From: siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A=A
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 02:21:48 EST
Reply-To: siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz)
Organization: Modem Madness BBS    1+516-295-9435

ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:

> >>Claiming that objectivism arrives at its conclusions by logic
> >>and reason leaves me wondering... what are the _premises_ from
> >>which the conclusions are logically derived?  ...
>  
> >I believe from "Atlas Shrugged" that the fundamental axiom of
> >Objectivism is Aristotle's statement, "Existence exists."  In other
> >words, there is an objective reality independent of human perceptions
> >of it.
>  
> Funny, I was going to "answer" the above question with a sarcastic
> "don't you know? - it's 'A=A!'", but someone else got the jump on me.
> Unfortunately, their answer appears to have been presented in earnest.
>  
> Professional philosophers in general regard "objectivism" as something
> of a bad joke, and with claims like this - that one can derive an entire
> system of "ethics" from the premise that "existence exists" - it's easy
> to see why. Here's a person looking for a rational justification of this
> rather grotesque social doctrine, and what does he get? "A=A". Yeesh.
> No wonder this is an "alt" group.

        Mr. Hayes demonstrates his ignorance of the power of axiom 
systems. All reasoning based on logic requires that certain axioms be 
used to derive subsequent principles. If you know of any valid axiom 
system that does not have, near its base, a thing is itself, I would like
to know about it.

        If you complain that little can be drawn from this axiom, then I 
submit you would be demonstrating further ignorance. Euclidean Geometry 
proceeds from amazingly few axioms.

        The specific axiom to which you are complaining, "A is A", is a 
demand the concepts have clear meaning before they are subjected to 
logical manipulations. The acceptance of this axiom in mathematics could 
have eliminated much the problems it has been running into with respect 
to internal contradictions.

        My post discussing this issue was just distributed on Jimmy 
Wales' Objectivism list and is available to anyone who is interested.

        Miss Rand required that her logical manipulations retained actual 
meaning. This was a key insight into the reason mathematics was mired 
in the problems Russell ran into and problems in modern Set Theory.

        Much more can be said in this vein, but the concept "A is A",
properly understood is a key one in using logic to reach valid 
conclusions.

        As far as "existence exists", this is the claim that reality is 
objective. Without this claim, no reasoning is possible. If you didn't
already accept this, you could not even post a message to this group.

        If you think nothing can be derived from this, I will just point 
out how much trash CANNOT be even considered with this. The question of 
whether you exist is dealt with immediately. Much of the nonsense in 
modern philosophy, such as Kant's prattle that the existence of an 
external world had not been "proven" even though without one proof is 
meaningless, is dealt with.

        Ayn Rand stated explicitly the assumptions with which she was 
going to derive her concepts. If you complain that they are so basic,
fine. If you complain that they are wrong, not fine. There is nothing
so basic that someone has not mis-stated or misunderstood it.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US
Stimpson J. Katz

     Subscribe to the Introduction to Objectivism Mailing List.
Send mail to "Server@Momad.LI.NY.US" containing the phrase
"Subscribe AYN-RAND" in the body of the message.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism