Objectivism
Posted on May 4th, 2009 by Todd W
So far, nothing has been more impressive to me in the philosophical realm than Objectivism. I believe you will be hard-pressed to arrive at a more self-consistent, rigorous philosophy than this. After working my way through Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and most of the way through The Voice of Reason, I feel certain I have discovered what I’ve been looking for. Highly recommended to anyone who wants to see through the poison that is altruism and self-sacrifice. We would all be a lot better off if Objectivist thinking gained dominance.
Filed under: Personal
I agree. It was a life-transforming event in my life.
It's too bad that the founding statement behind objectivism is self-refuting. Otherwise, I too might be tempted to adopt it as a life philosophy.
Care to explain what you mean, or are you just trying to send me in to a rage this morning with more Calvinist fecal flinging?
Okay, let's review the founding statement(s) of Objectivism….
1) that existence exists (i.e., there is a reality),
2) that to exist is to be something (A is A, the law of identity), and
3) that consciousness is consciousness of something (the axiom of consciousness).
Would you wish to deny these? That would be a neat trick, because to deny these axioms is to endorse them, which is precisely what Calvinist poo-flingers accuse everyone else of doing.
To deny the axioms, you must stand within reality as a point of reference. You can't very well stand outside of reality, nor can you coherently deny your own existence.
Identity must exist or we would get quite confused regarding who is doing the denying and what is being denied. To deny identity is another incoherent act of self-abnegation.
Finally, to deny consciousness is to strip yourself of the very tools of argument. I'm not even sure where to go with that one.
So please, how are these simple axioms self-refuting? And can you refute them without borrowing them in the task?
Of course I'm trying to raise your Irish. Thought you had it under control. I'll shut up.
I understood Objectivism to assert an objective reality. That's what I thought was meant by "existence exists". Is that correct?
Sorry if it appeared I snapped at you. Yeah, nothing spikes my blood pressure like a brush with any aspect of Calvinism. So far, I am unwilling to consider Calivnism without tangling it up in contempt, scorn, and outright hatred. My cross to bear, so to speak, but I'm fine with it. Jerks.
Ahem…
To avoid taking the conversation in to areas that might be outside of your intended scope, I'll limit the answer to your question. The axiom 'existence exists' confirms the existence of existence. In Objectivist thinking, an axiom has qualities:
Not inferred from prior truths
A perceptually self-evident fact
Conceptually irreducible
Implicit in all knowledge and any statement
It must be assumed even in denying it
I submit that 'existence exists' meets these criteria. It affirms reality. We know existence exists because we have awareness of existence. There can be no 'prior truths' outside of existence, because they have no where to stand or exist. It is irreducible. Reality is real. Unreality is unreal. Unreality therefore is not a viable starting point for an axiom, as it does not exist. To even attempt to refute existence, one must incorporate existence within your attempt, affirming what you deny.
These three axioms are the foundation of the Objectivist philosophy.
One might claim that these are circular or tautological. A rhetorical tautology is a technique of using different words to say the same thing, appearing to add new meaning without doing so. That isn't the case here, as I am stating existence exists (same words, affirming a concept). A logical tautology is a construct that is always true regardless of circumstances. It is immutable, and therefore quite useful as a foundational element of philosophy. While a rhetorical tautology is trivial, a logical tautology is essential to testing truth. This is somewhat different than conversation we've had in the past when I wrongfully dismissed things AS tautologies and therefore, trivial and meaningless. My error has since been corrected with a more essential understanding.
I suspect that even, ahem, a Calvinist (*#&&$&%^)…..would affirm that existence exists. But then again, they constantly surprise me in their willingness to disregard (remainder of tirade redacted).
And I forgot to add to the above comment – "phileo non homo".
Seems pretty tight. I'd like to twist and pry at a couple of things though, if you don't mind. I'm unable to let them go as givens just yet. If you do mind, say so, and I will desist.
1. The phrase "A perceptually self-evident fact" seems to be boldly misleading. Either a thing is perceptually evident, or a thing is self-evident. Of course, how would we know it is self-evident? That's not clear to me. The question becomes then, how do we know a thing? (Right?) This statement seems to express that knowing a thing comes only through perception, but hides that behind the feint of self-evidence. (As an aside, this surprises me. Rand, in AS, soundly rebukes the use of "self-evident" to declare a truth.) Can you expand a little on this phrase and maybe help me get a better grasp of it?
2. I'm not exactly sure how "existence exists" is anything more than a rhetorical tautology. And, if it is, how does a logical tautology buy you anything? How does it prove the truth of a thing? Pruxation pruxates and lomticity lomtits. These, I claim are logical tautologies, but they are meaningless. In order for them to be of any value, we have to ascribe meaning to the words. So, again, an assumption his hidden behind a feint that appears to be a truth. You ascribe meaning to the words existence exists, and then use that statement as a foundational truth, calling it a logical tautology.
Maybe another way of saying the same thing is that the statement "existence exists" attempts to lean on a mutually accepted definition of these two words. I could almost (and perhaps rightly) claim that it usurps my understanding of existing and existence in order to prove itself. {I tread lightly here because, while what I'm saying appears to make sense to me currently, I don't like where it leads.} It looks like it isn't truth at all, but rather a socially agreed upon truism. That, again, flies in the face of Ayn's randy individualistic view points.
My brain hurts. I'm not sure I'm making sense.
3. Why do you continue to bring up a different philosophical point of view and flog it publicly? To the best of my knowledge, I have not offered it as an alternative. My objective (pun intended) here is to hammer Objectivism to the best of my limited abilities and see if it survives.
4. poo-fingers?
Phileo Non Homo.
Chris.
(This is kinda fun! Good thing I don't have a job. It takes me a long time to thing through this stuff.)
Awesome. I'll try to get some answers hammered out when I have a little more time. Welcome the questioning. A few quick answers.
3. Because I enjoy the flogging? Because I detest it so much? No, those aren't good answers, but it is AN answer. In all seriousness, I think it is because I keep hearing the echoes of Calvinism when I debate this stuff, because some of my exploration began with the utter insanity and evil of their Weltanschauung (which is German, for World View
). I find myself on what may be an irrational mission to expose them for what they are, and if it involves ridicule, scorn, and the occasional pissing on a grave, then I'm all in. Temporary insanity? Maybe. I also confess to a very powerful fear that they may infiltrate you based on some of your own recent statements. I honestly worry about that in a very active way.
4. Meant to be 'flingers', but I think 'fingers' might work just as well.
Anyway, I'll hash it out when I have a little more time. I am really inspired by Objectivism so far, and I would evangelically promote Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, if an Objectivist could be evangelical. Unfortunately, I fear the system won't work completely for you as there is no such entity as a Christian Objectivist. The two things really can't mix, and I understand the difficulties that would pose for you.
4. Yes, I see that now. My mistake.
Looking forward to seeing how you covertly use Calvinism to answer #1 & #2.
)
(Intentional, friendly, and somewhat sarcastic dig.
C
*snicker*