I learned from Vittorio Hössle that this confirmation by denial can also be called "semantical inconsistency" (semantischer Gegenspruch). A statement is inconsistent with its meaning/intent. It is a pity that such abc in logic is not educated as a part of the physics curriculum. You are right to address such matters.
Isn't a major problem with this--at least when considered as squaring with Objectivism--that the entire proof of the Objectivist ethics rests on 'Value' not being an axiom? In that it can be reduced to antecedent concepts, namely life? Therefore, in calling 'Value' an axiom, aren't you negating the entire Objectivist ethics?
Thanks for the opportunity for clarification. What I say here is not at odds with the objectivist reduction of "value." Notice that I was careful not to say that the concept "value," is axiomatic, but rather that *valuing* is axiomatic. The axiom is the valuing, the act of treating something as valuable. Valuing is different from the concept, "value," which identifies things we should act to gain and/or keep. Valuing is inherent in every act of cognition, and is the axiom. The concept "value" is not.
Would choosing not to choose be a choice and a value judgment in itself? Which further is evidence for your axiom. Choosing is unavoidable. Value judgment is unavoidable.
Yes, I think you are right actually. However, there is a reason that I confined my axiom to just talking about conceptual thought though, and not aspects of consciousness outside of that, like perception. I'd have to think about this more. Thanks for the insight!
- The good exists. - Idk, maybe... Did I just disprove the axiom? (if you doubt everything, is that the same as valuing that way of thinking, or just something you can't help but do?)
Values necessitate a valuer (i.e. living beings). Does it count as an axiom if depends on the existence of living things? I know the same question could be applied to "consciousness must be conscious of something" (which applies to a VERY specific kind of entity), but I wonder if it counts as an axiom if it depends on a certain kind of existent.
That's a good question, and I will answer it in future videos! For now, I'll say that in my view, there are two kinds of axioms, axioms of consciousness, and axioms of existence. This is interesting, because I think you are thinking of axioms the same way I am, and I don't think many objectivists think of them that way.
Presupposition: The ultimate goal (or desire) is a life as a rational being. The new axiom can be: a) The good must to be a value. or b) Every value must be good (prefer this one) Good is "that which is proper to the life of a rational being" Value is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" That is to say 1) That which is proper to the life of a rational being must be that which one acts to gain and/or keep. or 2) That which one acts to gain and/or keep must be that which is proper to the life of a rational being (i prefer this one) They key question of ethics then should be: What should your values be? For this, you need to know: What's good? For this, you need to know: What's the ultimate goa (or desire)? (i dont know about this) New concept: Goal is That which i want to value because it's good 🤔 Pd. Im still thinking about this.
I don't know about this one, James. Another aspect about axioms is that they are irreducible primaries. This "new" axiom you bring up can be reduced to the latter 3 Rand makes. Additionally, the good is a concept derived from evaluation while the axioms aren't --they are implicitly present once you first experience anything. It would be more accurate to say that preferences or choices exist as an axiom. But even so, it wouldn't be considered an axiom since it rests on previous knowledge.
Long time no talk! This axiom is a corollary of consciousness, just like perception and volition. Consciousness is reducible insofar as it has a cause, but in terms of how we know about consciousness, we are conscious of it, and that's it, we are aware of consciousness by being conscious. Further, valuing simply is part of the act of consciousness, so it too is irreducible in this same sense. You are right that this axiom is not implicit in perception on its own, it is implicit in thinking. In the same way volition is known implicitly once a person focuses one's mind to think, so is valuing. I should add that, although I'm using the word, "known implicitly," in the same way Rand meant it, which I think is valid, I think the phrase is often misused, and one should be careful with it.
Good analysis James! Clear, concise, thorough and well presented. I really like the PowerPoint. It makes it easy to follow your bullet points. And as always, I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Now I'm going back to watch the earlier videos. And since I do value the good, I have subscribed. I am curious though, what are your thoughts on the idea that "The bad exists?" Is there value in proving that as an axiom? Jordan Peterson spends a lot of mental capital on suffering. Does affirming the bad affirm the good? Or is it a distraction? Even to value the wrong idea is to value something, so in that sense I see how the good could be seen as irreducible. But isn't to fail to value, a positive act of negative reinforcement? Nihilism leads to entropy, and life is conditioned by time limits, so the act of living is ultimately a valuing of the good in the face of an inevitable bad, which is death. But then this brings me back to the good because we only get so much time, so we better make the most of it. Now, in some context you could say that death isn't really the bad, because it helps us to value life, and it leads to biological processes that recycle the materials of life, but it's still bad if the one its happening to is you or someone about whom you care. The thing about good and bad is that these are values conditioned upon human judgment. If there were no humans, then good and bad would be irrelevant concepts. However, existence is not conditioned upon human judgment. If humans did not exist that would do nothing to negate the axiom that "existence exists." Valuing is a product of Judgment. First you get Sensation, then Perception, and then Judgment. Judgment comes after Metaphysics and Epistemology, even as it serves to continue to influence both. All epistemology is formed by making judgments based on a personal evaluation of existents. The very concepts of Good & Bad are Value Judgments. I'm still going to value the good, because I'm human, my life is finite, and valuing the good is the only rational choice for a being that wants to live. But context matters. And the human context for valuing the good is being alive. Also, using your method of "Reaffirmation Through Denial" for the those misguided souls who value death, that value is still conditioned by the good of being alive. But wanting to prove an idea doesn't make it provable. I think all of your analysis of the value of the good is accurate and well-reasoned, but I'm still not convinced that "The Good" is axiomatic. That being said, I'm not sure that it matters. Whether or not "The Good" is axiomatic does not change the fact that we are living humans and it matters to us. I want to fight for "The Good" and I want to help you fight for it. But I fear that the label "Axiom" is a distraction from the reason that "The Good" is important. "The Good" is important because we are alive. My existence exists. Your existence exists. I think that the argument against mysticism that we are seeking is somewhere in there, not in a universal axiom, but in the particulars of the human condition.
@Inductica "There's no observational evidence for anything mysticism claims." - I do sincerely suggest that you consider taking some magic mushrooms or Ayahuasca in a ceremonial setting and see if this changes your mind. Best wishes =]
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 I can appreciate that you're trying to argue by analogy by comparing substances that cause nootropic / psychoactive effects, but the experience induced by caffeine is not anything remotely close to experiences induced by psychedelics. And anyway, you can't prove experiences. You simply _have_ experiences, or you don't. Yeah?
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Yeah, well, I used to think that too. But no. What's mind bending about psychedelics is basically exactly this: a tonne of stuff gets revealed to you. Everybody comes out knowing stuff they didn't know before about themselves and existence. And yet this process of revelation does not involve sight, hearing or touch.
@@HokShunPoon Well, I also come to understand things about reality that doesn't immediately involve perception when I introspect, but I doubt that is any evidence of mysticism.
I'm not convinced. You identify valuing as being implicit to objective thinking, but just because something is implicit does not make it axiomatic. My understanding is that valuing is contextual. (To whom and for what?) This cannot be axiomatic. Also consider: "The Good" is chapter 7 in OPAR. There are 6 other chapters preceding it. It's probably not axiomatic. The one way-that I can think of, I'm not a philosopher-in which this could potentially be an axiom is by clearly delimiting a branch of science, where "the good" becomes an axiomatic principle. However, you have not done this. In my opinion, you've put the cart before the horse by "discovering" an axiom that "opens up" a new field of science. I would expect this to happen the other way around. What gives rise to the need for a new field of science? Then, only after that is established, you can define the axioms upon which further thinking in that field rests.
“Just because something is implicit does not mean it is axiomatic.” Of course, but it is implicit, in every act of consciousness. “My understanding is that valuing is contextual.” Here, you are referring to a view of what one should value. I’m not saying that some particular value is axiomatic, I’m saying that valuing as such is. Re: OPAR order. Saying that someone ordered ideas in a certain way is not a good reason even if that someone is Leonard Peikoff. I’m saying that this is a philosophic axiom (that it is involved in all thinking), and that it happens to open up a new field. I’m not opening the field then saying that my axiom is the highest principle of that new field. This is a valid way to use the word “axiom,” but it is a different useage of the word from Rand’s. This is why I identify this as a philosophic axiom.
Granting valuations as constitutive for cognition, isn't your idea a version of magical thinking about the mystical powers of language? I either will not find or disprove any truth by manipulating predicates. Language evolved for communication, not truth-seeking
![Rick Roderick on Heidegger - The Rejection of Humanism [full length]](/img/n.gif)
I learned from Vittorio Hössle that this confirmation by denial can also be called "semantical inconsistency" (semantischer Gegenspruch). A statement is inconsistent with its meaning/intent.
It is a pity that such abc in logic is not educated as a part of the physics curriculum. You are right to address such matters.
Isn't a major problem with this--at least when considered as squaring with Objectivism--that the entire proof of the Objectivist ethics rests on 'Value' not being an axiom? In that it can be reduced to antecedent concepts, namely life? Therefore, in calling 'Value' an axiom, aren't you negating the entire Objectivist ethics?
Thanks for the opportunity for clarification. What I say here is not at odds with the objectivist reduction of "value." Notice that I was careful not to say that the concept "value," is axiomatic, but rather that *valuing* is axiomatic. The axiom is the valuing, the act of treating something as valuable. Valuing is different from the concept, "value," which identifies things we should act to gain and/or keep. Valuing is inherent in every act of cognition, and is the axiom. The concept "value" is not.
Would choosing not to choose be a choice and a value judgment in itself? Which further is evidence for your axiom. Choosing is unavoidable. Value judgment is unavoidable.
Yes, I think you are right actually. However, there is a reason that I confined my axiom to just talking about conceptual thought though, and not aspects of consciousness outside of that, like perception. I'd have to think about this more. Thanks for the insight!
"Dave is usually difficult", when philosophers throw shade 😂
Haha, throwing shade across the centuries.
Great stuff. Thanks for posting this, James. I'll look forward to the next!
Thanks Alex! I'm glad you are still enjoying the videos!
@@Inductica I'll look forward to the next one ... with more on Jordan Peterson?
Man’s consciousness is a “valuing” consciousness! Wow!
Thanks!
- The good exists.
- Idk, maybe...
Did I just disprove the axiom? (if you doubt everything, is that the same as valuing that way of thinking, or just something you can't help but do?)
The good is existsable
Values necessitate a valuer (i.e. living beings). Does it count as an axiom if depends on the existence of living things? I know the same question could be applied to "consciousness must be conscious of something" (which applies to a VERY specific kind of entity), but I wonder if it counts as an axiom if it depends on a certain kind of existent.
That's a good question, and I will answer it in future videos!
For now, I'll say that in my view, there are two kinds of axioms, axioms of consciousness, and axioms of existence. This is interesting, because I think you are thinking of axioms the same way I am, and I don't think many objectivists think of them that way.
Presupposition: The ultimate goal (or desire) is a life as a rational being.
The new axiom can be:
a) The good must to be a value.
or b) Every value must be good (prefer this one)
Good is "that which is proper to the life of a rational being"
Value is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep"
That is to say
1) That which is proper to the life of a rational being must be that which one acts to gain and/or keep.
or 2) That which one acts to gain and/or keep must be that which is proper to the life of a rational being (i prefer this one)
They key question of ethics then should be: What should your values be?
For this, you need to know: What's good?
For this, you need to know: What's the ultimate goa (or desire)? (i dont know about this)
New concept:
Goal is That which i want to value because it's good 🤔
Pd. Im still thinking about this.
I really don't follow what you are saying, could you say it a different way?
I don't know about this one, James. Another aspect about axioms is that they are irreducible primaries. This "new" axiom you bring up can be reduced to the latter 3 Rand makes. Additionally, the good is a concept derived from evaluation while the axioms aren't --they are implicitly present once you first experience anything. It would be more accurate to say that preferences or choices exist as an axiom. But even so, it wouldn't be considered an axiom since it rests on previous knowledge.
Long time no talk!
This axiom is a corollary of consciousness, just like perception and volition. Consciousness is reducible insofar as it has a cause, but in terms of how we know about consciousness, we are conscious of it, and that's it, we are aware of consciousness by being conscious. Further, valuing simply is part of the act of consciousness, so it too is irreducible in this same sense.
You are right that this axiom is not implicit in perception on its own, it is implicit in thinking. In the same way volition is known implicitly once a person focuses one's mind to think, so is valuing.
I should add that, although I'm using the word, "known implicitly," in the same way Rand meant it, which I think is valid, I think the phrase is often misused, and one should be careful with it.
Good analysis James! Clear, concise, thorough and well presented. I really like the PowerPoint. It makes it easy to follow your bullet points. And as always, I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Now I'm going back to watch the earlier videos. And since I do value the good, I have subscribed.
I am curious though, what are your thoughts on the idea that "The bad exists?" Is there value in proving that as an axiom? Jordan Peterson spends a lot of mental capital on suffering. Does affirming the bad affirm the good? Or is it a distraction? Even to value the wrong idea is to value something, so in that sense I see how the good could be seen as irreducible. But isn't to fail to value, a positive act of negative reinforcement? Nihilism leads to entropy, and life is conditioned by time limits, so the act of living is ultimately a valuing of the good in the face of an inevitable bad, which is death. But then this brings me back to the good because we only get so much time, so we better make the most of it. Now, in some context you could say that death isn't really the bad, because it helps us to value life, and it leads to biological processes that recycle the materials of life, but it's still bad if the one its happening to is you or someone about whom you care. The thing about good and bad is that these are values conditioned upon human judgment. If there were no humans, then good and bad would be irrelevant concepts. However, existence is not conditioned upon human judgment. If humans did not exist that would do nothing to negate the axiom that "existence exists."
Valuing is a product of Judgment. First you get Sensation, then Perception, and then Judgment. Judgment comes after Metaphysics and Epistemology, even as it serves to continue to influence both. All epistemology is formed by making judgments based on a personal evaluation of existents. The very concepts of Good & Bad are Value Judgments.
I'm still going to value the good, because I'm human, my life is finite, and valuing the good is the only rational choice for a being that wants to live. But context matters. And the human context for valuing the good is being alive. Also, using your method of "Reaffirmation Through Denial" for the those misguided souls who value death, that value is still conditioned by the good of being alive. But wanting to prove an idea doesn't make it provable. I think all of your analysis of the value of the good is accurate and well-reasoned, but I'm still not convinced that "The Good" is axiomatic.
That being said, I'm not sure that it matters. Whether or not "The Good" is axiomatic does not change the fact that we are living humans and it matters to us. I want to fight for "The Good" and I want to help you fight for it. But I fear that the label "Axiom" is a distraction from the reason that "The Good" is important. "The Good" is important because we are alive. My existence exists. Your existence exists. I think that the argument against mysticism that we are seeking is somewhere in there, not in a universal axiom, but in the particulars of the human condition.
Nice.
@Inductica "There's no observational evidence for anything mysticism claims." - I do sincerely suggest that you consider taking some magic mushrooms or Ayahuasca in a ceremonial setting and see if this changes your mind. Best wishes =]
Well, by the same token can mysticism be proven when I drink a bunch of caffeine and feel far less tired?
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 I can appreciate that you're trying to argue by analogy by comparing substances that cause nootropic / psychoactive effects, but the experience induced by caffeine is not anything remotely close to experiences induced by psychedelics.
And anyway, you can't prove experiences. You simply _have_ experiences, or you don't. Yeah?
@@HokShunPoon Well yeah, but perception is the only kind of experience which can be taken as a starting point in a method of acquiring knowledge
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Yeah, well, I used to think that too. But no. What's mind bending about psychedelics is basically exactly this: a tonne of stuff gets revealed to you. Everybody comes out knowing stuff they didn't know before about themselves and existence. And yet this process of revelation does not involve sight, hearing or touch.
@@HokShunPoon Well, I also come to understand things about reality that doesn't immediately involve perception when I introspect, but I doubt that is any evidence of mysticism.
I'm not convinced. You identify valuing as being implicit to objective thinking, but just because something is implicit does not make it axiomatic.
My understanding is that valuing is contextual. (To whom and for what?) This cannot be axiomatic.
Also consider: "The Good" is chapter 7 in OPAR. There are 6 other chapters preceding it. It's probably not axiomatic.
The one way-that I can think of, I'm not a philosopher-in which this could potentially be an axiom is by clearly delimiting a branch of science, where "the good" becomes an axiomatic principle. However, you have not done this. In my opinion, you've put the cart before the horse by "discovering" an axiom that "opens up" a new field of science. I would expect this to happen the other way around. What gives rise to the need for a new field of science? Then, only after that is established, you can define the axioms upon which further thinking in that field rests.
“Just because something is implicit does not mean it is axiomatic.” Of course, but it is implicit, in every act of consciousness.
“My understanding is that valuing is contextual.” Here, you are referring to a view of what one should value. I’m not saying that some particular value is axiomatic, I’m saying that valuing as such is.
Re: OPAR order. Saying that someone ordered ideas in a certain way is not a good reason even if that someone is Leonard Peikoff.
I’m saying that this is a philosophic axiom (that it is involved in all thinking), and that it happens to open up a new field. I’m not opening the field then saying that my axiom is the highest principle of that new field. This is a valid way to use the word “axiom,” but it is a different useage of the word from Rand’s. This is why I identify this as a philosophic axiom.
Granting valuations as constitutive for cognition, isn't your idea a version of magical thinking about the mystical powers of language? I either will not find or disprove any truth by manipulating predicates. Language evolved for communication, not truth-seeking
Can you explain how you got that from my presentation? I don't mean to endorse such a position.