Validation Of The Axiomatic Concept "volition"

[manavmehta]

I am slowly and painstakingly working my way through OPAR and there was this passage which puzzled me and I thought, perhaps the gurus here could help me out!

Chapter 2: Sense Perception and Volition > Volition as Axiomatic, Page 71 --

"An infallible being, one that automatically grasps the truth - such as an animal (on its own level) or an angel, if such existed - can be devoid of volition, yet still acquire knowledge. Such a being does not need to perform a process of thought. But man (beyond the perceptual level) must think in order to know - he must think in a reality-oriented manner; and the commitment to do so is observably not inbuilt. If in addition it were not within man's power of choice, human consciousness would be deprived of its function; it would be incapable of cognition. This means: it would be detached from existense i.e. it would not be conscious"

The argument to validate the concept of Volition is here being stated in the following way: Man is not an infallible being and is capable of errors --> He must make a conscious choice to "focus" (i.e. think in a reality-oriented manner) in order to gain knowledge --> Therefore if he did not have the power of choice he would have no way of gaining knowledge about reality --> If he had no way of gaining knowledge, he would be unconscious!

It is the last link of the above logical chain that puzzles me! I follow this up to the point where it is stated that if man did not have the power of choice he would be incapable of gaining knowledge of reality. But does this mean that he would not be conscious? Aren't animals conscious even though they do not have the power of choice? Is the word "conscious" being used to mean something other than its conventional meaning here?

Peikoff goes on to state in the next paragraph that volition is therefore a corollary of the axiomatic concept "consciousness". I guess it is the relation between these two that I am failing to comprehend.

[Gabriel_S]

"An infallible being, one that automatically grasps the truth - such as an animal (on its own level) or an angel, if such existed - can be devoid of volition, yet still acquire knowledge. Such a being does not need to perform a process of thought. But man (beyond the perceptual level) must think in order to know - he must think in a reality-oriented manner; and the commitment to do so is observably not inbuilt. If in addition it were not within man's power of choice, human consciousness would be deprived of its function; it would be incapable of cognition. This means: it would be detached from existense i.e. it would not be conscious"

It is the last link of the above logical chain that puzzles me! I follow this up to the point where it is stated that if man did not have the power of choice he would be incapable of gaining knowledge of reality. But does this mean that he would not be conscious? Aren't animals conscious even though they do not have the power of choice? Is the word "conscious" being used to mean something other than its conventional meaning here?

The answer to your questions may be found in the very quote you provided from Dr. Peikoff. Notice he specifically says that animals do acquire knowledge, which entails that they are conscious. Also, observe that Dr. Peikoff is discussing the conceptual level of consciousness ("beyond the perceptual level"). I think if you keep these points in mind, you should be able to puzzle your way out of your conundrum. Think about it a little more. You'll find the answer you seek.

[manavmehta]

The answer to your questions may be found in the very quote you provided from Dr. Peikoff. Notice he specifically says that animals do acquire knowledge, which entails that they are conscious. Also, observe that Dr. Peikoff is discussing the conceptual level of consciousness ("beyond the perceptual level"). I think if you keep these points in mind, you should be able to puzzle your way out of your conundrum. Think about it a little more. You'll find the answer you seek.

What you seem to be implying is that the term "consciousness" here is being used to denote a state wherein the conscious being is able to grasp reality. And for human beings, this implies grasping reality on a conceptual level, not a perceptual level.

But is that what is implied whenever an Objectivist uses the word consciousness, or can it at times simply denote a state of perceptual awareness of reality, minus the power of choice?

[Gabriel_S]

What you seem to be implying is that the term "consciousness" here is being used to denote a state wherein the conscious being is able to grasp reality. And for human beings, this implies grasping reality on a conceptual level, not a perceptual level.

But is that what is implied whenever an Objectivist uses the word consciousness, or can it at times simply denote a state of perceptual awareness of reality, minus the power of choice?

Simply put:

1. Animals are conscious on the perceptual level; they don't possess a conceptual faculty.

2. Animals are "deterministic," but still can acquire "knowledge" from their perceptual contact with reality, i.e., the perceptual level is a "deterministic" contact with reality.

3. Consciousness, for humans, operates both perceptually and conceptually.

4. The issue you raise here involves the contradiction of espousing determinism for a conceptual consciousness.

Does that help?

[manavmehta]

Simply put:

1. Animals are conscious on the perceptual level; they don't possess a conceptual faculty.

2. Animals are "deterministic," but still can acquire "knowledge" from their perceptual contact with reality, i.e., the perceptual level is a "deterministic" contact with reality.

3. Consciousness, for humans, operates both perceptually and conceptually.

4. The issue you raise here involves the contradiction of espousing determinism for a conceptual consciousness.

Does that help?

I think so.

If you take away volition, then human beings effectively lose their conceptual consciousness, and are therefore unconscious on the conceptual level. So the phrase "unconscious" refers to a human being who is not in "focus" i.e. who is conscious on the perceptual level but no longer conscious on the conceptual level.

So volition is a corollary of consciousness as applied to human beings!

[Gabriel_S]

If you take away volition, then human beings effectively lose their conceptual consciousness, and are therefore unconscious on the conceptual level.

I don't know if I'd put it exactly that way.

So the phrase "unconscious" refers to a human being who is not in "focus" i.e. who is conscious on the perceptual level but no longer conscious on the conceptual level.

I think "unconscious" primarily is used and derived from mental states that are distinguished from "conscious" mental states. So, normally we think of being unconscious when someone is knocked out or asleep, and so on. I think we then say by extension that evasion consists of willfully moving into unconsciousness (to the extent of the evasion; obviously the person isn't completely unconscious).

So volition is a corollary of consciousness as applied to human beings!

Yes.