The Axioms.

[TuringAI]

Is there a specific method Ayn Rand uses when arguing for the axioms? Doesn't she use concepts that haven't been validated in her philosophy in order to prove the axioms? For example, she doesn't argue Hierarchy until after she establishes that Existence has 'Primacy' over Consciousness.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Or perhaps, she cleverly allows other people to expose their philosophy, and she finds a point where her axioms are thus validated by their philosophy. Or perhaps she somehow knows that all philosophers who 'got it right' at least somewhat eventually found their way to the axioms. Or perhaps it was her unique insights, such as the connection between math and philosophy, or her 'fallacy of the stolen concept', which she planned on using and thus opened a gateway to the axioms for her.

I could go on and on, but I could never exhaust all of the possibilities. I myself am hoping to develop a branch of critical thinking which pertains to all human knowledge that exists whether or not it is certain. In this way I could work on math constructs and then use them in philosophy.

I hope to use constructs such as my definitions of deduction and induction, where induction means "You know one of these things is true... figure out what is true if any of these things is true" and deduction means "You know all of these things is true... figure out what is true if all of these things are true" and where logic is general enough to be used without EXPLICIT use of an axiom. When I say that I don't mean no axiom is possible. Nor do I mean that any axiom is possible. Actually I start with a requirement of a 'gray box' scenario. Black box means starting with no knowledge. White box means starting with all knowledge. Gray box means starting with any/some knowledge, the collection of which is neither complete nor consistent, meaning we must make additions and/or subtractions.

I hope to start from here and refine what an axiom means first before capitulating myself into a situation where I need an axiom. I may need a special kind of premise, yes, but I think I have given that by the requirement of non-emptiness and non-omniscience for any philosophy to proceed. What are your thoughts?

[Greebo]

If you read 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand', the first few chapters on Metaphysics and Epistemology address how the axioms are argued. In essence and in order they are:

1) Existence exists

2) Existence is identity

3) Consciousness exists

#1 is foundational because without existence, #2 and #3 can not occur.

#2 identifies the basic rule of logic - cause and effect, and doesn't require #3 to occur.

#3 acknowledges that something exists to observe #1 and #2.

When arguing any of the axioms, it is impossible for anyone to argue against them without implicitly accepting them.

I think I've got that explanation right...

[John Donohue]

Having to validate axioms from other truths is a contradiction in terms. Likewise I don't think Rand would consider holding her axioms as needing argument, either. It is as was just stated: existence is that which no one can attempt to refute without first validating.

That's the beauty of it: having the guts to confront others that the axiom of existence is very very simple and does not attempt to do anything except assert that which cannot be denied -- the fact of existence. Thereafter it simply stands at the foundation of any other truth, and all chains of logical proof must and can fall back on it.

Really the only other belief system having the guts to do it is theists. Their axiom is: "God Is." It is often said that Objectivists have reality on their side and we don't make enough hay from it. It is astonishing that theists get away with an axiomatic belief that has no evidence and can not be validated, the exact opposite of Objectivism.

The other great category is the radical skeptic. They play the game of asserting that on one hand axioms are meaningless and useless, but on the other their ACTUAL axiomatic formulation drives everything they do and is brutally violent: "There are no absolutes." (plus all variants). If you confront a radical skeptic that this is their axiom, they normally say, "well, sure". But if you point out to them that it is a self-desolving contradiction that eats its tail, they will deny it is an axiom and start evading. THAT is where Objectivists should wade in.

REF: Galt's speech starting with "You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter,..."

John Donohue

Pasadena, CA

[TuringAI]

If you read 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand', the first few chapters on Metaphysics and Epistemology address how the axioms are argued. In essence and in order they are:

1) Existence exists

2) Existence is identity

3) Consciousness exists

#1 is foundational because without existence, #2 and #3 can not occur.

#2 identifies the basic rule of logic - cause and effect, and doesn't require #3 to occur.

#3 acknowledges that something exists to observe #1 and #2.

When arguing any of the axioms, it is impossible for anyone to argue against them without implicitly accepting them.

I think I've got that explanation right...

So how would we discover the axioms implicitly? Is there a method of taking a statement and then determining what it implies? Something metaphysical, something which is both poetic and intellectually rigorous?

For example, saying "it's impossible to argue against the axioms without implicitly accepting them" is applying "the fallacy of the stolen concept", which itself relies on the axioms.

[Greebo]

So how would we discover the axioms implicitly? Is there a method of taking a statement and then determining what it implies? Something metaphysical, something which is both poetic and intellectually rigorous?

We can try. Bear in mind, I'm not a hard core student of philosophy. But I'm trying...

For example...

Is there a method of taking a statement and then determining what it implies?

If there is a method, then that implies that something can enact that method.

For something to enact a method, that would imply that a thing has consciousness.

How would I determine if something has consciousness?

How would I determine if consciousness exists?

... I'm probably messing this up, but it would seem to me that one is likely to arrive at the conclusion that consciousness exists simply because I am aware of considering the question. That, in turn, leads into the question of existence...

For example, saying "it's impossible to argue against the axioms without implicitly accepting them" is applying "the fallacy of the stolen concept", which itself relies on the axioms.

I'm not sure I understand. If I understand you correctly, then I disagree. Fallacy of the stolen concept means using a concept while rejecting its roots, which I am fairly certain I'm not doing.

[TuringAI]

I'm not sure I understand. If I understand you correctly, then I disagree. Fallacy of the stolen concept means using a concept while rejecting its roots, which I am fairly certain I'm not doing.

I never said you applied the fallacy by accidentally making the fallacy. I said you applied the fallacy by implying that said fallacy WAS the fallacy, and that's how the opponents are wrong.

[hunterrose]

I hope to use constructs such as my definitions of deduction and induction, where induction means "You know one of these things is true... figure out what is true if any of these things is true" and deduction means "You know all of these things is true... figure out what is true if all of these things are true" and where logic is general enough to be used without EXPLICIT use of an axiom.

...I hope to start from here and refine what an axiom means first before capitulating myself into a situation where I need an axiom.

You might be making this more complicated than necessary. I'd define "axiom" as an unproven statement that is accepted as true (validated?) and often used to validate other knowledge.

I understand this desire for a method to "rigorously" validate an axiom (and don't think the fallacy of the stolen concept does so.) But everyone necessarily uses axioms - you're making implicit use of axioms in your gray box.

I don't think there's ever a situation where you need to explicitly recognize axioms. But IMO it's more intellectually rigorous to do so.

[TuringAI]

You might be making this more complicated than necessary. I'd define "axiom" as an unproven statement that is accepted as true (validated?) and often used to validate other knowledge.

I understand this desire for a method to "rigorously" validate an axiom (and don't think the fallacy of the stolen concept does so.) But everyone necessarily uses axioms - you're making implicit use of axioms in your gray box.

I don't think there's ever a situation where you need to explicitly recognize axioms. But IMO it's more intellectually rigorous to do so.

I know I'm using axioms, but by using my gray box am I using any specific ones? Perhaps I am, but can these be proven without using my gray box? What axiom do you use to prove that you're using an axiom? What axiom do you use to prove WHICH axiom is being used? How do you collect other people's fundamental axioms from their argument without using your own axioms? Is it possible to use their axioms against them?

Edited October 13, 2008 by TuringAI

[Grames]

Is there a specific method Ayn Rand uses when arguing for the axioms? Doesn't she use concepts that haven't been validated in her philosophy in order to prove the axioms? For example, she doesn't argue Hierarchy until after she establishes that Existence has 'Primacy' over Consciousness.

According to Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, you can't form a concept until after you have referents for the concept to integrate. So there has to be at least one example of hierarchy before she forms the concept. She got it exactly right.

The special method she uses to argue for the axioms is called observation. It is not really an argument at all, which is probably why you missed it. Unlike some rationalist philosophies, in Objectivism eyeballs and eardrums actually count for something. What she does argue for is the axiomatic status of those three statements. It is a short argument: these statements are axiomatic facts because they are logically prior to and implicit within all possible other statements including even false and invalid statements.

Just for convenient reference :

An axiomatic concept, writes Ayn Rand, is

the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

The 3 basic axioms themselves are:

Existence exists.

Existence is identity.

Consciousness exists, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving existence.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Grames

[TuringAI]

According to Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, you can't form a concept until after you have referents for the concept to integrate. So there has to be at least one example of hierarchy before she forms the concept. She got it exactly right.

The special method she uses to argue for the axioms is called observation. It is not really an argument at all, which is probably why you missed it. Unlike some rationalist philosophies, in Objectivism eyeballs and eardrums actually count for something. What she does argue for is the axiomatic status of those three statements. It is a short argument: these statements are axiomatic facts because they are logically prior to and implicit within all possible other statements including even false and invalid statements.

That's a good point. If an axiom is a fact that is logically prior to and (or?) implicit within all possible other statements, then that is how I should gear my axiom theory, IE I will study the axiom 'existence exists' to show that no alternative exists, and that it implies 'A is A' for which there is also no alternative. Then from there I can develop to the point where I can make the claim that consciousness exists, something which is self evident in philosophy but not in fields where there is no formal definition of consciousness.

[hunterrose]

I know I'm using axioms, but by using my gray box am I using any specific ones? Perhaps I am, but can these be proven without using my gray box? What axiom do you use to prove that you're using an axiom? What axiom do you use to prove WHICH axiom is being used? How do you collect other people's fundamental axioms from their argument without using your own axioms? Is it possible to use their axioms against them?

Hmm. That's a lotta questions

Possibly beyond the three Objectivist axioms, I don't think any axioms have to be in play in the gray box - I doubt it can be proven that any (other?) given axioms are being used.

I don't think using someone axioms against them is as beneficial as it sounds - IMO most axioms are not in the category of "undeniable", and I don't think many (if any) undeniable conclusions could be derived from undeniable axioms.

[trivas7]

IMO there is an inherent contradiction in Objectivism: it wants to base itself on the pure fact of existence while couching this in the language of something called axiomatic concepts. And existence as such isn't a concept. Statements to which no truth value can be ascribed are linguistically nonsensical. "Existence exists", like the phrase "things exist" is a tautology. This confusion bt levels of concepts and reality permeates Objectivism.

[KevinDW78]

oh how funny. I was just reading the chapter in ITOE last night that explains why your arguments aren't valid.

[DavidOdden]

IMO there is an inherent contradiction in Objectivism: it wants to base itself on the pure fact of existence while couching this in the language of something called axiomatic concepts. And existence as such isn't a concept.

That's an unsupported assertion: it would be nice to see the evidence. I think the problem is that you don't understand what an axiomatic concept is.

[trivas7]

That's an unsupported assertion: it would be nice to see the evidence. I think the problem is that you don't understand what an axiomatic concept is.

Objectivism identifies the base of knowledge on axiomatic statements, whereas most people base it on experience. Do you think this a fair statement?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

IMO there is an inherent contradiction in Objectivism: it wants to base itself on the pure fact of existence while couching this in the language of something called axiomatic concepts. And existence as such isn't a concept. Statements to which no truth value can be ascribed are linguistically nonsensical. "Existence exists", like the phrase "things exist" is a tautology. This confusion bt levels of concepts and reality permeates Objectivism.

So, if you were to say that your assertion exists, that would be meaningless? Because that is what you are saying, that "existence exists" is meaningless because it doesn't refer to anything in reality. In Objectivism, the basis for any claim, including the axioms, is something referred to in reality, something that exists. For example, if you say, "The dog is barking," the meaning is the actual dog actually barking. To say that "existence exists" is meaningless is to claim that it doesn't refer to anything in reality, when, in fact, that phrase the axiom, refers to anything that exists or has ever existed or will ever exist. The fact that it exists is the meaning. It is saying that which exists exists. If you think that is meaningless, then anything you say is meaningless, including trying to denounce the axioms, because your statement exists and refers to something in reality (is meaningful) or it doesn't refer to anything in reality (and is therefore meaningless).

[trivas7]

So, if you were to say that your assertion exists, that would be meaningless? Because that is what you are saying, that "existence exists" is meaningless because it doesn't refer to anything in reality. In Objectivism, the basis for any claim, including the axioms, is something referred to in reality, something that exists. For example, if you say, "The dog is barking," the meaning is the actual dog actually barking. To say that "existence exists" is meaningless is to claim that it doesn't refer to anything in reality, when, in fact, that phrase the axiom, refers to anything that exists or has ever existed or will ever exist. The fact that it exists is the meaning. It is saying that which exists exists. If you think that is meaningless, then anything you say is meaningless, including trying to denounce the axioms, because your statement exists and refers to something in reality (is meaningful) or it doesn't refer to anything in reality (and is therefore meaningless).

Are you claiming that something meaningful can be said re the set of all existents past, present and future? The fact that they have, do or will exist? But that is exactly what characterizes a tautology.

Edited November 12, 2008 by trivas7

[DavidOdden]

Objectivism identifies the base of knowledge on axiomatic statements, whereas most people base it on experience. Do you think this a fair statement?

It isn't even accurate.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Are you claiming that something meaningful can be said re the set of all existents past, present and future? The fact that they have, do or will exist? But that is exactly what characterizes a tautology.

Acknowledging that they do indeed exist is a very important foundation for all knowledge. Without that foundation, then there would be no difference between imagination and fact. So, saying that, for example, "the dog barks" is saying that dogs exist and that they bark. If you want to say this is tautological, that's fine, but don't say it is meaningless. The meaning is that there are dogs and that they do bark. Likewise, the fact that things exist is not empty, because acknowledging that those facts are real and that they do exist and that they will do something is the ground roots of being able to say anything about anything -- including one's imagination. If you try to have meaning to your statements without grounding them in the fact that something exists, then your statements are meaningless.

This is what Kant tried to do by claiming that statements of fact were only acknowledging the phenomenal world (the world of the sense) but not the neumenal world (which he claimed was real reality without any evidence).

So, if you don't want to acknowledge that existence exists, or say this is meaningless, then why are you even arguing with those of us who know that it does exist and that you are acknowledging that merely by taking part in this discussion? In other words, your stance is self-contradictory. Your reply contradicts you assessment that existence doesn't exist or that such statements are meaningless. If it is really meaningless, then why partake in anything that has to do with reality?

[trivas7]

Acknowledging that they do indeed exist is a very important foundation for all knowledge. Without that foundation, then there would be no difference between imagination and fact. So, saying that, for example, "the dog barks" is saying that dogs exist and that they bark. If you want to say this is tautological, that's fine, but don't say it is meaningless. The meaning is that there are dogs and that they do bark. Likewise, the fact that things exist is not empty, because acknowledging that those facts are real and that they do exist and that they will do something is the ground roots of being able to say anything about anything -- including one's imagination. If you try to have meaning to your statements without grounding them in the fact that something exists, then your statements are meaningless.

This is what Kant tried to do by claiming that statements of fact were only acknowledging the phenomenal world (the world of the sense) but not the neumenal world (which he claimed was real reality without any evidence).

So, if you don't want to acknowledge that existence exists, or say this is meaningless, then why are you even arguing with those of us who know that it does exist and that you are acknowledging that merely by taking part in this discussion? In other words, your stance is self-contradictory. Your reply contradicts you assessment that existence doesn't exist or that such statements are meaningless. If it is really meaningless, then why partake in anything that has to do with reality?

Not so b/c as I stated above, most people understand experience -- not axiomatic statements -- is the basis of knowledge. If axioms merely identify self-evident truths then I dare say most people are Objectivists; who would bother to deny them?

Edited November 12, 2008 by trivas7

[Zip]

Not so b/c as I stated above, most people understand experience -- not axiomatic statements -- is the basis of knowledge. If axioms merely identify self-evident truths then I dare say most people are Objectivists; who would bother to deny them?

The difference isn't so much in believing in self evident truths but in knowing without question that those truths the are real and not believing in non-evident superstitions, fallacies and dogma.

[MichaelH]

The difference isn't so much in believing in self evident truths but in knowing without question that those truths the are real and not believing in non-evident superstitions, fallacies and dogma.

I'd like to expand on that:

The axioms are self-evident truths. However, we are not born with this list in our heads, and they are not explicit in many people's reasoning. This is the cause of a lot of flawed philosophy. Part of Ayn's genius was recognizing this fact and listing the axioms in order. As OPAR makes clear, the axioms alone are enough to counter many arguments against Objectivism.

For example, monotheistic god-created-universe religion is countered immediately. Existence exists, and only existence exists. A god could not have consciousness before existence; there would be nothing to be conscious of.

Most people aren't objectivists because:

1) They've never explicitly stated the axioms, so they don't actually know what their knowledge is based on. They probably think it has something to do with authority. ("Smart/powerful people said X, so it must be true.")

2) They don't want to think about life, preferring to go by feel or whim or herd instinct.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Not so b/c as I stated above, most people understand experience -- not axiomatic statements -- is the basis of knowledge. If axioms merely identify self-evident truths then I dare say most people are Objectivists; who would bother to deny them?

But what do you mean by "experience"? Does Sarah Palin experience the existence of God, or following his commandments is based upon the experience of God? What evidence does she have the He exists? What can she point to in all of reality -- the facts, mind you -- that would indicate that it all came to be because of some supernatural spiritual entity? To say existence exists and only existence exists is to say that all of your assertions must be based upon the facts that are available via perception -- i.e. seeing, hearing, touch, smell, taste -- if one cannot ground one's assertions on these then they have no objective value and are meaningless.

So, having in mind something like "existence exists" and staying consistent with the fundamental fact that existence exists leads one to reject anything not based upon the facts of existence. Most people do not hold it in their mind that explicitly, and therefore do not follow through logically (also based on observation) but rather take things at some people's word if those people are convincing enough -- convincing by what standard? blank out, because they cannot name that their ideas are based upon the facts.

Objectivism, by the way, is based upon observation, and the axioms are wide abstractions based upon abstracting from observations. It is not as if once one has the axioms one can deduce that man has rights or that romantic realism is the best art for man; for this requires further observations. Existence exists covers politics and art, but one cannot say something like existence exists, therefore Obama is a bad Presidential candidate until one looks at the facts regarding Obama and other facts related to man's nature, etc.

And just because someone might accept the axioms, it does not necessarily mean that they will be rational about everything, and therefore they are not necessarily Objectivists.

[agrippa1]

What can she point to in all of reality -- the facts, mind you -- that would indicate that it all came to be because of some supernatural spiritual entity?

In my opinion, the perception of reality as reality is dependent on a sense of consistency (what we perceived yesterday or 5 seconds ago is entirely consistent with what we see now) and causality (what differences there are are explainable by something which has happened to cause them). If an entity were to suddenly appear on top of my desk with no apparent cause, I would immediately suspect that I was dreaming, and I would "test" reality (pinch myself?) to make sure that everything else was consistent. My conscious mind would probably lock up for some amount of time until I could construct a rationale to provide a causal explanation for the existence of this new thing. (It's never happened, so I'm conjecturing)

What Palin can point to in reality is that many things happen without apparent cause. The firm belief that causality is axiomatic (because of experience) causes her mind to construct a cause (or causer), associate the cause with a purpose, and to identify that purpose and cause as the product of a conscious mind, such as hers. This is actually quite a logical leap to take, since the only cause she has discovered in the past for apparently random actions is other conscious minds. Once she reaches a conclusion that a conscious mind is at work causing all these randomy thingies to occur, she considers the fact that she can't see whoever is doing them, and that there doesn't seem to be any limits in the scope or energy of the random actions, and conceives of a consciousness which is invisible and almighty. From there, anything that can't be directly explained by physical causality or the actions of conscious men, is logically attributed to a "supernatural" consciousness.

She has reached the conclusion of God through the failure to properly identify axioms, and by taking as given (axiomatic) something which she has consciously constructed from lower level concepts.

[Grames]

I was just listening to Peikoff in the audio course "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" and he said there that every child's first experience with causation is personal causation, in which he is participating in the cause and effect relationship by being the cause of various things moving around. Retaining this level of understanding when older will lead to animism as the first theology.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Grames