Leonid -

Existence is every thing which exists.
If God created existence he has to exists prior to existence.
Existence prior to existence is contradiction in terms.

You are correct that there is a contradiction in terms in the above and I suggest you find better terms to express your ideas, it is not clear if you are including or excluding God when you speak of "existence"; If you are including God then the statement "God created existence" is a misrepresentation of the theistic position.

If God exists and is all that exists then existence is God.

Please specify what are exactly your problems with (5) and (6)?
Specified here.

Cheers,

Reed.

If the words themselves in translation are all that is considered, then maybe you'd be right, Richard.

But Kant the deontologist believed in intrinsic "good" -- and he most certainly did not hold human life as the supreme value, advocating such rubbish as the idea that only totally dis-interested action had moral significance. Ethics has nothing to do with "consequences," Kant claimed, and nothing, people included, were a "means" to anything in realm of morality. For Kant, just like people, "good" is an end in itself.

Rand's formulations of her idea in Anthem are a good place to see just how different a concept Rand was getting at.

So, while the words sound the same, the meaning is utterly different.

Leonid
3. As A is A, *Reality is Reality*. I would have said "Whatever reality is, that's what it is".
4. If (3) is true then *reality is independent of conciousness*. I would have said "There is only one reality".
5. If (4) is true then *reality is independent of any other conciousness*.
6. If (5) is true and *if god exists then his thoughts/conciousness are unable to affect reality* therefore *god can do nothing* therefore *belief in god is pointless*.
7. If (5 or 6) then *a god (creator) does not exits*.
8. ???

I can see logical problems with 5 and 6 which would cause a problem for 7 but it is possible I am misunderstanding the arguments so I'll address these after people have had a chance to examine the correctness of the statements.

Existence is every thing which exists.If God created existence he has to exists prior to existence.Existence prior to existence is contradiction in terms.Please specify what are exactly your problems with (5) and (6)?

"Man is an end in himself" is something that Rand appropriated from Kant. Having based her moral philosophy on Kant's greatest insight, she then denounced him as "the most evil man in mankind's history".

Thanks for the link. (Now that's gratitude.)

There is a very important difference between these two statements:

I assume there is not a God.
There is no proof of God's existence.

Yes, the former statement you know (its truth) and the latter you assume.

There is a very important difference between these two statements:

I assume there is not a God.
There is no proof of God's existence.

Or for example:

I assume FSM has not touched me with his noodly appendage.
There is no proof that FSM has touched me with his noodly appendage.

Identify the operative words and their specific meanings in this context and win a prize: reason.

"'Logic itself is under consideration.'

"Really?"

Yep.

"God" may be how you interpret higher end but I am not positing a god.

Are you saying if I can't prove the existence of something that it doesn't exist? Really, I'm just not that powerful.

Truth is truth (A is A) irrespective of whether we have the proof or not.

If you are suggesting that we assume [Man] is not a means to any higher end unless it is proven to the contrary then that would make it a statement of belief/faith.

Of course they oppose your ethics. Your ethics are those of altruism, the source of concentration camps, wars, suicide bombings, socialism/fascism and everything that's evil in the world, including Chrristianity. And you, alas, are making no serious effort to understand this.
I have read some on Oaltruism and egoism, nothing that differs significantly from my own perspective so far. I consider it impossible to perform a completely selfless act. It's their opposition to religious people and support for abortion that I oppose.

To make this knowledge we would need to disprove the existence of any higher end or identify all higher ends and prove that we are not means to them.

You're still not getting it. The onus of proof is on you to prove the existence of any higher end, since you are positing such a thing in the absence of any evidence for it. Don't you see? You can posit any old rubbish, such as "God" or the invisible spider on Mars and say the onus is on sensible folk, as opposed to the fantasisers who posit such rubbish, to disprove it. If you don't grasp this we can't go anywhere.

Also the ARI and Peikoff actively oppose my ethics so I prefer to not support them financially.

Of course they oppose your ethics. Your ethics are those of altruism, the source of concentration camps, wars, suicide bombings, socialism/fascism and everything that's evil in the world, including Christianity. And you, alas, are making no serious effort to understand this.

Linz

I suspect Richards translation of the idiom "man is an end in himself" is correct enough to advance the discussion.

[Man] is not a means to any higher end.

To make this knowledge we would need to disprove the existence of any higher end or identify all higher ends and prove that we are not means to them.

WRT - ITOE and OPAR
If this knowledge hasn't transferred from the book to any of the people here (in a way they can express) then it is unlikely be useful to me either.
Also the ARI and Peikoff actively oppose my ethics so I prefer to not support them financially.

Richard -
I wasn't comparing you specifically to the JWs and it wasn't in reference to your quote of Ayn Rand. While the JW similarity is not unique to this discussion, in this case it was with respect to the statement "Man is an end in himself" and objectivists here not being able to derive/prove it. I think the term "Randroid" is an expression of a similar observation.

James -
I am afraid that I don't know what you mean by "revelations" or a "departure from common usage" in this case.
I used the term "revelations" to describe any additional insights that ARs definition of knowledge may contain.
ARs definition of knowledge either conforms to the common definition of the term knowledge or not.
If it conforms it can be ignored, if it does not then, by definition, what Rand is defining is something other than knowledge. If we are seeking knowledge then ARs definition can still be ignored but if we are seeking Oknowledge then we have submitted before we start.

Logic itself is under consideration
Really?

I have to agree with James Valliant.  I think you're a bit all-over-the-place here and you probably need to take a good weekend or two and read the literature that has been suggested.

After reading your original post, and comments, I'm a bit lost as to exactly what you are looking for, you say you want to examine The Heirarchy of Knowledge, but, as James implies, you jump probably far too quickly with many missed or implicit arguments straight into either ethics - which is further down the track from what should be your "start" - or to unimportant diversions like God.

Not being fully up to speed with Objectivism myself I'm not sure I could help you all that much even if you got your arguments and premises sorted out, but myself and many others here would like to try.

I understand your point, but I think you were just pointing out the obvious. I think you're making a lot of unexamined assumptions. My posting of the Ayn Rand quote wasn't a blind parroting, it was posted to try and bring some constructive grounding to the debate, a starting point, and it isn't something I haven't thought about deeply to my own satisfaction. I haven't noticed anyone at the Solo site, blindly parroting in subvervient follower like fashion.

I am afraid that I don't know what you mean by "revelations" or a "departure from common usage" in this case.

As for your "main topic," I am suggesting that you still haven't reached the proper starting place for "everything prior to ethics," as you put it. Logic itself is under consideration, for example. You have crucial premises already built into your starting gate, it seems to me.

Just finding out where we must "start" is itself an important discovery -- at least it was for me. Here, I must echo the recommendation of Peikoff's 'Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.'

>>> ... does the book define what is meant by "man is an end in himself" and identify the step immediately prior to it? <<<

Hi, Reed.  Yes, Peikoff is very careful to show the basis in reality of the ideas he introduces or discusses.  By heirarchical, I mean that he organizes his presentation to start with knowledge "close" to reality and work up to successively higher-level integrations which depend on the lower level ones, like your specific example of men being ends in themselves.  He is giving the "guided tour" of the Objectivist system and methodology in this way specifically so understanding these ideas and seeing their validity isn't a matter of authority or faith.

But it is a very dense presentation, and most everybody will struggle with the material in a variety of ways, which is why I suggested using OPAR as a springboard for further (organized and productive) discussion and exploration here with others who have some familiarity with the system.

Good luck,
Greg

You won't get decisive, detailed answers here or in Amazon reviews.

You have to read the relevant literature. From there you can come back and debate specific points. ITOE or OPAR should give you a start. George Smith's Atheism also makes critical points on the topics you are asking about.

- Jason

Perhaps I should explain my motives.

In my other blog Christian Libertarian it was proposed that libertarian politicians be opposed if the were religious because they were unable to defend their position at a philosophical level as they didn't have a hierarchy of knowledge to support their stand. I agree that their libertarian ideas may be founded on assumptions (beliefs) and any conclusions based on assumptions are still belief.

Here is the quote...
reed, since knowledge is hierarchical it is not enough to string together political beliefs you are unable to defend philosophically and hope a public shackled by an irrational collectivist political philosophy will vote for you. That is putting the cart before the horse. Rand was criticizing the fact that the Libertarians were advocating a grab bag of political ideas but could not defend those ideas at the fundamental level. - William N. Green

I am testing if objectivism has a sound hierarchy of knowledge or if it is conclusions based on assumptions. Remembering that knowledge and belief are personal. From what I have seen so far of objectivists philosophical foundation I would classify it as belief (at least for the ones here).

It's good that people have taken the time to respond but apart from Richard no one has contributed to the hierarchy of knowledge - while identifying my errors is good identifying parts of the hierarchy would be better.

Richard -
The point is that if individuals can't define their reasoning and have to defer to some other authority then they are in a similar position to the JWs. I think people here understand the implication and might be motivated by it to put forward some arguments. Also, on a personal level, the discussions here remind me of my discussions with JWs - they claim their particular beliefs to be "accurate knowledge" and they will "parrot" phrases but can't explain them.
Note: Premises need to be identified to be checked, which is what we are doing here. Can you identify your premises?

James -
I wasn't aware that philosophers had yet achieved a consensus definition
IMO we are all philosophers of varying degrees and we should not be convinced by consensus.
Do not confuse words with facts - the definition of terms should be clear and, if possible, not vary from common usage to ensure that everyone is speaking the same language. If a definition contains some "revelation" then the definition shouldn't be used until it is proved.
"Knowledge" is simply a word and I have identified what I think is its common definition. If the common definition was different then, to be understood, I would have to use a different term.

... far be it from me to "sidetrack" your intended order of things.

Your compliance is appreciated although it would be better if you contributed to the main topic with even a little of your own reasoning.

Yes, someone who didn't think for themselves and didn't check their premises wouldn't be independent. But what's your point?

I agree with Greg -- and good luck.

As to "redefinitions," I wasn't aware that philosophers had yet achieved a consensus definition. In any event, the principle I just mentioned is as old as Aristotle.

But, far be it from me to "sidetrack" your intended order of things.

Greg -
I appreciate your positive approach, while I am not an objectivist - knowledge, reason and truth are important to me.
I read some of the reviews of the book on amazon and some (claimed) objectivists dispute the accuracy but you are right it would be a good place to start from.
WRT Ambitious project - I'm told "many hands make light work" and I figured I would get lots of assistance from objectivists as it is in their own self interest to concisely define objectivism.
I'm guessing you have a copy of the book - does the book define what is meant by "man is an end in himself" and identify the step immediately prior to it?
You probably don't want to spend much time on it so I will ask nothing else from you, TIA.

Richard -
It's funny that you brought up the "Jehovas" (jehovahs witnesses), I have had some discussions with them and when they were stuck they have said to me "I'll have to find out what we think about that". They have resigned reason (and belief) to "the Governing Body". Objectivists are in a similar position if they claim something as knowledge and can not prove it for themselves (and to themselves) but trust that someone else (Rand, Peikoff) has proven it for them.

James -
I was hoping to avoid getting side tracked by the redefinition of words. If you start a blog on the advantages of Rands (re)definition of knowledge then I will contribute.

Hi, Reed.  I think your ambition in this is admirable, and the idea of trying to work systematically from the ground up is great.  One thing to consider is that what you are working to build up is a substantial set of identifications -- a very large context of knowledge.   That's a lot of work and there is a lot of room for mistakes and blind alleys, so finding a way to leverage other peoples' similar efforts (especially experts' similar efforts) would likely prove extremely useful. 

Given the level of rigor and heirarchical approach you seem to be interested in, a decent approach would be to work through Dr. Leonard Peikoff's excellent book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.  In it, he gives a careful, essentialized, heirarchical and integrated account of the philosophy, from the ground up.  Most important, I would suggest starting threads here as you go, to clarify, argue about, and apply what you are figuring out in that structured fashion.  That way, you could put the ideas together much more efficiently, as well as help the rest of us join in much more productively.

Hope this helps,
Greg

It clearly does include mathematics.

Boy, have you a long way to go.

Okay, here's a start: there is no "oneness" that we somehow know innately. There are only one horse, one apple, one man, etc. We get this the same way we get the idea of "horse" and "apple" -- and this goes for "two," or "minus," or "circle," or "square root," or "negative," or "vector," etc. -- perception, abstraction, logic.

Lindsay -
Misrepresenting your position was not intended.
For clarification would it be fair to call the arbitrary "an incomplete proposition", "a non proposition" or "an incomplete proposition or non proposition".
Can you identify which category "atheism" (your definition) would fit into - knowledge, belief or the arbitrary.

James -
My use of the word "poetic" was a dig intended to encourage participation but I do consider the definition wordy and IMO if you are going to have a specific definition, that varies from common usage, it needs to be identified - maybe "Oknowledge". The definition also appears to exclude mathematics.

Everyone -
Ok, so not much progress using the ground up approach can we try it from the other direction.

I will presume that "man is an end in himself" is the basis for ethics as no one has contradicted this. I have had trouble recognising this as a proposition so for me this is an "arbitrary" statement.

Richard has contributed "he [man] is not a means to any higher end."
If this is an accurate representation it still requires a proof to become knowledge.

If anyone here knows this to be true please present the proof.

Rand's definition of "knowledge" has a great many virtues, but I don't see it as "poetic," except in the broadest sense. It is "concise," at least to the degree it can be while remaining precise, but that doesn't make something "poetic." It is "precise," identifying the only stuff qualifying as knowledge (and this includes some stuff that is not "proven," btw), but that won't do it, either. It is "true," properly identifying the kind of thing knowledge is (the genus), along with its specific causes and forms (the differentia), providing the subtle distinction between "consciousness" and "knowledge." It is "elegant," reducing a vast complexity to its basic elements, but still not "poetry" –– a metrical statement, the sound of which reflects its literal meaning.

A "poetic" statement may not be a metered unity (a "poem"), but its very sound must, in some way, be integrated with its denotation in order to qualify. A "poetic" statement is one in which the beauty is derived from this mutual reflection of what is being said and the concrete means of saying it. Thus: "As imperceptibly as grief, the summer lapsed away." Notice how the sentence itself "lapses away" just as it is saying the summer does. Or, thus: "And when I found your flesh did not resist/It was the living spirit that I kissed." Here, the very rhyming of "kissed" with the previous line's "resist" resolves the tension created by the "resistance" suggested in the first line. THIS is a "poetic" rhyme, as opposed to, say, "Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce/Special orders don't upset us." No meaning is integrated, compared, or resolved in its connecting "lettuce" with "upset us." Even a simple bit of prose like this (from the King James translation of the Bible), "I am a stranger in a strange land," can be called "poetic" with its evocative use of repetition. See what I mean?

Rand's statement is pretty technical, so what did you mean?

At this rate we'll never get out of the starting gate. "X is either true or false" does not exhaust the possibilities. Objectivism allows another category, the arbitrary. A false statement is at least intelligible, in that it contains referents in reality but doesn't correspond to reality. For instance, "Linz shot JFK" is false, but we can understand it and test it against the facts. There is a Linz, there was a JFK, there was a shooting. Linz, however, was in Feilding at the time, so couldn't have been the shooter. But if you say to me "God exists" I truly don't know what you're talking about, and that would be my response, rather than "your statement is false."

Atheism is not knowledge. It is simply paying no attention to an unintelligible utterance.

To start laying the foundations of knowledge you must start with what's there, not some undiscussable flight of fancy.

Linz

You haven't pressed Mr Peikoff further to see what his premises are, so basically, you do not know whether he's imparting knowledge or professing a belief.

He presented his proof as per my original post which I showed wasn't sound and didn't lead to knowledge but you're right, I can't prove that he doesn't have a solid proof that he didn't share but, based on the evidence, I have chosen to believe that he doesn't have the proof. I'd already aknowledged this assumption in my previous post - "... prevents it being knowledge (for me anyway)".

Rands definition of knowledge is poetic but not concise, I don't like it, which I why I defined the term in my original post. Her definition is similar to mine but she has said "fact( of reality" in place of "something... true" and "reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation" in place of "prove".

Isn't "not believing that x is true" , and "believing x is false," the same thing?
No, with the former you are not making an assertion. When I consider ideas unlikely and can not disprove them, personally, I am happy to actively believe they are false while I think Lindsay is not willing to commit to belief in their falsehood, it's a position that doesn't require a defence. In the same way that believing something to be true won't make it true... believing something to be false won't make it false.

Have you read and digested what I posted from Ayn Rand below?
Sure.

If man is an end in himself, then it means he is not a means to any higher end. It means he's not a sacrificial animal, which has big consequences for ethics.

Is this proposed to be axiomatic? If not what is the prior knowledge or assumptions this is based on?
I would have thought the prior knowledge/assumption was that there is no god/supernatural/"higher end" but Lindsay indicated atheism was "not integral to Objectivism at all".

To think X is false and not prove it is belief. (atheism, Peikoffs position although he's not recognising belief)

But that itself, is just belief. You haven't pressed Mr Peikoff further to see what his premises are, so basically, you do not know whether he's imparting knowledge or professing a belief.

I think Ayn Rands definition of knowledge is worth inserting here:

Knowledge is "a mental grasp of a fact( of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation."

To not believe that X is true (atheism, Lindsays position I think) is not the same as knowing X is false or believing X is false.

Isn't "not believing that x is true" , and "believing x is false," the same thing?

I pointed out some errors in Peikoffs argument for atheism which prevents it being knowledge (for me anyway) -

Have you read and digested what I posted from Ayn Rand below?

 Back to the main bit. How does the idiom "Man is an end in himself" translate into an argument or is it supposed to be axiomatic?

If man is an end in himself, then it means he is not a means to any higher end. It means he's not a sacrificial animal, which has big consequences for ethics.

X is either true or false.
To think X is true and prove it is knowledge.
To think X is true and not prove it is belief.
To think X is false and prove it is knowledge. (atheism)
To think X is false and not prove it is belief. (atheism, Peikoffs position although he's not recognising belief)

To not believe that X is true (atheism, Lindsays position I think) is not the same as knowing X is false or believing X is false.
It's also possible to have no opinion (atheism/agnosticism) or degrees of preference for one position (may be atheism).
And it is also possible to not know and have no preference (agnosticism).

I pointed out some errors in Peikoffs argument for atheism which prevents it being knowledge (for me anyway) - corrections of any of my observations and arguments are welcome.

Back to the main bit.

How does the idiom "Man is an end in himself" translate into an argument or is it supposed to be axiomatic?

There isn't more than one definition of atheism here. Leonard Peikoff, I suspect, would use exactly the same definition as Linz. His assertion that there is no supernatural isn't a new form of Atheism, and it is knowledge. It is knowledge that arises from an understanding of the law of identity. To be, is to be something. The primacy of existence, and the law of identity, necessarily rules out the supernatural.

Unfortunately there is more than one definition of atheism.

While Lindsay has the position of non belief Peikoff is expressing that god etc does not exist, for this to be knowledge he has to prove it, otherwise it is a belief in that idea.

"Peikoff is expressing another form of atheism but that is his problem to prove."

As linz said, atheism is the absence of a belief in God. There's nothing to prove.

From Peikoffs intro...

10:15 "We deny supernaturalism - which is the idea that there is some super power, force, god, whatever that controls or affects this world. So we are therefore atheists... we are against all forms of the supernatural... there's no use praying because there is nobody to pray to, and even if he could hear your prayers and was there he couldn't do anything about it."

Peikoff is expressing another form of atheism but that is his problem to prove. He is however presenting this as the objectivist position.

I agree entirely "the onus of proof" is on the one trying to prove something and we can have opinions on the likelihood of something being true or not without having to prove our positions as long as we don't make the mistake of thinking it is knowledge.

How does "Man is an end in himself" translate into an argument or is it supposed to be axiomatic?

Maybe this is worth posting:

"Existence exists--and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

"Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two--existence and consciousness--are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that 'it' exists and you 'know' it." - Ayn Rand

So is 7. in my original post a misrepresentation of the objectivist position?
Should it be eliminated or corrected? If corrected, what should it be?

Eliminated. Objectvism has no position on the arbitrary other than that it's arbitrary. Objectivism is not about proving that God doesn't exist. Logic doesn't require you to prove the non-existence of God. The onus of proof is on those who say God exists.

So is 7. in my original post a misrepresentation of the objectivist position?

Should it be eliminated or corrected? If corrected, what should it be?

I'll have to watch the video again to make sure I am not misrepresenting him.

The definition of atheism varies a lot. Is your one the official objectivist one?

I didn't figure out why the god bit surprised you initially but I think it was my interpretation of "Man is an end in himself" to "There is no god therefore we are our own gods/rulers".

How does "Man is an end in himself" translate into an argument or is it supposed to be axiomatic?

... and wouldn't. Which statements of his are you referring to specifically?

If objectivist atheism is merely 'the absence of a belief' and not pivotal to objectivism why did Peikoff try to disprove gods existence in his intro to objectivism?

He could have saved everybodys time and not mentioned it.

Note: If belief can be proven it is no longer belief.

If you're going to posit a god, or an invisible green spider on Mars, the onus of proof is on you. Annoying, eh? Atheism is merely the absence of a belief in such a non-thing. It's not integral to Objectivism at all.

I thought atheism was part of objectivism.

If atheism is part of objectivism and objectivism is knowledge then a proof is required.

... why bring it up in this discussion? Aren't you trying to arrive at the truth here? The thread is called "Defining Objectivism." Of what use or relevance is some random, arbitrary postulation that isn't part of Objectivism?

The idea of God varies depending on the religion (and sect) which is why I provided the link.

... what is it?

The god thing was mentioned in Peikoffs "Introduction to Objectivism" and is mentioned in my original post and is probably mentioned in Rands books.

I was wondering what this "god" thing was you suddenly threw into the mix?

I was expecting some reaction form the last post - agreement, correction or flames.
I will interpret Osilence as agreement.

Moving on to 8.

I have read the phrase "Man is an end in himself", I'm not sure I understand this idiom but I think it is an expression of "There is no god therefore we are our own gods/rulers". Is that a correct interpretation?

Is "Man is an end in himself" the basis for objectivist ethics?

I was expecting "free will" to come into the equation.

...work can wait.

Addressing Items 5 and 6
If "Reality is independent of [my] conciousness" then "reality is independent of any other conciousness".
This statement sounds good but is ambiguous and depending on its interpretation can be correct, speculation or just flawed.

Some ways to interpret this...
(5.1) If "Reality is independent of [my] conciousness" then for the same reasons "Reality is independent of any other [similar beings] conciousness".
or
(5.2) If "Reality is independent of [my] conciousness" then by extrapolation "Reality is independent of any other conciousness [including gods]".
or
(5.3) If "Reality is independent of [my] conciousness" then by extrapolation "Reality is [unaffected/]independent of any other conciousness [including gods]".

What is my conciousness capable of?

With my conciousness I am able to move objects (arms, legs, eyes, etc.), cause electrical flow (brain/nerve activity), I can convert matter into energy (through a process called "eating") and with the aid of another conciousness I have even caused the existence of four other conciousnesses (is that a word).

Could a being exist whose conciousness is more powerful than mine (hard to believe, I know) and has greater capabilities?

The decisions my concious mind makes, and even my mood, affects the lives of millions/billions of organisms that live in me.

I see no problem with 5.1.

5.2 is an extrapolation (speculation) and the following assumptions would need to be identified.
Assumptions: Reality is not "part of gods conciousness" or "part of god" or "god".

With 5.3 the meaning of "reality is independent" changes from one statement to the next and, for that reason, is not a sound argument. This may be a straw man argument on my part but it's what I think the reasoning is to get to "If god exists [as a being within creation] he can do nothing".

... is vastly over-rated. Some of my friends do it, and the results are not pretty. I tried it once. I find it interferes with one's drinking, as someone famous once observed. If one can't repair to a gin when the temptation to work arises, one should at least lie down till the urge passes. Over time it gets easier.

"So get on with the rest of it man—suspense is killing me"

I thought I might get some work done today instead.

Rand is rolling over at having "I think therefore I am" attributed to her. "Prior certainty of consciousness." Having to infer the external world from one's consciousness rather than treat it as self-evident. Bad.

Reed, Objectivism rests on the Primacy of Existence. Existence exists. Existence is identity—to exist is to be some thing. Consciousness perceives existence. None of this requires proof. So get on with the rest of it man—suspense is killing me.

The order we arrive at the knowledge is inconsequential.

"The order of 1 and 2 is inconsequential."

It certainly is not.

PC

I have numbered them for the sake of discussion. The fact that 1 and 2 are axioms (self evident) means that each is not reliant on the other being proved. I chose to put 1 first because you have "to be" "to be aware" but a case could easily be made to order them the other way. The order of 1 and 2 is inconsequential.

The first step in the hierarchy is "Existence exists", and it's from that foundation, or axiom, that you arrive at the second axiom consciouness: "I think therefore I am", or "I possess consciousness to perceive that which exists".