From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:34:15 GMT

In article 93Jan4125207@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
> 
>  
> &In article <C0CB8s.8Jz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
> 
> 
> 
>    In article <1992Dec31.211808.15982@news.nd.edu> fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) 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?  Clearly, we ask
>    >more from a philosophy than that it be self-consistent.  We
>    >also require that its _axioms_, i.e. the statements which are
>    >accepted without proof are actually true.
>    >
>    >So let it be with objectivism.  What are its fundamental
>    >tenets of faith?  Furthermore, how might a skeptical, but
>    >intelligent and informed person be convinced that these
>    >tenets are correct?
> 
>  &  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.
> 
> By this do you mean that what the human mind precieves as red is only
> an approximation of the `true' redness in Plato's world of forms?
> And do such absolutes exist? So that even abstarct ideas and concepts
> can be ultimatly `true' (although not provable within an axiomatic
> system of logic)?

----On the premises of Objectivism:

To find out the axioms and premises of Objectivism, it would be a good
idea to subscribe to an objectivist newsletter, which is essentially starting
from the beginning of objectivism -- first premises.  To do this, send mail
to "rand@momad.li.ny.us", with the line "subscribe ayn-rand" (no quotes).

I was able to look at the first few issues (since I know the person who
runs the list).  The first issue dealt with a very brief intro on the history
of Objectivism.  The next issue dealt with Rand's three logical axioms
(or three *of* her logical axioms, I'm not quite sure).

The first was "A is A", or "existence exists", or the law of identity, which
states essentially that before you can talk about something, you must know
what you are talking about.  Those who wish to dispute the validity of
the law of identity should first realize that to question the law is to
assume that the statement of the law is what it is, and that the argument
exists and is what it is.  

I'll leave off on the rest, since you can get it from the mailing list...

----On whether red is red:

To question whether the red I perceive is "true" red (i.e., perhaps
my senses are deceived, or my senses do not pick up the full concept of "red")
is to question the validity of my sensory input.  Then you must question your
perception that I have senses.

I could deny that my senses tell me the "true" story.  I could hypothesize that
right now I am not writing this, but cursing my boss to his face.  If I were
to question my sensory input, and wonder exactly what it is that I am 
really sensing, I would be paralyzed.  I must accept the evidence of my senses.
I must also accept that my senses are part of reality, and that they have
limitations.  I must accept my senses, and my senses tell me that existence
exists.  Red is red.  

----On the "tenets of faith" of Objectivism:

I defy you to deny the law of identity.  This is not faith, but reason.  To
deny the law of identity is to deny myself, and to consider myself as
self-defeating.  In that case, I may as well spare myself the agony of not
knowing whether my senses are true (or whether my agony is true!) and kill
myself.

--Rob
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism