Axiom Post - Please judge me.

[jacassidy2]

The following is a post I made in another philosophy forum.  I post it here for students of Objectivism to look for mistakes I may have made.

 

Posted Aug 8, 2015 - 9:27 PM:
Subject: Axioms are Tautologies
When philosophers discuss axioms, they are almost always referring to three or more ideas in metaphysics that appear to be so basic as to be self-explanatory. Detractors with varied ideas and historical sources agree that axioms, as tautologies, provide no knowledge because axioms, logically, fold in on themselves. They are propositions that, in logic, are true by necessity as "analytic" truths are. That is, these truths are simply restatements of the concept definition.

The axioms most commonly referred to are: existence exists, consciousness exists, and identity exists. Restatement: things are there, consciousness is one of those things, and all these things exist as one with their characteristics. One method of confirming the truth of these three premises is that any attempt to disagree with them, requires their use in the disagreement. Another confirmation is the use of your consciousness' sense capacity, and that these premises are immediately perceivable without reference to any other idea.

This is the most important argument in philosophy because the entire history of western philosophy is an attempt to find some truth in reality and some validation in human cognition that is valid in the absence of these axioms. (This was for thinkers who dismissed religious mysticism as an unknowable answer.)

I propose that the argument that axioms are simply tautologies is not a disqualification from truth but a proof of their truth. Tautologies in derivative ideas send up a flag of caution. But, tautologies at the basis of all knowledge (ideas like being, thinking, and metaphysical attribute) is what you would expect and hope to find. These three most basic axioms provide no knowledge because they are so true as to be the basis of all knowledge. They are knowledge stripped of the influence of epistemology.  If they were not tautologies, THEN, you would have a problem in philosophy.

Edited August 9, 2015 by jacassidy2

[StrictlyLogical]

Are you saying you purposefully included mistakes in hopes others would identify them?

[Plasmatic]

Jac said:

I propose that the argument that axioms are simply tautologies is not a disqualification from truth but a proof of their truth. Tautologies in derivative ideas send up a flag of caution. But, tautologies at the basis of all knowledge (ideas like being, thinking, and metaphysical attribute) is what you would expect and hope to find. .

Technically all truths are self reafirming-tautalogical and all falsehoods are contradictions (self denying). There are vicous circles and "virtuous circles".

Jac said:

These three most basic axioms provide no knowledge because they are so true as to be the basis of all knowledge. They are knowledge stripped of the influence of epistemology. If they were not tautologies, THEN, you would have a problem in philosophy

The axioms are known directly. Dont know what you mean by "influenced"? Edited August 9, 2015 by Plasmatic

[dream_weaver]

In front of me is a computer desk, keyboard, several books, and while these things exist, to arrive at the tautology existence exist requires that I formulate the concepts of existence and exist. While it is true that existence, consciousness and identity are implicit in every act of awareness, the premises are hardly perceivable. They need to be derived from experience and made conceptually explicit.

 

Proof presupposes the axioms. As such, they are not proven as true, as part of the validation process as to why proof is possible.

Roderick Fitts wrote a series of articles on Objections To The Axioms. Objections to them as needing to be proved is explored in part 3 while the objection to their circularity, as Plasmatic brought up, is looked at in part 4.

Edited August 9, 2015 by dream_weaver

[William O]

The following is a post I made in another philosophy forum.  I post it here for students of Objectivism to look for mistakes I may have made.

One thing that could help is to refer to the literature, i.e., say that you are getting your ideas from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff and cite sources. I know Ayn Rand is a bit taboo on some philosophy forums, but if you are dealing with a reasonable person it will actually improve your credibility because you have the backing of a well known author.

 

It also gives the reader materials to look into further. Remember, the most you can accomplish in an internet forum debate is to make someone say "hmm, that sounds interesting, I'd like to look into that more." You're giving an advertisement, basically.

 

 Subject: Axioms are Tautologies

When philosophers discuss axioms, they are almost always referring to three or more ideas in metaphysics that appear to be so basic as to be self-explanatory. 

 

This definition is a bit vague if someone doesn't know anything about Objectivism. Basic, how? The laws of physics are pretty basic in a sense, but they are not axioms.

 

 

 

Detractors with varied ideas and historical sources agree that axioms, as tautologies, provide no knowledge because axioms, logically, fold in on themselves. They are propositions that, in logic, are true by necessity as "analytic" truths are. That is, these truths are simply restatements of the concept definition.

The problem with the last sentence here is that axioms are, in fact, repetitions of the concept. Rand says so explicitly. Existence exists, A is A, consciousness is conscious. That's not a criticism, it's obviously true.

 

The axioms most commonly referred to are: existence exists, consciousness exists, and identity exists.

 

I feel like you're trying to avoid mentioning Ayn Rand here. They are not just the axioms "most commonly referred to," they are Rand's axioms.

 

Restatement: things are there, consciousness is one of those things, and all these things exist as one with their characteristics.

 

You're putting identity after consciousness here, which is incorrect. Existence, identity, then consciousness.

 

One method of confirming the truth of these three premises is that any attempt to disagree with them, requires their use in the disagreement. Another confirmation is the use of your consciousness' sense capacity, and that these premises are immediately perceivable without reference to any other idea.

 

They are confirmed by the senses. The self refutation point is only to show that they are axioms, not that they are true.

 

 

 

This is the most important argument in philosophy because the entire history of western philosophy is an attempt to find some truth in reality and some validation in human cognition that is valid in the absence of these axioms. (This was for thinkers who dismissed religious mysticism as an unknowable answer.)

Please keep in mind that you're not writing for Objectivists here. This is going to sound like a huge, sweeping generalization to anyone who doesn't have a background in philosophy. It is also not the best tactic given your audience on a philosophy forum, because they will have a certain degree of respect for the major historical philosophers, which will require you to defend claims like this in some detail. (That's not to say you can't make claims like this - you can, if they are honest. You just have to defend them.)

 

I propose that the argument that axioms are simply tautologies is not a disqualification from truth but a proof of their truth. Tautologies in derivative ideas send up a flag of caution. But, tautologies at the basis of all knowledge (ideas like being, thinking, and metaphysical attribute) is what you would expect and hope to find. These three most basic axioms provide no knowledge because they are so true as to be the basis of all knowledge. They are knowledge stripped of the influence of epistemology.  If they were not tautologies, THEN, you would have a problem in philosophy.

As written, this concedes that it's a problem if an idea is a tautology and then tries to make an exception for axioms. This is not the Objectivist response, which is that it is good if an idea is a tautology, because all tautologies are true and all truths are tautologies.

[jacassidy2]

This has been a great learning experience for me.  Thanks to all the posters who took the time to contribute.  I hope others will benefit by reading the OP and then the great comments.  In answer to one poster, no, the errors in my essay were not planted, they are my own real errors.  I feel like I just got a valuable peer review by other Rand/Peikoff scholars.  Thanks again.