Derive Objectivism from "A is A"!

[Live forever or die trying]

A non-objectivist friend challenged me thus:

Since objectivism is an entirely rational philosophy, can you derive it all from "A is A" in a series of syllogisms?

I looked around online for this, but haven't found anything. Is anyone aware of the existence of such a systematic construction of objectivism? It would be an amazing piece of work.

If not: would someone accept the challenge of building it?

Thanks,

Dan

[TuringAI]

A non-objectivist friend challenged me thus:

I looked around online for this, but haven't found anything. Is anyone aware of the existence of such a systematic construction of objectivism? It would be an amazing piece of work.

If not: would someone accept the challenge of building it?

Thanks,

Dan

Point him out to a page on logical fallacies. Specifically, equivocation. He assumes that because the philosophy is 'rational', IE based on the facts of this world, that the philosophy is 'rationalistic', IE devoid of experience.

[softwareNerd]

It cannot be done, Dan.

As a simple example, consider some fact from (say) Physics: stuff is made up of atoms. One could not deduce this from "A is A". The same with any similar fact from Biology. The same for Economics, and so on. And, it is so for Philosophy as well.

Suppose Philosophy says something like: having a purpose will make you happy. Like the fact from Physics, this too is derived from observations, and identifications from these observations using conceptualization, and then the forming of generalizations.

The reference that best explains Objectivism's theory to knowledge is "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".

I hope that helps.

Also, welcome to the Forum.

Edited March 27, 2008 by softwareNerd

[KendallJ]

A non-objectivist friend challenged me thus:

I looked around online for this, but haven't found anything. Is anyone aware of the existence of such a systematic construction of objectivism? It would be an amazing piece of work.

If not: would someone accept the challenge of building it?

Thanks,

Dan

Snerd is right. Look at the basic error. Syllogisms imply deductive reasoning. Philosophy is not a derivation. It is very much makes use of induction, which by it's nature cannot be confined to deduction, it must integrate new facts into it's knowledge base. Ask him to show you anything that is inductive in nature that can be derived deductively from it's basic principles. Your friend needs a lesson in the limitations of basic deductive logic.

[aequalsa]

It cannot be done, Dan.

As a simple example, consider some fact from (say) Physics: stuff is made up of atoms. One could not deduce this from "A is A". The same with any similar fact from Biology. The same for Economics, and so on. And, it is so for Philosophy as well.

It should be noted, however, that the law of identity is used(or should be) during every step of identification. Each thing that you observe, and also each concept you form to collect these many observed facts must be itself. So in a manner of speaking, all knowledge gained utilizes A is A, but that is not the same as to say that the knowledge is derived from it.

[Live forever or die trying]

Ask him to show you anything that is inductive in nature that can be derived deductively from it's basic principles. Your friend needs a lesson in the limitations of basic deductive logic.

I'm thinking that all of mathematics can be derived deductively by a very small set of axioms; and generally, any system that is without connection to the physical world, and which does not require repeated observation (induction), identification, and conceptualization of reality. For example, given a programming language (a purely abstract system), one could derive programs that perform different actions.

With Objectivism, I do realize that input from reality is a core source of premises. I'm wondering if it's possible to address the necessity of induction by specifying a core set of physical facts. In that case, my friend's question becomes:

What is the minimum set of axioms, including "A is A" as well as physical facts, that allow us to reach "The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose" through deductive logic, and what is that inference chain?

[tps_fan]

I'm thinking that all of mathematics can be derived deductively by a very small set of axioms; and generally, any system that is without connection to the physical world, and which does not require repeated observation (induction), identification, and conceptualization of reality. For example, given a programming language (a purely abstract system), one could derive programs that perform different actions.

With Objectivism, I do realize that input from reality is a core source of premises. I'm wondering if it's possible to address the necessity of induction by specifying a core set of physical facts. In that case, my friend's question becomes:

Nope. Actually the study of mathematics (and human work in general) depends on induction. Unfortunately, in recent decades, scientists have allowed their efforts to be influenced by Modern philosophy. They've come to be more skeptical of their own efforts. If a scientist (or anyone for the matter) wants to be reliable, then they must respect the axioms, but the axioms come from observation of reality. The axioms aren't arbitrary constructs. The axioms allow for greater efficiency in thought through conceptualization. (You don't have to resort to concrete examples of principles every time you want to use them, but that circumstance comes from _already having_ recognized the conceptual chain from observed concretes to abstract principles.)

Yes, if I write a computer program, or if I even just make a grocery list, I don't initially have to write every last detail about the objects I wish to work with, but eventually there's a perceptual-level "cashing in" (which in this case is literal and figurative). Try buying 12 bananas at a grocery and ask the cashier to price them as 12 cherries! Yes, 3 bananas plus 9 bananas total up to 12 bananas, but 3 apples plus 3 bananas plus 3 peaches plus 3 melons are the basis for fruit salad! Those two situations where you have 12 pieces of fruit are contextually different! ...and you recognize that difference via observation. (Again, if you doubt me, then ask the cashier when it is time to pay up. )

[DavidOdden]

I'm wondering if it's possible to address the necessity of induction by specifying a core set of physical facts.

You can't specify a core set of physical facts. No knowledge is given in advance, so in trying to formally deduce "The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose", you have no starting point for the deduction. Even to deduce the much simpler conclusion "I am free to choose between eating this blob or not eating it", you would need a substantial experiential background. Your friend's interest in a "minimum set of axioms" is predictable for a math person, but also misplaced, since knowledge is not always or even generally acquired "minimally".

It is technologically impossible to do the deduction with any number of "axioms" using FOP logic and symbol substitution, because the propositions can't be formalised (take a shot at formalizing "The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose"). As a starting point, you'd need a vast array of lexical equations that relate "purpose" to "choice", "cause" and so on. So asking about the count of such objects, which don't exist (for any purpose, not just Objectivist philosophy), is asking the unanswerable.

[Acount Overdrawn]

What is the minimum set of axioms, including "A is A" as well as physical facts, that allow us to reach "The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose" through deductive logic, and what is that inference chain?

Welcome to the forum.

With philosophy, particularly Objectivism, the emphasis is on induction, not deduction (from the Objectivist standpoint, so is mathematics, but that's a separate issue).

From the axioms, you couldn't reach that principle using deductive logic.

In fact, the argument for acting morally in the first place (which precedes the related principle about happiness being morality's purpose) involves an inductive argument, in addition to observations made about the choice to live or not (see Tara Smith's book Viable Values).

Your friend needs to understand what "reason" and "rational" really are.

Further, induction isn't a "necessary evil" (you seem to be implying this with your comment about the "necessity of induction") that should be quickly done in the beginning of the philosophy, so that the rationalistic (deductive) castles can finally be built from aforementioned inductions. Induction is of vast and profound significance within Objectivism, to an extent that I haven't yet grasped completely--maybe I will do so whenever I listen to "Objectivism through Induction.".

So if you truly want to understand the "systematic construction" of Objectivism, you need to recognize the importance of induction in the human means of cognition in general, and in Objectivism in particular.

[tps_fan]

Induction is of vast and profound significance within Objectivism, to an extent that I haven't yet grasped completely--maybe I will do so whenever I listen to "Objectivism through Induction.".

So if you truly want to understand the "systematic construction" of Objectivism, you need to recognize the importance of induction in the human means of cognition in general, and in Objectivism in particular.

I just wanted to add for anyone's benefit that while _O.T.I._ is of a special importance in that it comes at Objectivism from a different enough angle (which apparently immediately affected other Objectivist professors' delivery of material in successive years!), it's not a course that should be treated with hasty attention. One of the things that I remember from taking the course is the stress in examining evidence i.e. surveying rather than first assuming what's available. This is _not_ an easy habit to develop without conscious effort. Look, when Ayn Rand developed her philosophy, she didn't exactly have much in the way of philosophical precedents to go by (to whatever degree she may have considered such material....)

I think that it's actually very helpful just to take some courses in science and history in order to get a feel for both the methodology and the material that those courses have on offer. I have to figure that A.R. was more limited in her scope of predicting the future than we might grant her. (Yes, _Atlas Shrugged_ looks startling and stark ...even in hindsight, but let's not forget that the premises that that book were based on were hard-fought for.) She induced her own unique principles without some of the sort of concrete evidence which someone could avail himself to now while seeing her work in hindsight. _No one_ (...not even a genius) can project very far into the future as to what principles are to be yielded from scientific history in the making. (What's particularly important is attempting to develop a proper approach to receiving and processing data; predictions are hard to come by and are often defeated when they arrive....)

This is NOT to advocate for a false alternative! It's helpful to have a proper philosophy to guide a person's own pedagogical decision-making. On the other hand, without a background in science, philosophy can certainly lack a great deal of context. I suppose that this amounts to an endorsement for studying at a college that offers a comprehensive and objective curriculum.