe many are especially opposed to the Objectivist axioms. <br><div class="MsoNormal"><br></div><div class="MsoNormal">Since I covered the metaphysical axioms of Objectivism in this series of posts, I’ll take the time to answer a series of actual objections to the axioms of the philosophy, and one objection to the idea of axioms as unprovable, originally answered by Aristotle.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br></div></div><a href="http://inductivequest.blogspot.com/2015/07/objections-to-axioms-part-1.html#more">Continue...</a> Link to Original
  24. Thanks for the catch Plasmatic. I was too caught up reading the Appendix of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and used the wrong category to describe consciousness. I'll make the change on my blog post momentarily. If anyone else catches any errors or confusing language, do let me know. I'm working on a series of posts that answer objections to the Objectivist axioms or axioms as such. I should have 1 or 2 of them up sometime today.
  25. With the final principle of the Objectivist metaphysics articulated, we can now see the structure of this branch of philosophy. The Basic Axioms, and Their Corollaries We begin with the metaphysical axiomatic concepts and axioms, which I’ve already discussed in my essay on the axioms (the others will be discussed in the following essays on sense-perception and free will): Whatever axioms and axiomatic concepts that are discovered in any future philosophical investigation, it is Objectivism’s position that the concepts of “existence,” “consciousness,” and “identity” are the basic axiomatic concepts, and the Existence, Identity (Law of Identity), and Consciousness axioms are the basic axioms of philosophy. This principle is known as “Existence, Consciousness, and Identity as the Basic Axioms.” This implies that the other axiomatic concepts are derivative, not basic. “Existent” is a specification or narrowing of the concept “existence.” “Entity” is a narrowing of “existent.” “Action” is a narrowing of “entity.” And lastly, the epistemological axiomatic concepts “sense-perception” (specifically its validity), “volition,” and “self” are corollaries of the fact of consciousness.[2] Once a person has conceptualized enough material, one can then reach other axiomatic concepts like “entity,” “existent,” and “action,” and thus comprehend the next intuitive induction/unhypothetical principle: “The Law of Causality.” The Law of Causality (Cause and Effect) is the Law of Identity as applied to the case of “action”; actions are expressions of an entity’s identity, and cannot contradict an entity’s nature. “Every action has a cause (the cause is the nature of the entity which acts); and the same cause leads to the same effect (the same entity, under the same circumstances, will perform the same action).”[3] Due to this perspective on causality, Objectivism emphasizes the principle as “Causality as a Corollary of Identity.” Notice that the principle is that causality is a corollary of identity. Objectivism does not say that causality is the only corollary of the law of identity. Because everything is something, all of the non-basic axioms and corollaries in metaphysics and epistemology are corollaries of the law of identity. While this point is implied in the description of each derivative axiom and all corollaries, it is explicitly discussed in the Objectivist principle, “Consciousness as Possessing Identity.” (This is an axiomatic corollary in epistemology that I’ll discuss in a future essay.) Expanding on the existence axiom, if we integrate it with the fact of consciousness, the law of identity, and the law of causality, then we can reach “The Primacy of Existence.” Existence comes first; consciousness is aware of existence but does not create or control the nature of existence. Consciousness is a mental entity that obeys the Law of Causality; it acts in a certain way and only in that way. And its chief action is to be aware of existence; it is incapable of creating or altering it. Such is the reason why the principle is expressed as “Existence as Possessing Primacy Over Consciousness.” The final principle, “The Metaphysically Given as Absolute,” is the culmination of the above principles. Human volition makes it possible for our actions to be otherwise, but everything else apart from human action necessarily exists by the laws of reality, unaffected by the actions of consciousness (The Primacy of Existence). They could not have been otherwise, so any alternatives to these facts of reality would be impossible. They exist as an absolute, as the standard for our knowledge and values, and as the immutable background for all man-made facts and actions. References [1]: "On Axiomatic Concepts and Axioms," http://inductivequest.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-axiomatic-concepts-and-axioms_1.html. [2]: Existent: Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (IOE), 2nd. Edition, Appendix, sub-section "Fact." Entity: Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR), note 12 of Chapter 1, "Existence, Consciousness, and Identity as the Basic Axioms." Action: IOE, Appendix, sub-section "'Entity' vs. 'Attribute,' 'Action,' Etc." Validity of Sense-perception: OPAR, "The Senses as Necessarily Valid." Volition: Ibid., "Volition as Axiomatic." Self: ItOE, sub-section "Self." [3]: OPAR, "Causality as a Corollary of Identity." Link to Original
  • Create New...