Axioms Revisited
by Joseph Rowlands
An important concept in the philosophy of Objectivism is that of axiomatic concepts. Objectivism has three axioms , permeating through the entire philosophy: Existence, Identity (or A is A), and Consciousness. The axioms have wide-reaching implications, and their validity cannot be denied without contradiction.
Unfortunately, the axioms are very often misunderstood by Objectivists. In mathematics, an "axiom" is often an initial premise accepted as fact, from which entire systems are deduced. Objectivists often see these three axioms similarly. It is believed that all knowledge can be reduced to these axioms, or that a deductive chain of reasoning from these axioms is necessary to ensure certainty.
One of the reasons for this view of the axioms is that the only systematic representation of Objectivism in book form is Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR). In this book, the very first chapter, starting almost immediately, on page four, discusses the axioms. The parallels to mathematics is visible. In order to be systematic, you start with your initial axioms, and build the rest of the system through chains of deductive reasoning. Whether intentionally or not, Peikoff has presented Objectivism as a rationalistic philosophy by starting with axioms, rather than with reality itself, and trying to work his way up from there.
Did Rand share this view of the centrality of these axioms? In her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology(IOE), Rand waits until chapter 6 before she discusses axiomatic concepts. That's out of eight chapters. Nearly the end. It appears she didn't think that Objectivism was deduced from those axioms.
So what did she think about them? I strongly recommend a re-reading of her chapter in IOE titled "Axiomatic Concepts."
To understand the real nature of the axioms, we need to know their purpose. Is it to be the foundation of a deductive philosophy? No. Here is Rand's description:
"It is only man's consciousness, a consciousness capable of conceptual errors, that needs a special identification of the directly given, to embrace and delimit the entire field of its awareness-to delimit it from the void of unreality to which conceptual errors can lead. Axiomatic concepts are epistemological guidelines. They sum up the essence of all human cognition: that something exists of which I am conscious, I must discover its identity."
Further:
"This underscoring of primary facts is one of the crucial epistemological functions of axiomatic concepts."
How about a translation? Rand uses the words "guidelines" and "underscoring of primary facts." The axioms are not facts from which everything else is deduced. They are an attempt to make explicit fundamental aspects of all human cognition. Why make them explicit? To recognize their necessity, and to allow us to compare ideas to them, as a test for contradiction.
You can think of the axioms as sanity checks on knowledge. By identifying fundamental philosophical principles, we can ensure that we don't stray past their boundaries into the world of absurdity. The axioms are guideposts marking off that "void of unreality to which conceptual errors can lead." They don't prevent us from making mistakes, but they do save us from straying into a conceptual world where anything goes and our reason is useless.
This is a very different view of axioms than the belief that they are first steps in a deductive chain. In Rand's view, the axioms are fully consistent with a philosophy that recognizes the essential need of induction in gaining knowledge.
Objectivism cannot be purely deductive. You can't prove that we have rights by starting with "existence exists" and performing deductive steps from there. Nor can you hope to take your knowledge and step backwards until you hit the axioms. We can't hope to "prove" our knowledge by deducing it from axioms. Our knowledge is based on the world around us. Any "proof" our knowledge needs must be found there.
Discuss this Article (6 messages)
|
