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.
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.
posted by Rp | 3:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home