Proper method to evaluate the axioms?

[Steve Carlson]

My question is directed to those with a detailed understanding of Objectivist metaphysics.

I have previously read through OPAR. Now I am working from the beginning of the text, with the goal of carefully and fully validating Objectivism (assuming I find no errors). My confusion centers on method, and ensuring that I am not assuming anything in error as I progress.

Two questions:

1. In your view are all the axioms (exisence, identity, causality, consciousness, volition) validated in hierarchical order, at the same time (the idea of interdependence), or both? I know there must be some hierarchy (e.g., existence before consciousness), but is the process strictly hierarchical?

2. What about the Law of the Excluded Middle, The Law of Contradiction, and so on. At what point can those be brought in and applied? It seems they are operable from the very beginning. If so, do they require validation as well?

I will briefly restate to ensure clarity. Essentially, the first question relates to the proper order of evaluation, while the second question relates to taking all the necessary steps as I progress.

Finally, I plan to obtain more texts dealing with Objectivist metaphysics, and other metaphysical systems. Do you have any recommendations along those lines? I could see my difficulty resulting from a lack of texts offering a wide range of perspectives, or at least different explanations of the same ideas.

Cheers,

Steve

[stephen_speicher]

1. In your view are all the axioms (exisence, identity, causality, consciousness, volition) validated in hierarchical order, at the same time (the idea of interdependence), or both? I know there must be some hierarchy (e.g., existence before consciousness), but is the process strictly hierarchical?

I think you need to establish the context of the question in order to give a proper answer. If, for instance, one's goal is to communicate a systematic validation in hierarchical order, then the process that Peikoff followed in OPAR ("existence" as the widest concept, etc.) makes sense. But, on a personal level, since the axioms themselves are implicit in the very process of validation, I do not think that one must follow a particular order. One can accept consciousness without validation and still first validate volition.

2. What about the Law of the Excluded Middle, The Law of Contradiction, and so on. At what point can those be brought in and applied? It seems they are operable from the very beginning. If so, do they require validation as well?

Validating the laws of logic are a part of validating reason. If you were to be following a systematic, hierarchical chain, then clearly consciousness and volition would come first.

Finally, I plan to obtain more texts dealing with Objectivist metaphysics, and other metaphysical systems. Do you have any recommendations along those lines? I could see my difficulty resulting from a lack of texts offering a wide range of perspectives, or at least different explanations of the same ideas.

With all due respect, I am always a little suspicious when metaphysics becomes the primary focus of one pursuing the philosophy. It has been my experience that that is the approach of those most prone to rationalism. Not to say that metaphysics is not important, but the amount of writing about metaphysics in Objectivism is dwarfed by the other four major branches of the philosophy. You will find much writing about metaphysics by Objectivist scholars, though, I must say, in years past metaphysics was a much-discussed subject on Harry Binswanger's HBL email list. But, that was years ago, and now the subject rarely comes up as compared to other Objectivism-related issues.

(And, please, do not take my remarks about metaphysics and rationalism personally. I do not know you and I do not mean to imply that that is your mode of operation. In fact, I myself have a great interest in metaphysics, and I am one of the few who periodically continue to bring up metaphysical issues on HBL. And, though this is not directly related to your questions, since you are interested in metaphysics you might enjoy this fascinating essay by a young Objectivist student of philosophy.

[Steve Carlson]

Hello Stephen,

I think you need to establish the context of the question in order to give a proper answer.

I only seek to get a firm grasp on Objectivist metaphysics, sufficient to be able to intelligently deal with my own questions pertaining to philosophy. For me, it is not sufficient to have a loose grasp of such important ideas.

One can accept consciousness without validation and still first validate volition... If you were to be following a systematic, hierarchical chain, then clearly consciousness and volition would come first.

Are you certain about this? It would seem that without existence, one can not validate anything else. This relates to the idea that without existence, there can be no consciousness. Am I misinterpreting your remarks?

With all due respect, I am always a little suspicious when metaphysics becomes the primary focus of one pursuing the philosophy. It has been my experience that that is the approach of those most prone to rationalism.

I appreciate your concern. My primary focus is not metaphysics per se, but to move in proper order through Objectivism (to the extent that there is a hierarchical requirement). Only when I have the basics down, can I move to the rest of Objectivism.

I am aware of the dangers of rationalism from listening to Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism CD course. What approach would you suggest?

(And, please, do not take my remarks about metaphysics and rationalism personally. I do not know you and I do not mean to imply that that is your mode of operation. In fact, I myself have a great interest in metaphysics, and I am one of the few who periodically continue to bring up metaphysical issues on HBL. And, though this is not directly related to your questions, since you are interested in metaphysics you might enjoy this fascinating essay by a young Objectivist student of philosophy.

I appreciate what you have to say on the issue. Also, thank you for the suggested reading.

Cheers,

Steve

[stephen_speicher]

Are you certain about this? It would seem that without existence, one can not validate anything else. This relates to the idea that without existence, there can be no consciousness. Am I misinterpreting your remarks?

When I said "first" I meant validation in the hierarchical sequence consciousness -> volition -> logic, not that consciousness precedes existence.

What approach would you suggest?

Peikoff's OPAR is the only systematic presentation of the philosophy, but I get the sense that you might first want to center yourself with Miss Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Also, thank you for the suggested reading.

You're welcome. If you enjoy it as much as I did, you might want to thank the author.

[Steve Carlson]

I imagine the resolution my question is a simple matter, but it still eludes me. I have reviewed OPAR again, read some Aristotle, and read about logical and mathematical axioms, to no avail. Assistance here would be greatly appreciated.

Following OPAR, and validating the axioms, existence comes first. This makes sense to me. The part that gets me is the use of perception (the self-evident) as validation of axioms, before perception (validity of the senses) itself has been validated.

The specific question then is: Why can I rely on perception to validate existence before, hierarchically, perception has been validated?

I suspect the nature of axioms, as opposed to proofs, holds the answer.

[y_feldblum]

Validating an axiom does not somehow "legitimize" the axiom. Validation is a check on knowledge, not the final act of acquiring knowledge.

Our basic means of knowledge is perception, whether or not it has been philosophically validated. In fact, all validation is from the senses - even the validation of sense-perception, so if we had to validate the senses before we could validate them, philosophy would go somewhat circular.

Validation is a kind of conscious recognition of how one arrives at a concept and why it is true, a sort of retracing one's steps. But you've already walked those steps once, in grasping the relevant concepts the first time around, if only implicitly.

[stephen_speicher]

The specific question then is: Why can I rely on perception to validate existence before, hierarchically, perception has been validated?

The fact of the matter is that we do not deduce one axiom from another; the reason they are axioms is that they identify a primary aspect of reality and, of necessity, are assumed or contained in what follows. So the axiom "existence exists" does not depend upon "the validity of the senses" for it to be an axiom, and one implicitly uses the axiom of existence when validating the senses, and one implicitly uses the senses when validating existence. In that sense there is no prescribed order by which the axioms must be validated, though, as mentioned previously, there is a hierarchy that one can more or less respect when making a systematic presentation of the philosophy.

[Steve Carlson]

Your responses are terrific. Now it is clear to me. The roadblock was an unclear understanding of the term validation, and a lack of clarity about the fact that validation comes later in the process than I had thought.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Steve

[visaplace]

I read that interesting article on the universe as asizal and eternal. The universe is not in size nor is it in time. Ok when what is it "in"? As Ayn Rand said "to be, is to be something specific". Well what specifically is the universe? We know what it is not--in time and in size? But to be an existent i.e., (to have identity) , the universe has to have an attribute or a characteristic . What it that characteristic(s)?

Michael

[stephen_speicher]

I read that interesting article on the universe as asizal and eternal. The universe is not in size nor is it in time. Ok when what is it "in"? As Ayn Rand said "to be, is to be something specific". Well what specifically is the universe? We know what it is not--in time and in size? But to be an existent i.e., (to have identity) , the universe has to have an attribute or a characteristic . What it that characteristic(s)?

Michael

The universe is not a "thing" in its own right; it is a collection of things, all that exists.

[Soulsurfer]

The universe is not a "thing" in its own right; it is a collection of things, all that exists.

Just out of curiosity: Does "universe" and "Universe" have the same referents here? The reason I ask is because in Sweden people seem to talk about the possibility of several "universes" as subsystems in one absolute "Universe" (i.e., the latter being existence as a total sum of all existents). Is that common language in USA as well?

[stephen_speicher]

Just out of curiosity: Does "universe" and "Universe" have the same referents here? The reason I ask is because in Sweden people seem to talk about the possibility of several "universes" as subsystems in one absolute "Universe" (i.e., the latter being existence as a total sum of all existents). Is that common language in USA as well?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "universe" as:

"The whole of created or existing things regarded collectively; all things (including the earth, the heavens, and all the phenomena of space) considered as constituting a systematic whole, esp. as created or existing by Divine power; the whole world or creation; the cosmos."

That is the common usage here, as far as I know. However, one can hear, at times, the loosely formulated "my universe," or some similar expression of a restricted sense, but that is just loose speaking. Also, in the topsy-turvy world of modern cosmology, there are technical physics papers that refer to our universe and others. But, as I said, that is the topsy-turvy world of cosmology. And, of course, there is the multiverse, the parallel universes of certain quantum theories. But, in the real world, the main usage of "universe" is as described by the OED.

[Soulsurfer]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "universe" as:

Thanks for your answer.

Now I would also like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation for your other posts in this forum. They are overall very clear and objective. Have you ever considered teaching professionally? (Maybe you are already doing just that...)

This thread alone destroyed a rationalist trap in my thinking -- the notion that the universe as a whole (or existence) is an entity. Just because of that little piece of integration, several other ideas became clearer to me within a few seconds. Speaking as a newcomer to Objectivism, this kind of support is invaluable.

[stephen_speicher]

Thanks for your answer.

Now I would also like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation for your other posts in this forum. They are overall very clear and objective. Have you ever considered teaching professionally? (Maybe you are already doing just that...)

Thanks for your appreciation. I do enjoy explaining, but even more I enjoy doing, so in the past I chose my career accordingly. However, I am currently giving thought to the joy of teaching, so that still remains a possibility.

[realitycheck44]

Mr. Speicher,

You made refrence to the multiverse. Do you consider this a legitimate theory? I am not looking for a lengthy explaination, for I do not know much about the subject. I did a report on the article in Scientific American a couple years ago and found it quite interesting. Could parallel universes be possibility? The way the article described it, there was a "parallel" universe that had person exactly the same as every person here on Earth. And many other universes that had a person the same as me, except he made one simple choice that was different than one I made. The thing that I found hard to believe is the thought that even names were the same.

BTW, I didn't get the math behind it, so I cannot evaluate the theory on that basis.

Anyway, I know this is kind of random and has nothing to do with philosophy, but I was just curious.

Zak

[stephen_speicher]

Mr. Speicher,

You made refrence to the multiverse. Do you consider this a legitimate theory?

It is just a bunch of silly nonsense. The stuff that good science fantasy is made of, but not science.

[Thoyd Loki]

Mr. Speicher,

You made refrence to the multiverse. Do you consider this a legitimate theory? I am not looking for a lengthy explaination, for I do not know much about the subject. I did a report on the article in Scientific American a couple years ago and found it quite interesting. Could parallel universes be possibility? The way the article described it, there was a "parallel" universe that had person exactly the same as every person here on Earth. And many other universes that had a person the same as me, except he made one simple choice that was different than one I made. The thing that I found hard to believe is the thought that even names were the same.

BTW, I didn't get the math behind it, so I cannot evaluate the theory on that basis.

Anyway, I know this is kind of random and has nothing to do with philosophy, but I was just curious.

Zak

This is not only possible, it already exists in exactly the way you described. It was called Sliders, an excellent sci-fi show from the 90's!

[Free Capitalist]

Stephen, doesn't professorship at CalTech require you to teach already?

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen, doesn't professorship at CalTech require you to teach already?

What made you ask this question here? Anyway, I was not a professor; I just act like one.