From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:30:11 GMT

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>&In article <C0CB8s.8Jz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:

> &  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)?
>-sjm >--

I would think there would be several fundamental axioms.  I'd say these ones
are required.  Does anyone have the full list of fundamental axioms?

1.  An objective reality exists.
2.  This objective reality operates under a set of laws and thus "we"
    (sentients) can manipulate it accordingly by cause and effect.
3.  Sentients exist and perceive objective reality in some way which
    we will call "subjective reality".  Sentients can also form concepts
    and draw logical conclusions.  It is assumed that concepts formed will
    be based on subjective reality.
4.  Subjective reality functions best when it is as closely tied to
    objective reality as possible.  That is, a person (sentient) must be able to
    capture as much of objective reality as possible from subjective reality.
    That is, the closer subjective reality is to objective reality, the larger
    the intersection of the set of logical conclusions drawn from objective
    reality and the conclusions drawn from subjective reality is.
5.  Concepts which are measured in relatives ("red", "green") are best
    used when related to objective measurements (such as light wavelength).
    Thus, in some sense, perceived quality must be objectively quantifyable.
    That is, it doesn't matter if my "red" isn't your "red" as long as we can
    each perceive a certain light wavelength as the color it is, no matter
    what we call it.
    Since the crux of this is dealing with "reality", one would assume that
    some social norms of perception of quality would evolve over time (like
    telling red from yellow and social definition of "red" and "yellow").
    The notion of what really "is" yellow is irrelevant as long as "you" and
    "I" can communicate about "yellow".  Since we are non-telepathic, the
    best we can do with communication is either direct example or analogy or
    subjective description.  If the individual is really interested in knowing
    the "real" color of a "yellow" canary, the individual should go and see
    the "yellow" canary.  Otherwise it is assumed that the simple subjective
    description "yellow" suffices.
6.  The fundamental objective is to act in a way which best suits your
    intent.  That is, the "goal" is to perform what you want to do in as
    good a way as possible given the information that you have.

Note that Objectivism is not a "moral code" or "code of "good" behavior".  It
is a "code of practicality" if anything: its purpose is to establish a set of
principles by which "reality" can be dealt with in an "efficient" a manner
as possible (that is, that you can achieve your goals in as good a manner
as possible).  "Reality" is all of reality -- person/object interaction,
person/person interaction, person/group interaction, etc.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA