All Proper Axioms Must Be Taken On Faith

[pastoral engineer]

There can be no proof of an axiom for it to be properly axiomatic.

If one claims, "I believe Axiom I to be true because..." than Axiom I is not axiomatic, but only a proposition supported by argument that is itself in need of evalution.

OTOH, If one simply claims "Axiom I is true" this becomes an unsupported faith claim. (This should not have to be considered a bad thing)

To this, one might suggest that the reason to claim Axiom I as being true is that it is unquestionable.

This may fall victim to the first complaint in that it provides a reason to support Axiom I.

Yet, even if that were rejected, one would objectively have to state that many, many people, including past adhearants reject (for example) the axioms of Objectivism. Even if, every one of those rejectors were mistaken, it would no longer be possible to suggest the Axioms were unquestionable, because objectively the Axioms are questioned.

To suggest that no one has defeated the Axioms is only to say that their arguments against do not stand up to the arguments in favor, which would unfortunately return us to the first test suggesting they are not properly Axiomatic to begin with.

In the end, to base one's philosophical structure on an Axiomatic base is a decision of faith.

It is more helpful to think in terms of a non-foundationalist epistemology that recognizes that all Axioms, all prolegomenas are in play, subject to debate and consideration. The result is not a descent into relativism, but rather the noble persuit (quite in line with objectivism) of evaluating ideas based on their apparent corespondence with reality and their internal cohearance.

Unfortunately, this does not result in unquestionably true results, but neither is it a flight from objective reality. Rather, it is a process intent on improving our otherwise approximate and as yet imperfect understanding of that objective reality.

[hunterrose]

Not proveable" does not equal "not supportable," though.

I don't think the Objectivist axioms are supposed to be "unquestionable," but moreso that any intelligible statement depends on them being true. What kind of counter-argument could be made that isn't stated in a perceivable way (consciousness,) doesn't use different words (identity,) doesn't in fact use any words (existence?)

How could one consider a potential axiom of "nothing exists" or "identity doesn't exist?" Either proposition, in order to be true, would have to respectively not be a proposition or not be distinguishable from other propositions as far as I can tell.

And I strongly disagree that accepting the axioms is a matter of faith

[pastoral engineer]

Not proveable" does not equal "not supportable," though.

And I strongly disagree that accepting the axioms is a matter of faith

An Axiom supported is not an axiom at all for then its support becomes the proper axiom (and so on)

Is there a third option beyond accepting an Axiom for a reason or by faith?

I simply chose the objectivism axioms for convenience. I have no need to argue them in this topic, just the more basic problem of foundational epistimology.

[Proverb]

There can be no proof of an axiom for it to be properly axiomatic.

[...]In the end, to base one's philosophical structure on an Axiomatic base is a decision of faith.

Consider what is required for you to make these statements; not in specific relation to axioms, but as statements in and of themselves. For you to make any claim or argument or rational observation of reality you must submit to the primacy of existence and the law of identity.

The nature of the Axioms of Objectivism is not matter of choice, argument, or proof. It is the basic fact that choice, argument, or a burden of proof would not exist without them.

A philosophy that is wholly rooted in reality, namely Objectivism, is not possible without recognizing the basic principles that differentiate reality from non-reality. It's not a matter of faith, and the only choice involved is to think, or not to think. To live or to die.

To seek proof of the Axioms of Objectivism is redundant and meaningless. A is A

I don't mean to be short. It's just that everything starts from this point. The whole of Objectivism and the basic process of rational thought follows from these two axioms. The Law of Identity and the Primacy of Existence.

[pastoral engineer]

Consider what is required for you to make these statements; not in specific relation to axioms, but as statements in and of themselves. For you to make any claim or argument or rational observation of reality you must submit to the primacy of existence and the law of identity.

The nature of the Axioms of Objectivism is not matter of choice, argument, or proof. It is the basic fact that choice, argument, or a burden of proof would not exist without them.

The first of these paragraphs amounts to argument prior to axiom.

The second amounts to dogma.

Again, I am not arguing the axioms of objectivism, just the process of choosing to begin with supposedly foundational axioms rather than the non-foundational approach of evaluating based soley on coorespondence and cohearance.

Further, if one were to simply promote the Axiom A=A, it would not be a useful axiom, but a truism. Any work built on this basis would necessarily inherit additional meaning before the first layer of inference that should have been evaluated as part of the original axiom.

Finally, you have an additional unspoken axiom with your first two. That is Axiom P (for process) that the correct process for uncovering truth is to begin with an unquestionable set of axioms and then proceed with the formal system of pure logic to identify Truth. This is certainly not a proper axiom as it is in active debate - ie it's acceptance requires proof or faith.

Edited January 25, 2006 by pastoral engineer

[Groovenstein]

I am closing this thread as it violates the forum rules in about 18,326 different ways. We have a place for people who wish to spout ideas contrary to Objectivism. It's called the "Debate Forum."