Rand’s Razor…

Estudia: So, Phi’, do we have more to discuss about hierarchy of knowledge or learning?

Philo: Not really, but there is an important concept that Ayn Rand articulated that relates to hierarchy particularly to any philosophical discussion which she referred to as Rand’s Razor.

Estudia: What’s a razor? I mean I know a razor is used to shave with, but what did she mean?

Philo: Well, a razor is used to slice off things and Rand’s Razor is a technique that can cut off all sorts of false or useless ideas. Her razor simply says that you need to “name your primaries.” She said you must identify your starting point and you must name the concepts that you take as axioms because they can not be reduced. She says that you can not just pick some philosophical topic that seems interesting and start building a system of ideas from that topic while ignoring its roots in reality.

Estudia: I can see that a little. Philosophy is hierarchical like any knowledge and we must be able to reduce any idea back to the perceptual data from which it was derived..

Philo: Yes, exactly, but philosophers today evade this principle and in fact speak out against system-building by stating that philosophy consists of independent ideas unconnected to each other.

Estudia: For example?

Philo: The “Matrix” mentality were it is postulated that we are all duped into seeing reality as provided from some evil consortium that keeps us plugged in as a source of energy or computing power and of which we are unaware thinking that the things we see and touch are simply visions provided from the matrix on interconnected individuals. What we see is not real but a deception. This is a blatant inversion of hierarchy. How could we make such an assumption that this matrix controls us and yet we don’t know if what we see is real? The philosopher is using advanced knowledge to say what we know directly with our senses is false and misleading.

Estudia: Well, Rand’s Razor would shoot that down. The primaries would have to be that a matrix exists with evil controllers keeping it all running so we are deceived ― a bizarre out of context claim which can be easily refuted. Obviously they would not be able to reduce the concept back to the perceptual reality we all know.

Philo: Yes, and I hope you understand that you can’t hold true ideas either while ignoring hierarchy and context, just as it would be futile to try to uphold a false idea like the matrix.

Estudia: Maybe I wouldn’t understand the true idea if I didn’t understand its reduction?

Philo: Sure. Take property rights for example. You can’t just say it’s an axiom that man has property rights. The right to property stems from man’s right to life. But a man’s right to life depends on the nature and value of man’s life and a man’s life means that we can make objective judgments about value and that assumes that objective judgments are possible, meaning that we know the difference between consciousness and existence. You have to have all that hierarchy in mind in order to defend or defend the concept of property rights correctly.

Estudia: Wow. That is just the opposite of what I have been learning when I read other works on philosophy. They start analyzing a problem right in the middle, picking up some idea from a previous writer and expanding on that idea, never bothering to question its validity.

Philo: That’s a common mistake in philosophy today and it leads not to a hierarchy of knowledge but to a mish-mash of incomprehensible errors. The bottom line is that you should always check your premises to see what they depend on and to see that you can reduce the idea back to the base of the structure to be sure in is firmly planted in reality. The base of all ideas will, if truthful, lead you back to the axiom, existence exists.

Estudia: Got it. What’s next?

Philo: Review your notes and be sure you can perform a reduction as needed and take a break until we meet again. I want to go over some other theories of concepts with you so that you’ll understand why only Ayn Rand’s theory of concepts leads to the need for objectivity in human cognition, while other popular theories lead to just the opposite.

Estudia: Okay, see you then.

Irreducibles …

Estudia: Okay, Phi’, let me see if I have this non reducible idea down or not.

Philo: Okay ‘Stu, what’s an example.

Estudia: Almost anything from religion I’ve decided. Concepts like heaven, hell, ghost, angel, devils, zombies, vampires, wizards, you name it. All of these things can’t be reduced to anything observable in nature hence then can’t be reduced.

Philo: Good. Those are all invalid concepts. They really don’t have any specific definition. They don’t refer to anything in particular. A ghost is just that, a ghost and not here nor there and you supposedly can only know one when you see one, or think you see one. They can mean a lot of different things and often something different to each and every person.

Estudia: Aren’t some terms like extremism, liberal, war-hawk a little like that too? They are concepts but generally don’t have specific definitions and mean different things to different people.

Philo: Yes, definitely. Terms like that are anti-concepts and are often used as an assertion without a meaningful definition. All higher-level concept and propositions must be reducible to be valid.

Estudia: Why propositions?

Philo: All propositions are based on a chain of ideas that led to them. If you do not grasp this chain all the way back to direct observation, then the proposition would just be an arbitrary idea, without context and with no objective foundation. In such a case the proposition is detached from reality and your correct thinking. This is why we need proof for any idea.

Estudia: Why’s that?

Philo: Proof is a type of reduction with the conclusion being the higher level proposition and its only link to reality is the premises. These premises eventually lead back to objective reality. To prove something you must identify the correct hierarchy of premises. You trace back the logical order of steps leading to the conclusion. Because of the need to trace the steps back to perceptual reality, you must use logic to validate the conclusion objectively.

Estudia: So what has this logic got to do with it?

Philo: Logic requires that you recognize the context as well as the hierarchy involved in a proof. Rand said that “Logic is the art of noncontradictory identification” but she implied that you must observe the full context of knowledge which of course includes its hierarchical structure.

Estudia: Well, I can see that if I reach a logical conclusion it would have to be integrated into my knowledge and it would have to fit in without contradiction. You’re just saying that if it has been related to perceptual data in this reduction process then I’ll know where the conclusion came from.

Philo: Yes, and you wind up checking your facts in two ways. Every proposition or conclusion has to jive with your other knowledge in a non-contradictory fashion and through the chain of reduction all the intermediate steps lead to things that can be experienced directly.

Estudia: So I suppose you are suggesting that I practice reducing all the concepts I want to use and all the propositions as well.

Philo: Right, but do it slowly. If you had been educated properly things would have been presented to you in a hierarchical manner and you would have been performing the reduction without thinking as you climbed the chain of ideas that led to a concept or a proposition.

Estudia: Interesting.

Philo: Yes, but remember to perform your reductions using only the essential terms. You should try to just get an overview of the higher level idea and see the major links that connect it to perceptual reality. Don’t worry about all the minutiae; you can always fill those in later.

Estudia: Good, ‘cause it looks like I’m going to be very busy. CU next time.

Reduction Reduced…

Estudia: Okay, Phi’, let me see if I can do this reduction thing.

Philo: Okay ‘Stu, tell me again what it is.

Estudia: Reduction is a way to connect some advanced concept, piece of knowledge, or cognitive item to reality, which is the perceptual level for us. Reduction involves a tracing backward of at least the essential logical steps that gave rise to the higher level concept being reduced.

Philo: Good. Now what concept are you going to try and reduce?

Estudia: How ‘bout something simple like Brother?

Philo: Well, okay, but you had better define what kind of brother you mean.

Estudia: Let’s see. Brother can be used to refer to any male acquiesce just as sister can be used for females, but I want to keep this simple so I’ll just reduce brother meaning males born from the same mother.

Philo: Okay.

Estudia: A brother designates a person or animal in a human family relationship as opposed to an acquaintance, friend or stranger. In particular the relationship involves two or more males of the same species that were born from one and the same mother. So now I have a definition to work from and the concept brother is a certain stage of conception. In this case it is the last stage and I can see that in order to understand a particular stage of any concept I have to ask myself what is it that I have to know in order to reach that stage.

Philo: Terrific deduction. You are trying to work back to the perceptual stage, right?

Estudia: Yes, so I have to know what a mother is in terms of the brothers. Here the essential concepts are female, male and giving-birth. Female and male can be defined in terms of complex concepts like chromosomes, hormones or brain chemistry but really here we can jump to the perceptual level and point out sex organ differences. You are a female in terms of the concept brother if you have a uterus and ovaries capable of producing eggs which can be fertilized by sperm from a male. Lots of concepts, but the primary one is simply observed physical features. The other perceptual level concept you would need to understand is that of giving birth. This involves lots of additional concepts like eggs, sperm, placenta, fetus and much more, but the essential is simply the observed process of producing a baby from the birth canal. You can include C-sections as well as natural births but again the perceptual level is seeing a female expel a new born. This concept of brother is rather easy to comprehend as it is not far removed from the perceptual. You need female, mother, giving-birth and male and you have it reduced.

Philo: What about a concept like lovers?

Estudia: Well that gets a bit more complex. For the concept brother, by reduction, I can now say that I mean this and give my definition, two males born from the same mother or female. For lovers, we would have to introduce things like mutual respect, caring, esteem, affection, sexual desire perhaps, and physical intimacy. They we’d have to say that these things depend on values and values depend on what one acts to gain or keep and that could be things like food, water, air-conditioning, energy, etc and those would be at the perceptual level. Am I close to understanding reduction?

Philo: Yes, you are getting there. Once you know the roots of any concept you will understand the chain of concepts that link the idea to perceptual reality. So then you will know how to use the concept and can recognize when the concept is misused. Like “brother”, you have to stretch the concept to include that “you are your brother’s keeping” when you are talking about caring for strangers. That brother is obviously much broader and all inclusive, invoking a stolen idea, males born of the same mother, and applying it to all strangers male and female. Most people don’t understand the roots of a concept. How it is grounded in things from the perceptual level. They treat most concepts as primaries and don’t consider its place in the hierarchy of concepts that led up to the concept being used. All strangers become you brother or sister and deserve the same respect and attention as a family member.

Estudia: So if I reduce all concepts I will understand its definition.

Philo: Right, and that is the only way you can make a definition fully clear. You have to take the initial definition back through each level and understand the definition of the earlier concepts all the way back to the direct perception of reality. But be aware that certain concepts can not be reduced to observational perceptions. Certain false-concepts can’t be reduced.

Estudia: Like?

Philo: Think about it and next time we’ll see if you can come up with some.

Estudia: Good, I’ve lost weight trying to grasp reduction so I need a break. See you later.