The Objectivist Axioms

[DarkReaver13]

Hi, I would like to know how anyone can argue against the three axioms of Objectivism.

That existence exists, that consciousness is conscious and that reality has a definite nature (A is A).

I have been on my own, debating against them in a 36 page thread at Capitalist Paradise forums and I have now come to accept them.

I've gone from being very skeptical about metaphysics / epistemology, to being objective about them. I'd like to see if anyone can come up with arguments that I hadn't thought of, thought it's unlikely since I pulled just about every trick in the book.

I don't consider myself an Objectivist, as I don't agree with the stuff about judging values. Not yet anyway.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Those axioms are logically true, that is, as they define them.
Unfortunately, yr typical objectivist is incapable, ironicly, of objectively proving dick all.

"Existence exists," indeed, because we define at as such, in the same sense that one and one, necessarily, are two.

Problems arise when we ask what an "Objectivist" means by existence . . . their hold on reality is slippery.

[DarkReaver13]

Well.. if we say existence is basically ... "something" as opposed to nothing. You can't really argue that nothing exists, irrespective of what we call it.

Conscious is conscious since I am typing this.

A is A, as far as we can see, since things don't teleport around, change colour, change size or turn into something else at random.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:09 PM








That existence exists, that consciousness is conscious and that reality has a definite nature (A is A).

Of course existence exists, its existence, thats not an axiom for objectivism but taken for granted by everybody, ever.

Same with conciousness.

Reality has a definate nature, well perhaps reality looks as it is. What do you think that means, I mean nothing is being said at all here.


I have been on my own, debating against them in a 36 page thread at Capitalist Paradise forums and I have now come to accept them.

Read some Phenomenology, hell read REAL Analytic philosophy and laugh at yourself for accepting the All is as it is philosophy of objectivism. The world exists is not a philosophy, it is an observation.


I've gone from being very skeptical about metaphysics / epistemology, to being objective about them. I'd like to see if anyone can come up with arguments that I hadn't thought of, thought it's unlikely since I pulled just about every trick in the book.

Whats objective about the relationship between subject and object, when an object comes into view for us it exists for conciousness, when conciousness views and object it is for the object, the world is inter-subjective. There is a primordial point in which they meet.



I don't consider myself an Objectivist, as I don't agree with the stuff about judging values. Not yet anyway.

Ok, this sucks, terribly. Give me your doubts or reasons why you should be one and I'll show you the errors, no wait the illogic of your ways...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:16 PM




Well.. if we say existence is basically ... "something" as opposed to nothing. You can't really argue that nothing exists, irrespective of what we call it.

So what? This is not a problem.


Conscious is conscious since I am typing this.

Once again so what, whats the contradiction, who are you arguing?



A is A, as far as we can see, since things don't teleport around, change colour, change size or turn into something else at random.

A is not A is Sanskrit or Chinese as such or is it? I mean its an invention, something man created. It is not objective, it was created by man, just like all concepts and values including objectivism which makes no claims philosophical. It preaches morality, a greedy one.

[DarkReaver13]

Ok, this sucks, terribly. Give me your doubts or reasons why you should be one and I'll show you the errors, no wait the illogic of your ways...
Hehe, I know, a while back I was here saying how much I disliked objectivism. I have accepted the three axioms and a couple of other things thus far, and that took me eight months..

The reasons to be an Objectivist would because it might be right, at least some of it.

Okay so you agree with two of the "axioms", but not "A is A".


Whats objective about the relationship between subject and object, when an object comes into view for us it exists for conciousness, when conciousness views and object it is for the object, the world is inter-subjective. There is a primordial point in which they meet.
I have gone over this so much at capitalist paradise. The whole "reality vs perceived reality" thing. Our perception is not objective, because our brain creates whatever it is we experience, but it is initially based on external reality. It at least gives us a representation of the world which we can use to live and act within it. Evidently. This is my view anyway.


Once again so what, whats the contradiction, who are you arguing?
I've seen people trying to argue against this. "Consciousness" is only how we define it and may not be what we think it is blah blah. I'm just making sure.


A is not A is Sanskrit or Chinese as such or is it? I mean its an invention, something man created. It is not objective, it was created by man, just like all concepts and values including objectivism which makes no claims philosophical. It preaches morality, a greedy one.
I don't think it preaches morality, that is more the values and self-responsibility aspect, and the non-inititation of force thing.

It was created by man sure, but so is everything really. The whole world could be a dream in my mind, but that would mean I'm talking to myself and everything becomes quite pointless. Why can't we trust our image of the world? It's all we've got! We see things as obeying the laws of the universe; gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces. This makes things behave in a certain way. As I said, things don't teleport around, change colour, change size or turn into something else at random. There is an order to things. I have been reading about quantum nonlocality though, which suggests strange things, but at a submolecular level.

Really, we can live according to our perception of the world, or we can just kind of sit there and wriggle about, and as fun as wriggling sounds; I think living according to my perception will probably be the best option.

As for my doubts about Objectivism, it is about value judgement, objective values, and that reason is not a seperate entity as they suggest, but it rests on a foundation of knowledge (to do with people are fully to blame for their actions).

Hope that gives you something to reply to, I've just woken up so it might be a little random.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I have gone over this so much at capitalist paradise. The whole "reality vs perceived reality" thing. Our perception is not objective, because our brain creates whatever it is we experience, but it is initially based on external reality. It at least gives us a representation of the world which we can use to live and act within it. Evidently. This is my view anyway.

Our brain encounters experience, it experiences. External reality exists outside the brain and is there itself, the brain is there itself, neither is worth more. They both compliment each other. It is not objective because external reality gives us our experience of the world, all that says is that external reality gives us external reality. It has no nothing to say about the relation between them, a common objectivist follow is to think in that way.


I don't think it preaches morality, that is more the values and self-responsibility aspect, and the non-inititation of force thing.

What about the selfish aspect, tell me what you think objectivist teachs the individual to do in life...


It was created by man sure, but so is everything really.

Awfully subjective eh?



The whole world could be a dream in my mind, but that would mean I'm talking to myself and everything becomes quite pointless.

We make meaning out of it regardless.


There is an order to things. I have been reading about quantum nonlocality though, which suggests strange things, but at a submolecular level.

You mean an order to nature, perhaps. When people like me say there is no order we mean history, ideas, religion etc. not science.



Really, we can live according to our perception of the world, or we can just kind of sit there and wriggle about, and as fun as wriggling sounds; I think living according to my perception will probably be the best option.

What philosophy dosent preach this?

[DarkReaver13]

Our brain encounters experience, it experiences. External reality exists outside the brain and is there itself, the brain is there itself, neither is worth more. They both compliment each other. It is not objective because external reality gives us our experience of the world, all that says is that external reality gives us external reality. It has no nothing to say about the relation between them, a common objectivist follow is to think in that way.
Not sure if I follow you here. If we act in accordance with our perception of reality, we are able to live and "do stuff". What is there to suggest our perception is "inaccurate"?


What about the selfish aspect, tell me what you think objectivist teachs the individual to do in life...
Well they say you should act in your own best interests, not in the interests of anyone else. I sort of agree, but what constitutes being "beneficial to the self" is a bit fuzzy. I haven't really started much on ethics yet, I want to settle my metaphysical and epistemological viewpoint first.


Awfully subjective eh?
We create our perception, but our perceptions are all based on the same reality. We are all trying to operate within this reality. Imagining something doesn't make it appear in reality. I have tried..


We make meaning out of it regardless.
Exactly.


You mean an order to nature, perhaps. When people like me say there is no order we mean history, ideas, religion etc. not science.
Yes I mean order in nature / science. Order in ideas / religion / morality is ethics, which I am only just making a start on. Still, these things are still derived from our perception of reality, and should be built on this.


What philosophy dosent preach this?
I don't know, I haven't read that many books yet. I came from a sociological background. I assume that means you agree then.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:20 AM













Not sure if I follow you here. If we act in accordance with our perception of reality, we are able to live and "do stuff". What is there to suggest our perception is "inaccurate"?

Where do I say it's inaccurate, I am simply saying its not purely objective, the external world has no precedence over the mind and they are equal etc. We can do stuff regardless of whether we are objectivists or not...


Well they say you should act in your own best interests, not in the interests of anyone else. I sort of agree, but what constitutes being "beneficial to the self" is a bit fuzzy. I haven't really started much on ethics yet, I want to settle my metaphysical and epistemological viewpoint first.

Time for you to start reading Philosophy so, I can give you some links to some works on Phenomenology, or even look at something on Philosophy of mind, or else you might end up actually being a Randroid thus ruining any credibility you may have should you try study philosophy anywhere.



We create our perception, but our perceptions are all based on the same reality. We are all trying to operate within this reality. Imagining something doesn't make it appear in reality. I have tried..

So?


Exactly.

So?


Yes I mean order in nature / science. Order in ideas / religion / morality is ethics, which I am only just making a start on. Still, these things are still derived from our perception of reality, and should be built on this.

Here's where objectivism gets dangerous, these are concepts that have origins in society nothing more. Our perception of reality can easily shift and has done so, there is no objective way to view morality. Do you derive feelings of pity from morality or do you feel guiilty, where does the feeling come from, your eyes see the action, your mind reacts etc, all that happens in the real world are sensations that act on your conciousness.


I don't know, I haven't read that many books yet. I came from a sociological background. I assume that means you agree then.

You are slowly being lost to the lowest, most criticized, cult like philosophy in it's history. You need to start looking around, if you really want to serve yourself, free your mind from groups like the Randians who talk about freedom but are tied to their axioms.

[DarkReaver13]

You are slowly being lost to the lowest, most criticized, cult like philosophy in it's history. You need to start looking around, if you really want to serve yourself, free your mind from groups like the Randians who talk about freedom but are tied to their axioms.
Firstly, I don't want to be associated with the ideas or philosophy of any "group". I want a personal philosophy which reflects what I think. I don't care if this Rand woman happens to have thought some similar things years ago, or if Kant, Nietzche, Hegel etc. etc. also had similar ideas. I'll present my ideas, and if actual flaws in them can be presented, I'll simply change them. I still live and act the same as I did before I knew anything about philosophy, and will probably continue to do so.. I like humour, creativity and unusual things.


Where do I say it's inaccurate, I am simply saying its not purely objective, the external world has no precedence over the mind and they are equal etc. We can do stuff regardless of whether we are objectivists or not...
What exactly do you mean by "objective"? All I am saying is that there is a world out there. All of us exist within it. We experience it. We act on it. For example we know moving our legs like this.. (*walks*), makes us move forward, etc. It works for everyone. That is what I mean by objective.


Time for you to start reading Philosophy so, I can give you some links to some works on Phenomenology, or even look at something on Philosophy of mind, or else you might end up actually being a Randroid thus ruining any credibility you may have should you try study philosophy anywhere.
I don't intend to study philosophy formally anywhere. I am doing a degree in Digital Media. I study philosophy because I enjoy it. I'd be happy to read anything you suggest.


Here's where objectivism gets dangerous, these are concepts that have origins in society nothing more. Our perception of reality can easily shift and has done so, there is no objective way to view morality. Do you derive feelings of pity from morality or do you feel guiilty, where does the feeling come from, your eyes see the action, your mind reacts etc, all that happens in the real world are sensations that act on your conciousness.
Well, morality must be based on something which in the end, is derived from reality. Emotional reactions could either be based on a preset human nature, which makes them objectively defined, or based on our choices and what we value, which make them subjective. I believe our emotions are caused by our values. We value things according to whether they are beneficial to our life or not. In reality, something is beneficial, detramental or possibly neutral. We have to judge which it is, but we might be wrong. That's what I think at the moment.

[ComradeRed]

Hasn't it bothered anyone that Objectivism isn't objective? There are several interpretations of the philosophy(Kellyites and Peikofites, and good ol' randroids).

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Firstly, I don't want to be associated with the ideas or philosophy of any "group".

If you want a personal philosophy you will need to see the mistakes of the past 2000 years so you dont fall into them yourself, thats the point of studying anything.



What exactly do you mean by "objective"? All I am saying is that there is a world out there. All of us exist within it. We experience it. We act on it. For example we know moving our legs like this.. (*walks*), makes us move forward, etc. It works for everyone. That is what I mean by objective.

I dont get it, everybody knows this? Common sense. Only extreme idealists would disagree.


I don't intend to study philosophy formally anywhere. I am doing a degree in Digital Media. I study philosophy because I enjoy it. I'd be happy to read anything you suggest.

Ok, I'll do you up a list and send it to you when I have a chance.



Well, morality must be based on something which in the end, is derived from reality. Emotional reactions could either be based on a preset human nature, which makes them objectively defined, or based on our choices and what we value, which make them subjective.

Morality has a history and origin just like everything else, it is a human creation to stop us killing each other. Thats the only reason for it, survival. Good and evil mean nothing outside of culture.

[DarkReaver13]

Originally posted by ComradeRed
Hasn't it bothered anyone that Objectivism isn't objective? There are several interpretations of the philosophy(Kellyites and Peikofites, and good ol' randroids).
I'd personally say that the only "Objectivism" is the one that Rand actually wrote. Any of the sub-thingies aren't Objectivism, but are actually Kellyism, Peikofism .. etc. I'm considering buying "Introduction to ComradeRedism". I've heard good things, and it's only $6.99 on Amazon. ;)

[DarkReaver13]

Originally posted by Geist+--> (Geist)If you want a personal philosophy you will need to see the mistakes of the past 2000 years so you dont fall into them yourself, thats the point of studying anything.[/b]
Well yeah I suppose so.


I dont get it, everybody knows this? Common sense. Only extreme idealists would disagree.
Okay, so what's all the fuss about reality not being "objective".


Originally posted by [email protected]
Ok, I'll do you up a list and send it to you when I have a chance.
Cheers bud.


Geist
Morality has a history and origin just like everything else, it is a human creation to stop us killing each other. Thats the only reason for it, survival. Good and evil mean nothing outside of culture.
Yes, I agree, outside of culture they mean nothing because the universe doesn't "care", it's completely neutral. Ethics by it's very definition is only applicable in the context of us as human beings. As you say, it's so we can survive. It's figuring out the best way to do so where the conflict lies.

I've also posted this topic on talkphilosophy. Aren't they your forums Geist? Would it be better to continue over there rather than having two of the same thread on here and there simultaneously?

[ComradeRed]

I'd personally say that the only "Objectivism" is the one that Rand actually wrote. And the interpretations thereof. Objectivism isn't, ironically enough, objective. For some reason, every interpretation of Rand is Objectivism. If it were objective, it wouldn't be relative. Objectivity would require an objective reference, an ideal reference...which would presuppose the existence of an ideal reality, which contradicts the only reality is an objective one. And the notion of an objective reality contradicts the notion that there isn't any absolute objective reference. My, oh my, is Objectivism contradictory!


I'm considering buying "Introduction to ComradeRedism". I've heard good things, and it's only $6.99 on Amazon. Yeah, that'd be the day, when I set up a cargo cult based on the frenzy of irrationality and irrational selfishness. "I'm rational dammit! RATIONAL!!!" And all this for the low, low price of $99,999.99 :lol:

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:08 PM


I've also posted this topic on talkphilosophy. Aren't they your forums Geist? Would it be better to continue over there rather than having two of the same thread on here and there simultaneously?

They text is too small for my eyes, I'm waiting for MemorY to change the skins back.

[DarkReaver13]

They text is too small for my eyes, I'm waiting for MemorY to change the skins back.
You do know you can change it in my controls > skin settings?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Yeah, I'm just waiting for the board to go back to the old style thats all.