"I'm right, but I could be wrong."

Wrong, Nick. Rand doesn't hold that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are known by man before he actually perceives anything. She holds that those axioms are *implicit* in all perception and are the base of all knowledge. You can't claim any knowledge at all without validating those axioms. You seem to think that Objectivism is a rationalistic system, when in fact it isn't.

 

Axioms are truth statements. “Existence exists” is a conceptual proposition. If it is implicit in all perception, then it cannot have been perceived. It has to be inherent in the faculty which perceives, consciousness. Recognition of it is knowledge of it, so it is knowledge prior to perception.

Jon, I see you skillfully removed Galt’s quote from my post when you reposted it. He said, "The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that reality is final, that A is A and that the truth is true." Galt’s speech goes on to explain that existence exists, implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists. “Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.”

bis bald,

Nick

Second, the quote itself proves my point. Galt's saying that implicit in your knowledge about anything is that there's a *property* (identity) of *something* (existence) of which *you're aware* (consciousness).

"The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that reality is final, that A is A and that the truth is true."

This implies that man does already know the truth, like someone in Plato’s model, and that reality is the final arbiter, that man can compare what he knows “with” reality to test for its truth, like Plato checks outside realty with an inside, otherworldly, reality.

Thanks for the compliment, William. And you're right that AR would say, "There is (existence) something (identity) of which you're aware (consciousness)." I'm glad you corrected that.

"And, Rand is saying, through Galt, that everybody has this axiomatic knowledge as a precondition for contextual, non-axiomatic knowledge, which can be perceived through the tool of reason, (as if reason doesn't have to be developed first.)"

No, she's not, as I've already explained. Your interpretation of Galt's quote is incorrect. The idea that AR posits that individuals have innate ideas like "existence exists" that precede the acquisition of contextual knowledge is a rationalistic view that contradicts all of her epistemic writings. You can keep on believing otherwise though.

You need to read her epistemic writings more closely, and my writings. Where do I claim Rand has a rationalistic view? In ITOE, 75, she says, “It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.” In “The Left: Old and New,” NL, 84, “Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—…” In The Objectivist Ethics,” VOS, 13; pb 20, “Reason is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice.” (Remember, I’ve asked before what guides that initial choice to choose reason.)

BTW, did you read the frst contradiction in y post about a few of Rand's contradicitons? It comes from her epistemic writings. She says axiomatic concepts are beyond specification in terms of attributes, then she talks about how "consciousness" has two attributes: content and action. (I love pointing out contradictions.) 

Bis bald,

Nick