A type of Platonism?

[trivas7]

My own view is that the source of knowledge is (uncontradicted) experience. How does Objectivism, ground in axioms, escape being a subtle type of Platonism?

[DavidOdden]

My own view is that the source of knowledge is (uncontradicted) experience. How does Objectivism, ground in axioms, escape being a subtle type of Platonism?

What is a subtle type of Platonism? (What specific consequence are you trying to escape?)

[trivas7]

What is a subtle type of Platonism? (What specific consequence are you trying to escape?)

In this context a science of being qua knowledge grounded on something other than experience.

[Tenure]

In this context a science of being qua knowledge grounded on something other than experience.

Objectivism doesn't hold that knowledge comes anywhere other than from experience. It holds that concepts are formed from experience. That what's in our heads is formed based on what's out there, via our conceptual faculty. It does of course say that once that direct perceptual experience is converted into a concept, it stays as concept. One doesn't have to constantly percieve to concieve.

Like getting pregnant. You don't have to keep having sex to get pregnant. Once it's done, there's no stopping it, bar an abortion, which requires a mechanical interruption of the process, a forcible removal.

I also produced a handy picture to explain the whole thing (well, the actual process of conceptualisation, as it shows, you'll have to read ITOE to understand).

experiencetoconcepts.bmp

Edited March 25, 2008 by Tenure

[KendallJ]

In this context a science of being qua knowledge grounded on something other than experience.

What do you think that Objectivism bases it's knowledge on other than experience.

[trivas7]

What do you think that Objectivism bases it's knowledge on other than experience.

Axioms -- isn't that clear?

[DavidOdden]

In this context a science of being qua knowledge grounded on something other than experience.

That would be something other than Objectivism, then. Objectivism rejects all notions of a priori knowledge, unlike the rationalists.

Axioms -- isn't that clear?

Ah. I see the problem. There are no a priori axioms.

[trivas7]

Objectivism doesn't hold that knowledge comes anywhere other than from experience.

But Objectivism itself is based on axiomatic concepts. Are you equating these with experience?

[DavidOdden]

But Objectivism itself is based on axiomatic concepts. Are you equating these with experience?

They are derived from experience. See ITOE ch. 6: "An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts." In other words, axiomatic concepts are simple, not compounded. "Epistemologically, the formation of axiomatic concepts is an act of abstraction, a selective focusing on and mental isolation of metaphysical fundamentals". Note that axiomatic concepts, like all concepts, must be formed -- they are not given. No concept is equivalent to experience; but every concept is based on experience.

[KendallJ]

But Objectivism itself is based on axiomatic concepts. Are you equating these with experience?

Axioms are directly validated by sensory experience. Every piece of sensory experience you obtain validates the axioms.

As to the relationship between concepts and reality, that is the topic of Objectivist Epistemology. ITOE woudl be a great start considering it is probably Rand's most innovative contribution to philosophy.

[softwareNerd]

Even 1 + 1 = 2 is based on experience. There is no "a priori" knowledge.

[trivas7]

Axioms are directly validated by sensory experience. Every piece of sensory experience you obtain validates the axioms.

Thanks for the reply.

I understand that the axioms are validated by experience. I guess I am not at all convinced they are derived from experience (what experiences?).

[Acount Overdrawn]

But Objectivism itself is based on axiomatic concepts. Are you equating these with experience?

"Existence, identity and consciousness are concepts in that they require identification in conceptual form. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that they are perceived or experienced directly, but grasped conceptually. They are implicit in every state of awareness..." [iTOE, p. 55]

Identifying a base conceptually does not mean ruling out experience.

As everyone has been saying, you should read ITOE, it's a great help. It's a good thing you asked us about this: I wonder if other people give up on Objectivism by mistaking its axioms for a priorism?

Edited March 25, 2008 by Acount Overdrawn

[Acount Overdrawn]

Thanks for the reply.

I understand that the axioms are validated by experience. I guess I am not at all convinced they are derived from experience (what experiences?).

All of your experiences. For instance, there's nothing telling me that this laptop I'm typing on exists, except for the fact that I'm perceiving and interacting with it (hitting keys on the keyboard, etc.).

Further, to validate something is to show an idea's relationship to reality. If you understand how the axioms are validated by experience, then in turn you'll understand how they are derived from experience.

What do you think Objectivism derives its axioms from, if anything?

[trivas7]

What do you think Objectivism derives its axioms from, if anything?

Frankly, I don't know, Where does Miss Rand tell us?

[DavidOdden]

Frankly, I don't know, Where does Miss Rand tell us?

p. 55, ITOE:

After the first discriminated sensation (or percept), man's subsequent knowledge adds nothing to the basic facts designated by the terms "existence," "identity," "consciousness"—these facts are contained in any single state of awareness; but what is added by subsequent knowledge is the epistemological need to identify them consciously and self-consciously. The awareness of this need can be reached only at an advanced stage of conceptual development,

when one has acquired a sufficient volume of knowledge

—and the identification, the fully conscious grasp, can be achieved only by a process of abstraction.

[trivas7]

p. 55, ITOE:

After the first discriminated sensation (or percept), man's subsequent knowledge adds nothing to the basic facts designated by the terms "existence," "identity," "consciousness"—these facts are contained in any single state of awareness; but what is added by subsequent knowledge is the epistemological need to identify them consciously and self-consciously.

I would put it the other way around: the basic facts designated by the terms "existence", "identity", and "consciousness" while implicit in any single state of awareness add nothing to man's subsequent knowledge.

[KendallJ]

I would put it the other way around: the basic facts designated by the terms "existence", "identity", and "consciousness" while implicit in any single state of awareness add nothing to man's subsequent knowledge.

What experience/concepts do you base that conclusion on?

[trivas7]

What experience/concepts do you base that conclusion on?

The idea that uncontradicted experience is the ground of knowledge.

[softwareNerd]

I would put it the other way around: the basic facts designated by the terms "existence", "identity", and "consciousness" while implicit in any single state of awareness add nothing to man's subsequent knowledge.

It depends what one means by "add nothing". Every subsequent piece of knowledge assumes them. So, these are assumed by subsequent knowledge, not just in every "state of awareness".

The other possible sense in which they might "add nothing" is that they do not further elucidate subsequent knowledge; rather, further knowledge elucidates them. Or, in other words, other knowledge cannot be derived from them.

One cannot start with "Existence exists" and arrive at "Water boils at 100 degrees C...etc.", without adding anything more to it. However, if we pitch out the implicit idea of existence and identity, making a statement like that is meaningless. The axioms are like the ground on which one builds a hut. Even if people do not give it much thought, they assume the ground is there when they build their hut.

Ordinarily, one would not make a big song and dance about them, except when someone questions what seems obvious.

[KendallJ]

The idea that uncontradicted experience is the ground of knowledge.

And what experience does that idea derive from?

What I'm getting at here is that you obviously think that somehow the connection between senses, axioms and subsequent knowledge is somehow flawed, however you have yet to help us understand how your statment differ. That is, could you please show us how and what the "ground of knowledge" means if it does not mean or require implicitly or explicitly the axioms?

Please don't evade that question. It goes to the heart of your issue, and frankly if you're going to assert a form of Platonism in Objectivism, then you'd better be prepared to contrast that with what you obviously think is a more correct and complete answer, including an explanation and some concrete examples.

It depends what one means by "add nothing". Every subsequent piece of knowledge assumes them. So, these are assumed by subsequent knowledge, not just in every "state of awareness".

The other possible sense in which they might "add nothing" is that they do not further elucidate subsequent knowledge; rather, further knowledge elucidates them. Or, in other words, other knowledge cannot be derived from them.

One cannot start with "Existence exists" and arrive at "Water boils at 100 degrees C...etc.", without adding anything more to it. However, if we pitch out the implicit idea of existence and identity, making a statement like that is meaningless. The axioms are like the ground on which one builds a hut. Even if people do not give it much thought, they assume the ground is there when they build their hut.

Ordinarily, one would not make a big song and dance about them, except when someone questions what seems obvious.

Very nice explanation, sNerd.

[DavidOdden]

The idea that uncontradicted experience is the ground of knowledge.

Since Objectivism holds that experience is the basis of all knowledge, that should make your life easier. It seems to me that your concern here is over the concept "axiom", which you should not interpret in the mathematical sense. The validity of the senses is axiomatic (a corollary of the axiomatic concept consciousness), and the sensory-perception is the source of all knowledge. That doesn't make all knowledge axiomatic (that would be a ludicrous conclusion).

[Acount Overdrawn]

I would put it the other way around: the basic facts designated by the terms "existence", "identity", and "consciousness" while implicit in any single state of awareness add nothing to man's subsequent knowledge.

Besides sNerd's post, the terms add a lot to man's subsequent knowledge. Here are some points off the top of my head:

-The "identity" axiom leads to a broader view of causality, and specifies what it means to be "caused."

-The "identity" axiom links metaphysics to epistemology by setting the basic rule for consciousness to follow: identifications must be non-contradictory.

-Knowing that something has an identity allows for us to set rules appropriate for deal with that particular thing.

-All proofs must terminate at the evidence of the senses, i.e., the axioms.

The list could go on, I think.

I would like to see your response to KendallJ, if you're willing to answer him.

[trivas7]

What I'm getting at here is that you obviously think that somehow the connection between senses, axioms and subsequent knowledge is somehow flawed, however you have yet to help us understand how your statment differ. That is, could you please show us how and what the "ground of knowledge" means if it does not mean or require implicitly or explicitly the axioms?

How my statement re the source of knowledge differs from what -- Rand's axioms? But I thought that is exactly what Rand herself held (i.e., the source of knowledge is uncontradicted experience).

How do you reconcile that fact with the fact that Objectivism grounds itself -- tries to axiomatize philosophy -- in concepts? I'm saying that in my view the base of knowledge isn't concepts of any kind, and that that assumption is a type of Platonism.

Edited March 26, 2008 by trivas7

[TuringAI]

I also produced a handy picture to explain the whole thing (well, the actual process of conceptualisation, as it shows, you'll have to read ITOE to understand).

I hope you're not trying to be condescending. Realize that most people who don't understand basic premises aren't kindergarteners who haven't gone to school yet but rather people who HAVE gone through school and suffered from the vicious irrational premises that typically occur because the public school system under-regulates student behavior and over-regulates the student's knowledge, something which typically leads to a mind-body dichotomy, Kantian style.