What is the nature of the axioms of Objectivism?

[nzcanadian]

Hi, I was wondering if there is a list of the axioms of Objectivism. Also, if axioms are, by definition, unprovable, how can you be sure that these are true and that, say, religious axioms are not (eg, "The bible is always right, if it seems it is wrong, you are wrong")? For example, how do you know that "reality" is evidence for anything?

[Felix]

Hi, I was wondering if there is a list of the axioms of Objectivism. Also, if axioms are, by definition, unprovable, how can you be sure that these are true and that, say, religious axioms are not (eg, "The bible is always right, if it seems it is wrong, you are wrong")? For example, how do you know that "reality" is evidence for anything?

Since OPAR finally arrived at my house, I can say something about this.

The basic axiom of Objectivism is: Existence exists.

Pretty much everything else flows from there.

Like conciousness is only conciousness of existence. And existence is identity.

But wait until someone more knowledgeable than me comes along. I'm just starting.

[DavidOdden]

Also, if axioms are, by definition, unprovable, how can you be sure that these are true and that, say, religious axioms are not (eg, "The bible is always right, if it seems it is wrong, you are wrong")? For example, how do you know that "reality" is evidence for anything?

There is no axiom "reality is evidence for something": that is a corollary statement. The axioms are self-evident statements that cannot be denied in an opposing argument. Thus you must assume and use consciousness to argue against your own consciousness; the very idea of "disproof" implicity includes "existence", "consciousness" and "identity". In contrast, you can easily deny the literal truth of the bible without contradicting yourself. The only way to non-contradictorily deny the axioms is to make no statements at all. Only, oops, you can't even deny the axioms without accepting them (considering what it means to "deny" something).

[nzcanadian]

There is no axiom "reality is evidence for something": that is a corollary statement. The axioms are self-evident statements that cannot be denied in an opposing argument. Thus you must assume and use consciousness to argue against your own consciousness; the very idea of "disproof" implicity includes "existence", "consciousness" and "identity". In contrast, you can easily deny the literal truth of the bible without contradicting yourself. The only way to non-contradictorily deny the axioms is to make no statements at all. Only, oops, you can't even deny the axioms without accepting them (considering what it means to "deny" something).

So Objectivism has 3 axioms: Consciousness, Existence, and Identity?

But couldn't we still just have 1 axiom, as in 'cogito ergo sum'? The reality that I experience with my senses does not need to exist for 'the cogito' be true, any sort of reality might exist. How do you move beyond that first axiom?

Also, if we have an axiom for "consciousness", and an axiom for "existence", how do we explain the fact that my consciousness seems to affect reality (i.e., I consciously make decisions and act on them in 'reality')? If my consciousness can affect objective existence, wouldn't that show that it is merely another part of objective existence, and therefore doesn't need its own axiom?

Thanks

[DavidOdden]

But couldn't we still just have 1 axiom, as in 'cogito ergo sum'? The reality that I experience with my senses does not need to exist for 'the cogito' be true, any sort of reality might exist. How do you move beyond that first axiom?

This particular axiom doesn't properly count an an axiom, because it begs the question (and engages in horse-cart inversion). It makes existence depend on consciousness, whereas in fact it's the other way around -- existence does not entail that there is a consciousness. Since Descartes was a bloody theist, he of course failed to get the point that consciousness has not always existed, so he evaded that little flaw in his reasoning. Looking at the logical relations between concepts, there can be no "cogito" without there being a cogitor, i.e. a being whose nature includes consciousness. So cogito depends on the three axioms of Objectivism, but fails to correctly state how the parts are separable and how they combine to derive a proper version of cogito. Note BTW that word-economy is not the primary virtue of philosophical axiomatization, so the fact that Descartes cooked up a single sentence that expresses a derived conclusion is not an advantage: and the fact that his system fails to cover the fact that the universe exists independent of consciousnesses.

Also, if we have an axiom for "consciousness", and an axiom for "existence", how do we explain the fact that my consciousness seems to affect reality (i.e., I consciously make decisions and act on them in 'reality')? If my consciousness can affect objective existence, wouldn't that show that it is merely another part of objective existence, and therefore doesn't need its own axiom?

That's why the primary axiom is existence. Note that the axioms are not just chucked out there willy-nilly, so that the axiom that existence is (or entails) an identity logically depends on there being existence. The fact of existence does not depend on there being any consciousness (indeed, there had to be a time when there was no consciousness); consciousness, OTOH, does logically depend on existence (there's no such thing as pure, detached consciousness -- consciousness implies "of something"). It's a mistake to try to reduce all of philosophy to a single axiom.

[AisA]

Let me add to David's comments by saying that Objectivism holds it axioms to be perceptually self-evident: 1) that something exists (existence), and that the something that exists is something specific, i.e. it possess identity; 2) that you exist and are conscious, consciousness being the faculty that allows you to be aware that something exists. "Self-evident" means that these inescapable truths are perceived directly from the evidence of your own senses and your awareness of what is going on in your own mind.

[DavidOdden]

Let me add to David's comments by saying that Objectivism holds it axioms to be perceptually self-evident: 1) that something exists (existence), and that the something that exists is something specific, i.e. it possess identity; 2) that you exist and are conscious, consciousness being the faculty that allows you to be aware that something exists. "Self-evident" means that these inescapable truths are perceived directly from the evidence of your own senses and your awareness of what is going on in your own mind.

Good points. Something that is often lost in discussions of "how do you derive..." is that axioms aren't abstract metaphysical objects which are just "out there", which we bump into like we might bump into a new planet. Axioms are about or part of epistemology, and epistemology is about the relationship between a consciousness and the nature of existence. it would be quite contradictory to deny existence, consciousness and identity while professing an interesting in how to relate existence, consciousness and identity.

[dougclayton]

But couldn't we still just have 1 axiom, as in 'cogito ergo sum'? The reality that I experience with my senses does not need to exist for 'the cogito' be true, any sort of reality might exist. How do you move beyond that first axiom?

I'd like to add another point to the two points already made: even in saying, "I think, therefore I am", you have already relied on both existence and identity (and, of course, consciousness). If you exist, then there is an existence and you can tell what it is (namely, that it is you and not something else).

This shows up in your statement: "The reality that I experience with my senses does not need to exist for 'the cogito' be true, any sort of reality might exist." You've already relied on the axioms, because to claim that reality's nature is different than your senses indicate is to claim that 1) there is a reality, and 2) it has a nature. This is why they are axioms--it is simply not possible to assert anything without implicitly relying on them. If you don't believe me, try it.

By the way, the axioms do not state "what sort of reality" exists--just that it does exist. (Even "having identity" is not an additional constraint on existence--as Rand showed, identity is an inseparable aspect of existence.)

If my consciousness can affect objective existence, wouldn't that show that it is merely another part of objective existence, and therefore doesn't need its own axiom?

It might not be so important to always point out if there weren't all kinds of people worried that they can't prove they exist, or demanding that you prove you exist.

[Capitalism Forever]

But couldn't we still just have 1 axiom, as in 'cogito ergo sum'?

The three axioms can be summed up by the sentence: "There is something I am aware of."

"There is" -- existence. "Something" -- identity. "I am aware of" -- consciousness.

But, as David has already pointed out, minimizing the number of axioms is not our goal. We prefer to state all three facts separately for clarity.

If my consciousness can affect objective existence, wouldn't that show that it is merely another part of objective existence, and therefore doesn't need its own axiom?

Your consciousness is definitely a part of existence. But existence can exist without your consciousness; this is why the fact of your consciousness needs to be stated separately, as an additional piece of data on what exists.

[Inspector]

Also, if axioms are, by definition, unprovable, how can you be sure that these are true...

Although the axioms are more primary than the concept "proof," and therefore cannot be "proved," they can be verified directly through sense perception.

[jrs]

So Objectivism has 3 axioms: Consciousness, Existence, and Identity?

Personally, I like this formulation of them:

Existence: Some things exist, including the things which I perceive.

Identity: Every thing is something specific; and it acts according to its nature.

Consciousness: I am conscious of the things which I perceive; and my perceptions reflect reality.

[nzcanadian]

I'd like to add another point to the two points already made: even in saying, "I think, therefore I am", you have already relied on both existence and identity (and, of course, consciousness). If you exist, then there is an existence and you can tell what it is (namely, that it is you and not something else).

This shows up in your statement: "The reality that I experience with my senses does not need to exist for 'the cogito' be true, any sort of reality might exist." You've already relied on the axioms, because to claim that reality's nature is different than your senses indicate is to claim that 1) there is a reality, and 2) it has a nature. This is why they are axioms--it is simply not possible to assert anything without implicitly relying on them. If you don't believe me, try it.

By the way, the axioms do not state "what sort of reality" exists--just that it does exist. (Even "having identity" is not an additional constraint on existence--as Rand showed, identity is an inseparable aspect of existence.)

It might not be so important to always point out if there weren't all kinds of people worried that they can't prove they exist, or demanding that you prove you exist.

Thanks for all the responses.

I think I see what you mean with respect to the cogito. It really implies the 3 axioms.

However, what if I restricted it to "*Blue Desk*" or "*Happy Agreeableness*" -i.e., only the perception I am getting at any one time? Then it would even be possible to doubt 5+7=12. All I would have is a feeling of it being true. I mean, if we are being strict about it, why stop at the cogito?

[dougclayton]

I think I see what you mean with respect to the cogito. It really implies the 3 axioms.

However, what if I restricted it to "*Blue Desk*" or "*Happy Agreeableness*" -i.e., only the perception I am getting at any one time?

Well, those aren't statements, and thus can't be axioms**. But if I made them into statements, you'd have "I perceive a blue desk," which clearly relies on all three. Even "I am feeling happy agreeableness" does (to be a consciousness capable of any emotion, you'd have to a consciousness of some existence, and to be feeling "happy agreeableness" instead of "sad miserableness", emotions would have to have identity).

**Don't forget that "existence, identity, and consciousness" are shorthand for the actual axioms, roughly: "existence exists and has identity and I am conscious". This is not the same as the axiomatic concepts of existence, identity and consciousness.

Then it would even be possible to doubt 5+7=12. All I would have is a feeling of it being true. I mean, if we are being strict about it, why stop at the cogito?

The point of axioms isn't to tell us what we can and cannot doubt. That is a wholly Cartesian approach that you seem to be taking. The purpose of axioms is to tell us the starting point for knowledge (which means, in effect, the ending point for tracing something back to reality). And to serve this purpose, they must be the widest abstractions (which rules out your examples, although not Descartes' cogito) and relied on by everyone at all times.

[nzcanadian]

Should Occam's Razor be another axiom? Otherwise, how do we stop religious axioms from being introduced? For example, if the axiom "The bible is always true" is introduced, then you have to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, etc.

Or is Occam's Razor somehow implied by the first three axioms and their application to our sense data?

[dougclayton]

Should Occam's Razor be another axiom?

Absolutely not. "When there is more than one explanation, the simplest one is correct" is in no way an axiom. Why can't the complex explanation be true? How do I rely on the fact that the simplest explanation is true when I claim that a complex explanation is true?

Otherwise, how do we stop religious axioms from being introduced? For example, if the axiom "The bible is always true" is introduced, then you have to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, etc.

To be a philosophical axiom, it would have to be used in any attempt to refute it (for examples, see my previous post). How do I rely on the truth of "the bible is always true" when I say "the bible is not always true"?

[JMeganSnow]

Existence: Some things exist, including the things which I perceive.

How do you know that these implied things that you DON'T perceive exist, the things that you DO perceive being construed automatically as members of a group? When you're talking perceptual self-evidencies, that's a non sequitur; the only way to arrive at a conclusion of this kind would be to have the existence of these other things impressed into your brain via divine intervention. Only later, after you've accepted the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity, as well as a whole bunch of other things, can you conclude that things you aren't perceiving do exist. Asserting such at this stage turns the existence axiom into an arbitrary declaration.

Identity: Every thing is something specific; and it acts according to its nature.

The second part of this statement describes the principle of causality, which is not an axiom, but a corrolary; you can't incorporate causality into identity in one fell swoop.

Consciousness: I am conscious of the things which I perceive; and my perceptions reflect reality.

"To perceive" and "to be conscious of" are the same thing; the first part of this sentence is meaningless verbiage, and the second part is a total non sequitur; you have to demonstrate the validity of the senses before you can claim that your perceptions reflect reality.

Why do you prefer this formulation, exactly?

[DavidOdden]

Should Occam's Razor be another axiom?

Well, I have a slightly different answer, based on my position on what Occam's Razor actually states. It basically says that arbitrary statements are disallowed. That is, of course, correct, but it is not an axiom. The non-axiomatic nature of OR, a.k.a. "No Arbitrariness" is evident from the fact that it is explicable in terms of more basic concepts, in particular those that relate to what "reasoning" is ("No Arbitrariness" says something about proper reasoning, so it depends on notions of "proper", which presupposes "purpose". The purpose of reasoning is certainly not perceptually self-evident (lord knows, billions of people screw it up), so OR can't be an axiom.

Your example of an arbitrary dictum about earth age simply fails to satisfy the definition of "axiom". An axiom is not any old random arbitrary statement.

[jrs]

Why do you prefer this formulation, exactly?

I was trying to explain the axioms in a way that would be immediately clear to intelligent non-Objectivists (and to myself). So I wanted to avoid Objectivist jargon. And I wanted to make it unnecessary to give external explanations, like "By 'Existence exists.', what I mean is ...".

Existence: Some things exist, including the things which I perceive.

How do you know that these implied things that you DON'T perceive exist, the things that you DO perceive being construed automatically as members of a group?

First, my statement does NOT say that anything other than what I perceive exists. It leaves that open.

But even if someone mistakenly read it (as you did) to include an affirmation of the existence of other things, so what? No Objectivist would seriously contend that such other things do not exist. I was not trying to give a minimalist statement of the axioms. It would be impossible to do that in words anyway.

Identity: Every thing is something specific; and it acts according to its nature.

The second part of this statement describes the principle of causality, which is not an axiom, but a corollary; you can't incorporate causality into identity in one fell swoop.

Once again, I was not trying to state the axioms in a minimalist way. I was trying to state them clearly. I felt that a non-Objectivist would not immediately see that causality was consequence of identity. So I added it explicitly. Sure, it is redundant. But so what?

Consciousness: I am conscious of the things which I perceive; and my perceptions reflect reality.

"To perceive" and "to be conscious of" are the same thing; the first part of this sentence is meaningless verbiage, ...

No. Consciousness also contains: memories, abstractions (concepts), plans, inferences, emotions, volition, etc..

The first clause says that my consciousness exists and that it contains at least my perceptions.

Now I see that I have had to give one of those external explanations which I was trying to avoid.

... and the second part is a total non sequitur; you have to demonstrate the validity of the senses before you can claim that your perceptions reflect reality.

"non-sequitur" is not applicable here because I was not trying to make an argument.

I was trying to tie the content of consciousness back to existence in order to make the axioms work as a whole. This was intended to rule out the claims that what we perceive are just illusions or dreams. Once again, this may not be strictly part of the axiom, but a non-Objectivist would need it to understand the axiom.

[LauricAcid]

"When there is more than one explanation, the simplest one is correct" is in no way an axiom.

Nor is it Occam's Razor.

what Occam's Razor actually states. It basically says that arbitrary statements are disallowed.

That depends on your definition of 'arbitrary statement' and on your explanation of how that bears upon what Occam's Razor "actually" and "basically" states.

[DavidOdden]

That depends on your definition of 'arbitrary statement' and on your explanation of how that bears upon what Occam's Razor "actually" and "basically" states.

Well, I assume that you do actually understand what an arbitrary statement is: one which lacks any positive or negative) supporting evidence. Whether or not you agree with Objectivist epistemology, you should at least understand the fundamental ideas. I could have said pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate with some elaboration of what constitutes necessity, and I would support that interpretation by pointing to Ockham's argument that the existence of god cannot be deduced from reason alone. Though since he didn't invent this razor, it doesn't matter much what his personal feelings about the matter were.

[LauricAcid]

Yes, I have noted how ITOE uses 'arbitrary', but I have also noted that the term is used in different senses by different posters. So your defintion is 'not having positive or negative supporting evidence', which is good enough for a start (though I don't know what negative supporting evidence would be). Meanwhile, Occam's Razor has been formulated in many different ways by different philosophers. Whatever Occam himself had in mind is relevant but the principle has been given variations through centuries of philosophy. Anyway, I still don't know what your argument is for the equivalence of Occam's Razor (in any of its common variations) with 'Statements should not lack positive or negative evidence', though it is, of course, entirely your prerogative not to state your argument.

Edited September 23, 2005 by LauricAcid

[dougclayton]

Nor is it Occam's Razor.

Fine, I will quote from two sources on the web:

From http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html:

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor:

Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed.

-or-

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simplest.

How is my summary essentially different from those? Furthermore, even in any of those forms, how is it an axiom?

[LauricAcid]

I got an error message from your first link. Your second link provides discussion that shows the priniciple isn't reduced to saying that the simplest explanation is correct. To say that one should not make unneeded assumptions is just not equivalent to saying that the simplest explanation is correct. As to being an axiom, I haven't opined that it should be one.

From one of your links:

"Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simplest."

Note "equally predicative", which your formulation leaves out, thus making the principle just silly.

"Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."

Note "all other things being equal", which your formulation leaves out, thus making the principle just silly.

And you quoted "The simplest explanation is usually the best." But the source of your quote goes on to say:

"This is an over-simplification, or at least a little misleading. The second problem with the "simplest is best" equation is that Occam's razor never claims to choose the 'best' theory, but only proposes simplicity as the deciding factor in choosing between two otherwise equal theories. It's possible that, given more information, the more complex theory might turn out to be correct the majority of the time."

EDITED: Added specific quotes and comments on them.

Edited September 23, 2005 by LauricAcid

[DavidOdden]

Anyway, I still don't know what your argument is for the equivalence of Occam's Razor (in any of its common variations) with 'Statements should not lack positive or negative evidence', though it is, of course, entirely your prerogative not to state your argument.

Since I just quoted OR, I can only surmise that you dispute the interpretation. But I cannot imagine on what basis, so I'd say that the ball is in your court.

[LauricAcid]

You quoted a version of Occam's Razor, fair enough. And you stated a principle that statements should not be without positive or negative evidence, fair enough. But you also claim that the quote and your own statement convey the same principle. I just said that that is for you to demonstrate or not, as you choose. That doesn't imply that I hold that the quoted version of Occam's Razor is not a reasonable summary of the principle. There's no ball in my court here.