Trapped...

Estudia: Hi Phi, I have someone I want you to meet. Phi, this is my friend Menace. Menace, this is Philo, my mentor and teacher and the person I told you about who introduced me to the three fundamental axioms of philosophy.

Philo: Pleased to meet you Menace.

Menace: Same here. Look, Estudia explained to me what you have taught her. I don’t see what is so self-evident about these axioms. I disagree. People don’t all see things like you explained. Why can’t I start with different axioms? How can you be sure your axioms are right? My goodness, I think lots of philosophers have concluded that we can’t ever be sure we are right. We can’t even be sure we exist. Your claims are crazy.

Estudia: I told you he had some pretty strong opinions, Phi.

Philo: Yes, I see that. He sure does. Well, Menace, you are objecting to the self-evident aspect of these axioms and that isn’t valid.

Menace: What’da ya mean? Not valid.

Philo: Well, first of all there isn’t any such thing as disagreement. People agree about everything, don’t you agree?

Menace: Are you nuts? That’s crazy; of course people disagree all the time. They disagree about all kinds of things like about your stupid axioms.

Philo: But how can they really? There isn’t anything to disagree about is there? Nothing exists so there is nothing to disagree about.

Menace: That’s even stupider than the axioms. All kinds of things exist. There are lots of things to disagree about. You know that as well as I do.

Philo: So you admit that existence exists I’d say. There has to be things to disagree about before you can even think about disagreeing about them. That’s the existence axiom. But still how can we disagree. We aren’t really conscious beings are we. We can’t hold ideas like disagreement really can we?

Menace: Hey, I’m conscious of what we are saying. I hold ideas and you do to. Of course we are conscious or how could we even be talking about your axioms?

Philo: Well, then it sounds like you accept the consciousness axiom too. Even so I don’t think your disagreement with my ideas is a problem. Why do you think I am mistaken? Perhaps we are both right about this?

Menace: That’s crazy talk again. That’s really not possible. If you have one idea and I have a different one, then we both can’t be right. You can’t have your cake and eat it too buddy. Look things are what they are. A is A and contradictions don’t exist in reality.

Philo: You’re right.

Estudia: Menace, what about your ideas about devils or fairies you told me about. Tell him about those.

Menace: Yea, your axioms leave out little details like the possibility of ghosts or gods you know.

Philo: I told Estudia, you can’t prove that you exist. And I’ll tell you, you can’t prove that you’re conscious. But you just validated those ideas for yourself. Existence, consciousness and identity are part of every statement and every concept. That includes devils, ghost and gods. You can’t escape or deny the axioms because in doing so you have to reaffirm them. That’s why the axioms are at the base of all knowledge. That’s why they are axioms.

Menace: Yea, but that’s because you pick your axioms so that I have to accept them to be consistent. That doesn’t make them true and I can see that people, and I’m one of them, don’t want to accept your axioms. Why should I? Why can’t I believe that reality is a lot more complicated than you make out and I nor anyone else is smart enough to really know the truth? Maybe we do have to contradict ourselves in order to truly know what to believe. Maybe we aren’t intelligent enough to know what God knows.

Philo: Menace, it was nice meeting you because you are a friend of Estudia’s, but I really don’t have anything else to say to you. You are free to accept your contradictions and you are free to evade the axioms. Good luck to you. Estudia, come see me again, but please not with Menace. I’ll talk with you later.

Estudia: But Phi, you haven’t convinced Menace of anything.

Philo: I showed you that identity is inescapable, but you had to first accept that a thing is what it is, or as we said, A is A. I showed you that existence is inescapable, but you had to accept and refer to existence first. I showed you that consciousness is inescapable, but you had to know you had a consciousness and use it. Thus we showed that the three axioms were the foundation of all knowledge.

Estudia: True, but you didn’t convince Menace.
Menace: Not in the least.

Philo: Neither I nor anyone can convince another person that the axioms are all knowledge until that person accepts the axioms himself. If he wants to look at existence and say he perceives something other than what his senses reveal, I can’t do anything. I can’t argue with him or even discuss the issue. He has abandoned reason and the self-evident; so please wish him well and come back when you are ready to continue our discussion.

Estudia: Ok, Phi. I’m sorry. I see that Menace is not going to be a friend for long and I was mistaken about him. He seemed like a nice person.

Philo: Oh, I’m not saying he isn’t nice. Lots of really nice people accept some really irrational ideas and live their lives never caring or never moving past that. They are successful to the extent that they are rational in their careers and their dealings with others. Someday I’ll show you how mistaken ideas can come back to bite you when you least expect it. But good luck to Menace. I just don’t have anything to discuss with him.

Axiomatic...

Estudia: Phi, you said we’d only need the three axioms, which I think I understand, but what is an axiom anyway?

Philo: Good question. There are three basic axiomatic concepts, or axioms, used by the philosophy of Objectivism, which we hope will provide an integrated view of existence. We know we need this in order to survive. So with three axioms we begin to build the entire structure. You have to start somewhere, and Objectivism begins my naming and validating its starting point, its primaries.

Estudia: These are the axioms?

Philo: Yes, but that doesn’t answer your question. Axioms have key aspects. First they name a primary fact of reality — something which cannot be broken apart or analyzed. It cannot be reduced to other facts. Secondly an axiom is implied by all facts and is implicit in all knowledge. And, thirdly …

Estudia: Wait a minute. Like existence exists? How is that a primary fact of reality? Isn’t a statement like, God exists such a primary? That can’t be broken apart either.

Philo: Sort of like that. But like I was getting ready to explain, an axiom is something perceived or experienced directly. It is fundamental and doesn’t require any proof or explanation. You can only point and the axiom is evident to anyone.

Estudia: Well, God is like that, isn’t He or She or IT?

Philo: You need an explanation. Any proof or explanation requires the use of the three axioms we discussed. It would not be much use to introduce an undefined and unknowable concept like god into the discussion of philosophy. It offers no useful explanation and is just a cop-out in thinking. As we’ll see it is not logical either. Do you want to understand existence? Do you want to discover what the meaning of your life should me, or do you want to be told? Most want to be told. They want what they think others want and they don’t want to have to think. They want to be children and follow the rules and know that will make a parent happy. One of a flock. Life, for a human being, does not offer that option. Not if the person wants to find true joy and happiness in the living of their life.

Estudia: Okay. It does seem a lot easier to just believe.

Philo: It is. You don’t have to think. Someone does it for you and you follow the rules as dictated or interpreted by someone of higher authority. Someone with a pipeline to God supposedly. A mullah, pope or medicine man. Nice work if you can get it.

Estudia: How are these axioms different?

Philo: You don’t need a definition or explanation. Just point at what you mean. We say that the things the axioms refer to can be specified only ostensively.

Estudia: I think I understand. Every child has its senses stimulated at some point. It has sensations. They perceive things at some point even before birth perhaps and they become aware. So could you say that they know the axioms in some way?

Philo: Implicitly. They know from the beginning that there are facts which we named by the terms existence, identity, and consciousness. Of course they had to learn a lot more to get to where you are today. You can explicitly conceive of these concepts now. But you and everyone else are implicitly aware of them from the beginning. That’s why you can’t prove them. That’s why we call them axioms.

Estudia: In order to prove something you have to have something simpler than the thing you are trying to prove, right?

Philo: Yes, you have to have antecedent knowledge, something to come before and to use to derive the proof. Nothing comes before the axioms. They are the starting point of all thinking or cognition and all proofs depend on them. You can’t prove that something exists except to know that you perceive it and you can’t prove you are aware of something except to know that you are perceiving it. What could you say, except look at reality, it is a perceptual self-evident axiom.

Estudia: If you can’t prove an axiom how do we know they are true?

Philo: Validation my love, validation. That’s what we have done. Pick anything whatever. Whatever it is, it exists. Whatever exists has to be what it is, and in whatever way one is aware of it, you are aware. You use your sense perceptions to validate the axioms. It’s that simple. Next time I see you, I show you that there is no way you can reject the three axioms.
Estudia: Great. I think I’ll bring a friend I want you to meet who totally rejects these ideas and see if you can convince him. Hasta la próxima.

Perspective…

Philo: Hola, Estudia! Welcome back.

Estudia: Thanks. I’ve been looking forward to seeing you again. Especially to see how you want to use the two fundamental axioms of philosophy. What’s next.

Philo: Well, the two we discussed, existence and consciousness, imply a third and final basic axiom.

Estudia: That’s it? Only three axioms? What’s this third one?

Philo: Three is all you need. The third axiom as I said is implicit in the other two because to be (existence) is to be something. If something exists it has some nature, some properties. It possesses some identity that makes it what it is. So we call this fact the “Law of Identity”.

Estudia: How do you say that as an axiom?

Philo: Ayn Rand said, existence is identity. Aristotle said, A is A. Both say that a thing is itself. It has identity which means it is all of its properties, attributes and/or characteristics and nothing more.

Estudia: Okay. Ok, I got it, I think. Existence has identity. You can identify things because they exist, right?

Philo: No, no, not has. Identity is not separable from existence. If you are, then you are something. You can’t separate existence and identity. They imply one another.

Estudia: But why use two concepts to say this then? Couldn’t we just stop with existence and know that things have to be certain things?

Philo: You’re right. Existence and identity name the same fact. If something exists (that is has existence) then something (with identity) exists; and vise versa, if there is something (with identity), then there is (with existence) a something. You can’t break this idea apart. By using these two concepts, existence and identity, we get two perspectives on this idea.
Existence is the primary identification of a thing and distinguishes it from nothing. Existence differentiates something from the absence of something. Everything depends on this. Identity indicates that something is what it is. Thus it differentiates something from other things. This is important and a very crucial step in thinking.

Estudia: Like something is this versus that?
Philo: Exactly. If you grasp any thing, you must recognize, in some form, that there is something that you grasp or are aware of. There is something I am aware of boils down to the three basic axioms, existence (the there is), identity (the something), and consciousness (the I am aware of). These are primary facts of reality.

Clarification…..

Estudia: One question, Philo.

Philo: Sure. What?

Estudia: Well, what about pure consciousness? Like say the idea of god or something. Can’t there be just consciousness and we are all apart of that? And what about God being pure consciousness aware of itself and we are part of that awareness? Isn’t that possible? I mean I’ve heard some people think it is.

Philo: We said that existence exists. That means two things right off the bat. Something exists which you perceive and you exist possessing the means to perceive it, that is, you have consciousness. So if nothing exists there can’t be any consciousness.

Estudia: Why?

Philo: That would be a real contradiction. A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of… come on, you can’t have it both ways. Both nothing and something, no way. It is either something or nothing so that ends that idea.

Estudia: Yea, that’s true. That undermines those pure mystics then. They like to think you can have it both ways. But I see what you are getting at. What about a consciousness conscious of itself?

Philo: That’s a contradiction also. Some good but misguided folks ascribe to what we call the “Primacy of Consciousness” approach. They think that consciousness came first and that makes it primary. This consciousness created that which is. This is not my position as you can see. It would mean that there was or is a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself first of all. How could that be? Before it could know that it existed and be able to identify itself, it has to be conscious of something. So that idea is out. Forget it and keep existence primary.

Estudia: Okay. Ok, I got it, I think. You can’t claim to perceive what doesn’t exist then if you possess consciousness. You or any consciousness has to have something to be aware of first. I like that.

Philo: Good. Exactly. But remember the primacy of consciousness idea is very popular and you’ll be tempted to fall for it from time to time. It has brought a lot of pain and suffering to this biosphere.

Conocimiento ...

Estudia: Happy Labor Day, Phi!

Philo: Same to you.

Estudia: Well, now at least we have something to labor on or with or about - existence, or maybe I should say Existence with a big E. So what does that imply?

Philo: Well, it implies that you exist possessing some means of knowing that something exists.

Estudia: Huh? How does it imply that?

Philo: You perceive something, right?

Estudia: Yea, we agreed on that. There is something, out there, in here, somewhere.

Philo: Good. That means that you possess the means of knowing that. We call the faculty of perceiving that which exists consciousness.

Estudia: Whaaa ... whoo. Wait a minute. Now I have faculties? I am conscious? How do I know that?.... Never mind, don’t answer that. I see that is a dumb question. Of course there IS SOMETHING and that implies that I am aware of it. So I have to have a means of perceiving it, right?

Philo: Exactly. That’s your consciousness. And you can be assured that if you are alive you are going to have some faculty of knowing something about existence. Otherwise you will not know anything. I don’t know exactly how consciousness works and in fact no one I’ve heard about does either. Lots of work to be done there, but even if someone figures out that it is just a result of a time delay in sensory response or mind-o-quarks jumping in and out of quantum states, it still wouldn’t change the fact that consciousness is a fundamental axiom.

Estudia: Why?

Philo: Why? Why, before you can understand or talk about anything, you first have to be conscious of something. And besides, you have to recognize the fact that you are conscious of something to be conscious of something. Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

Estudia: So Existence exists and that means that something exists which I perceive. It also means that I exist and have consciousness because that’s how I know something exists. Right?

Philo: Beautiful. Do you see the beauty of that? You can’t excape these axioms I tell you. They are irreducible fundamental primaries and implied in everything about you, me, everything. Existence exists! I could shout it with joy.

Estudia: And I exist and know it. I do see that. It makes me feel good just knowing that it is so simple. I’m thankful for you clearing that up for me. I’m thankful to Existence for just Being, and I’m thankful for consciousness too. I want to use it better and know more, will you help?

Philo: Me? Of course, you know I will. Whatever you may learn, whatever you may study, I’ll be thankful too and we will know that the axioms are unchangeable. Whatever it is “it” exists and you “know” it.

Estudia: ¡Gracias, y ahora yo sabe!