The validity of concepts where the referents are derived by introspect

[dream_weaver]

In OPAR, pg 20, Peikoff states the following:

"Introspection, of course, is necessary and proper as a means of grasping the contents or processes of consciousness; but it is not a means of external cognition."

The validation of concepts is essentially objectively showing the the relationship between the concept and it's referents. In the case of concepts of consciousness, the referents are, by their nature, private not public.

Is Objectivism's use of introspection as a necessary and proper means relating the contents or processes of consciousness to the various concepts that gain their validity from that relationship demonstrable?

[Grames]

Is Objectivism's use of introspection as a necessary and proper means relating the contents or processes of consciousness to the various concepts that gain their validity from that relationship demonstrable?

If I diagram this sentence and cut out the descriptive phrases, I get:

Is Objectivism's use of introspection as a necessary and proper means relating the contents or processes of consciousness to the various concepts that gain their validity from that relationship demonstrable?

The answer is, sure. Check the quote in OPAR page 25. But I guess you really want to ask about justification or validation or something? It is important to get to a question which is answerable.

[dream_weaver]

But I guess you really want to ask about justification or validation or something? It is important to get to a question which is answerable.

Yes. I got tripped up in trying to validate free will with some determinists. I don't think an appeal to the metaphysical vs. the man-made is going to satisfy them.

[Plasmatic]

Introspection is a form of direct perception. It is self evident that one has free will. No amount of persuasion will convince someone that the tree in front of them is really there if they choose to deny the self evident.

Edit:it is also axiomatic.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Plasmatic

[dream_weaver]

And as a form of direct perception, the percepts are private rather than public. Understanding the relationship of free will as it applies to the man-made does provide percepts that are public requiring a chain of reasoning to connect it back to free will. Concepts like "thought", "evaluation", "consideration" etc., are also observable via introspection.

First level concepts can be established by pointing. Scenerio's to aide in grasping colors, shapes and quantities have been around for many years. Both can be derived easily from publicly observable entities.

While the percepts from introspection are clear to the introspector, they cannot be made first level to another ostensively. Like more complex abstractions, it is going to require a chain of reasoning which ultimately relies on someone else being able to introspect for themselves and observe the same percept(s) to abstract the same concept, consonant to the rules of language. The scientific method currently requires evidence to be public. This would put evidence that relies on introspectively based percepts outside of that method.

Epistemology derives its method by corellating the extrospective to the introspective as well as the introspective to the introspective. Is this all a matter of intellectual honesty then?

[Grames]

While the percepts from introspection are clear to the introspector, they cannot be made first level to another ostensively. Like more complex abstractions, it is going to require a chain of reasoning which ultimately relies on someone else being able to introspect for themselves and observe the same percept(s) to abstract the same concept, consonant to the rules of language. The scientific method currently requires evidence to be public. This would put evidence that relies on introspectively based percepts outside of that method.

Deciding to conform to the scientific method is a volitional act, and a relatively new kind of act in human history. Logic is part of the scientific method. Axiomatic concepts (ed: and axioms) are tested to be axiomatic by logic (must be accepted in the process of attempting to refute them). It cannot follow that volition is outside of the scientific method.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Grames

[dream_weaver]

Grames, as usual, your clear thinking and ability to communicate it in the manner you do is like sunshine on the morning mist - it helps burn away the fog.

Is there any other philosophy than Objectivism that recognizes that Axiomatic concepts are tested to be axiomatic by logic?

[Plasmatic]

Weaver said:

"While the percepts from introspection are clear to the introspector, they cannot be made first level to another ostensively. Like more complex abstractions, it is going to require a chain of reasoning which ultimately relies on someone else being able to introspect for themselves and observe the same percept(s) to abstract the same concept, consonant to the rules of language "

I hate to risk the negative connotation but the term intersubjective comes to mind. I used to wrestle with free will when I was a mystic/theology student. It was a completely rationalistic problem because NOTHING about our perception of choice leads to the question/doubt of the fact that we make choices. This debate must take the route of convincing one of the foundation of perception in the epistemic chain of justification.

[Grames]

Grames, as usual, your clear thinking and ability to communicate it in the manner you do is like sunshine on the morning mist - it helps burn away the fog.

Is there any other philosophy than Objectivism that recognizes that Axiomatic concepts are tested to be axiomatic by logic?

Thanks.

I am not broadly educated on other philosophies, but I think the idea of testing a proposition for fundamentality can be found in mathematics, possibly even geometry.

[dream_weaver]

Plasmatic,

I wasn't aware that intersubjective was a term. That condenses into a word what took me two sentences to flesh out.

As to the debate route, I think that was partially explored in the identification of how Aristotle induced his principles of logic from observation in another thread here.

Edited September 13, 2012 by dream_weaver