"The total passion for the total height"
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 4 users and 14 guests online.
Online usersPollElection 2008: Who Will Win? Obama by a landslide 12% McCain by a landslide 22% Obama comfortably 14% McCain comfortably 22% Either narrowly 30% Total votes: 50
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
The Real Black Knight, part one Submitted by NickOtani on Sun, 2007-09-16 02:02.
Okay, let’s go back to the berginning. I said: 1. It's inconsistent to say all knowledge is derived from experience but that all men already have knowledge of axiomatic truth, which is not experienced but experienced directly. Greg said, “Please, try doing the homework you should have done and back up those "paraphrases" of Objectivism with quotes, showing clearly how those supposed contradictions are indeed contradictions (i.e., "at the same time and in the same respect").' "You'll find that you can't -- and depending on what you do with that firsthand information, you may begin to earn the kind of discussion you say you want.” I went back to ITOE and found the quotes from which my paraphrases were taken. I said, “Do you deny that Rand said all knowledge is derived? On page 29 of ITOE she says, “Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one’s awareness of the external world.” Do you deny that Rand said knowledge of axioms is not derived but experienced directly? On page 55 of ITOE, she says, “An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.”’ “I paraphrased Rand defining man as objectively conscious, by definition. What I meant was that Rand says man is the only animal capable of being conceptually conscious, even if he must be so by choice. She says, in ITOE, on page 78, “Man is a being of volitional consciousness:…”’ “This allows me to keep the premises and their conclusions above, but they also raise new problems, like how Rand says “An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts,”(Ibid) yet she brakes down “consciousness” into content and action. She will also have problems talking about first cause, that that first volitional choice to focus is not caused. We atheists get on the theists for using “sufficient reason” or “cause and effect” to get to God, but then excuse God from having to be caused or have sufficient reason. Schopenhauer said it is like a taking a taxi to get to ones destination and then getting out. Rand does the same thing with this primary choice to focus. She believes in cause and effect but not in man’s choice to be conscious.” Greg acted as if I didn’t do anything. He acted like the Black Knight who didn’t acknowledge getting his arm chopped off. He said, “Please, it isn't that complicated a request for a big scholar so worthy our respect: simply clarify your essay's FIRST POINT (quoted in its entirety earlier) and actually show that "contradiction" in Rand. This is one simple test. Someone with your substantial intellectual credentials should be able to make this simple and obvious for the rest of us. Respect-worthy experts don't recklessly spout off on what they can't substantiate.” I said, “Whatever I do, you will claim that it is not adequate. I took some of my paraphrases and substituted the actual quotes from ITOE and left the logical structure of my valid arguments, but that's not enough for you. I also pointed out other problems which those quotes exposed, but you are still confused. It is not me who needs philosophical training. It is you. I can't make things simple and obvious to everybody. They first have to be able to recognize fallacious thinking. Respectable philosophers would and do.” Greg said, “Nick, I claim the very first point in your essay is nicely representative of the general incompetence running through all of your work. You seem to sincerely think you’ve done solid work on it—twice over, now—and that I’m being unfair with my standards, arbitrarily asking for more when it is not needed. (If it isn’t representatively solid, then please do show us that quality, representative version—and kindly explain why you didn’t agree that it was deficient earlier.)’ “Okay, here’s the put-up-or-shut-up part: I certainly can do you the service of straightening you out on this point and countless others, but my price is honest engagement. If I do your work for you this time, and your representative example of work turns to dust when I quote from the material you claim to have approached with the brain of a trained and seasoned intellectual, will you admit your incompetence, apologize for your arrogance, and start behaving accordingly?’ “Yes, of course I hold myself to the same standard of engagement.” I said that he was on, that in order to prove his claim that he would have to uncover some incompetence in this very first point in this essay and then show how it is represented in all my other work. I claimed he could not do this. Then, I basically went back and repeated my post which he ignored, where I quoted Rand from ITOE to support my paraphrases which he complained weren’t supported before. Greg said, “Yes indeed, Objectivists hold that all knowledge comes ultimately from the evidence of the senses.’ “But what about "all men have knowledge of axioms"? If only you'd checked that notion, you would have noticed Peikoff explaining -- right in the heart of the OPAR section dealing with the axioms -- that "The fact that axioms are available to perception does not mean that all human beings accept or even grasp axioms in conscious, conceptual terms. Vast numbers of men, such as primitives, never progress beyond implicit knowledge of the axioms. Lacking explicit philosophic identification of this knowledge, they have no way to adhere to the axioms consistently and typically fall into some form of contradicting the self-evident, as in the various magical world views, which (implicitly) deny the law of identity. Such men stunt their minds by subjecting themselves to an undeclared epistemological civil war. The war pits their professed outlook on the world against the implicit knowledge on which they are actually counting in order to survive." [OPAR p.9]’ “Well, you lasted almost one sentence before the 'inconsistency' evaporated: All knowledge comes from the evidence of the senses, including any knowledge of the axioms. And the facts named by the terms 'existence', 'identity', and 'consciousness' are indeed directly available and implicit in every act of awareness -- but they are not explicitly grasped by all men.” I said, “Nowhere did the quote I cited say the knowledge had to be explicit. Implicit knowledge is also knowledge. Your quote does not say primitives do not have knowledge, only that they do not conceptualize it. Therefore, your quote by Peikoff does not contradict the statement that all men have knowledge of axioms, which is part of the claim which I say is inconsistent with the statement that all knowledge is derived. Knowledge of axioms, even for primitives, seems not derived in the same way derived knowledge is derived. It is implicit in derived knowledge.’ “You did nothing to refute my claim. You did not demonstrate any incompetence in this first claim, let alone demonstrating that it is represented in all my other works. You even helped me make the point that all men have axiomatic knowledge, even primitives.’ “I don't expect you to keep your word. You will no doubt insist that you are right and I am wrong. Oh well.” Greg said, “Nick, if you want to head that direction in defense of this awful work, that's fine by me.’ “"All knowledge is derived" from the evidence of the senses -- which is to say that we ultimately know the world, directly or indirectly, via the senses and nothing else (i.e., knowledge isn't built-in or arrived at mystically or via emotion or some other non-sense-based source).’ “This is not in conflict with the fact that the axioms are available in every act of awareness (i.e., "known" implicitly) though not necessarily explicitly identified (i.e., not necessarily known explicitly).’ “So the tally is appropriately revised: you didn't even make it six words before your claimed 'inconsistency' evaporated.” I said, “You should read your own words here. You are affirming that all knowledge is derived and that axioms are implicitly known in every act of awareness but that there is no conflict. Any competent philosopher would disagree.” Greg said, “Nick, I said all knowledge is derived from the evidence of the senses. That the axioms are implicit in every act of awareness and explicitly validated via sense perception is an expression of that principle.’ “Expressing a principle is the opposite of violating it.’ “A conflict here would require either (a) axioms being ultimately known via something other than the senses, or (b) knowledge not being based ultimately in sense perception. But neither of those holds according to Objectivism.’ “If you disagree, please show us your logic.” I said, “Yes, Objectivism holds that knowledge is derived and axiomatic knowledge is implicit but not derived in some other way. This is why Objectivism is inconsistent on this point. It says all knowledge is derived, but axiomatic knowledge has to be there to derive it. So, axiomatic knowledge, which is part of “all knowledge” has to be there to derive axiomatic knowledge. This is incoherent. One doesn’t fix it simply by denying that it is inconsistent or incoherent.” Greg said, “To actually demonstrate this circularity, however, you would need to show (1) that it is indeed true by Objectivist lights that "axiomatic knowledge has to be there" to gain any knowledge at all, and then (2) that the precise sense in which it must "be there" cannot be satisfied.’ “The sense matters. If you are simply saying that axiomatic facts being implicit in all awareness means that one cannot gain knowledge of anything (including axioms) without simultaneously enjoying implicit knowledge of axiomatic truths, then that is unremarkably Objectivist and certainly not circular -- there is no unmet dependency.’ “However, if you are saying Objectivism holds that all knowledge on all levels (i.e., from bare perception up to the pinnacle of conceptual identification, including the explicit identification of axiomatic concepts) depends in some way on a prior explicit grasp of the axioms, then you are attacking a strawman and the circularity lies only in your misreading of Objectivism.’ “Either way, your allegation of circularity remains stillborn.” Greg admits that Objectivism holds that axiomatic facts must be implicit in all awareness and that one cannot gain knowledge of anything(including axioms) without implicit knowledge of axioms. He says it is unremarkably Objectivist. He doesn’t see the inconsistency in holding that one must have implicit knowledge to have knowledge, even implicit knowledge. Greg already establishes his first condition 1. that it is indeed true by Objectivist lights that "axiomatic knowledge has to be there" to gain any knowledge at all. His last paragraph shows that he is still confused about whether or not I am claiming that the knowledge has to be explicit, even though I explained that. "Implicit knowledge is also knowledge." To be continued... bis bald, Nick
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
Don't worry, Elijah.
You probably can't count that high anyway.
Nick
Ummmmm
Nick Otani...gosh..ummmm..
...how many 'parts' are there?
The Real Black Knight, part five
Greg said, “There are endless issues to address, but I think this is the most fundamental.’
“In response to my puzzled query, Nick explained, 'I quoted Rand saying, “Knowledge is a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.” And, I asked if perception was a mental grasp of itself. If it is not, then it is not knowledge according to that definition.'
“Nick, your test here indicates a serious confusion on your part, and it is right at the heart of your argument. Contra your test, NO form of knowledge is a mental grasp of PERCEPTION according to Objectivism -- knowledge is a mental grasp of FACT(S). Perception is (direct) awareness of fact(s) according to Objectivism, and is unsurprisingly regarded as "a mental grasp of fact(s)", which is just what Rand is talking about in this definition. So, in Objectivism, perception is regarded as a direct form of knowledge, and conception as an indirect form which is ultimately based on the direct form. Say hello to the broad sense of knowledge. It includes perceptual AND conceptual forms of awareness -- and your revisiting the Objectivist epistemology with this understanding should clear up innumerable 'incoherencies' you have struggled with.'
"Thank you for your inquiry, please let us know if we can be of further assistance."
I said, “This completely ignores Nathaniel Branden's explanation that perception is not enough for knowledge. There must be comprehension, mental grasp, too.”
Greg said, “The key Rand quote on this (from the ITOE chapter on Axiomatic Concepts) is perfectly clear that people have direct awareness of the FACTS named by those terms, NOT THE CONCEPTS:
"After the first discriminated sensation (or percept), man's subsequent knowledge adds nothing to the basic facts designated by the terms "existence," "identity," "consciousness"—these facts are contained in any single state of awareness; but what is added by subsequent knowledge is the epistemological need to identify them consciously and self-consciously. The awareness of this need can be reached only at an advanced stage of conceptual development, when one has acquired a sufficient volume of knowledge—and the identification, the fully conscious grasp, can be achieved only by a process of abstraction.’
“It is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents, but of a basic fact from all facts." [ITOE 56, bold mine]’
“And here in his OPAR section on these three basic axioms, Peikoff is likewise crystal clear that this implicit knowledge is NOT CONCEPTUAL:
"The fact that axioms are available to perception does not mean that all human beings accept or even grasp axioms in conscious, conceptual terms. Vast numbers of men, such as primitives, never progress beyond implicit knowledge of the axioms. Lacking explicit philosophic identification of this knowledge, they have no way to adhere to the axioms consistently and typically fall into some form of contradicting the self-evident, as in the various magical world views, which (implicitly) deny the law of identity. Such men stunt their minds by subjecting themselves to an undeclared epistemological civil war. The war pits their professed outlook on the world against the implicit knowledge on which they are actually counting in order to survive." [OPAR 9, bold mine]’
“Nick, we know none of this is news to you by any stretch. Yet even on direct query you persist in mischaracterizing Rand and the Objectivist position in support of a point you want to make about them: "According to Rand, the axiomatic concepts of existence, consciousness, and identity are implicit in all human awareness, human experience." [Nick, bold mine]’
“This looks bad, Nick. Intellectually-dishonest bad. Please clear this up if you can. Otherwise, I am taking my leave as well.’
“Nick writes, "This completely ignores Nathaniel Branden's explanation that perception is not enough for knowledge. There must be comprehension, mental grasp, too."’
“Please recall my recent post talking about the two senses of 'knowledge'. Branden was talking about knowledge in the narrower, conceptual sense. That is not necessarily in conflict with Rand talking about knowledge in the broader sense in the definition you quoted: What she says of the broader sense needs to be true of the narrower, but not the other way around. (c.f., What is true about dogs is true about poodles, but what is true about poodles may not be true about dogs.) ‘
“In raising this red herring, you have conveniently avoided addressing the fundamental confusion I identified via your test. Can't answer it?’
I said, “I think you are the dishonest one, Greg. I quoted several times that Rand defines man as volitionally conscious, a rational animal by choice. You did not refute or even address this.
I also said, “According to Rand, the axiomatic concepts of existence, consciousness, and identity are implicit in all human awareness, human experience. They are necessary for knowing itself.” This is a true statement.”
At least twice, I pointed out that Nick has been confusing the concept with the referent in such statements. The key Rand quote on this (from the ITOE chapter on Axiomatic Concepts) is perfectly clear that people have direct awareness of the FACTS named by those terms, NOT THE CONCEPTS:
“The referent is the concept, the fact, the knowledge. Your quotes do not impact this.’
"After the first discriminated sensation (or percept), man's subsequent knowledge adds nothing to the basic facts designated by the terms "existence," "identity," "consciousness"—these facts are contained in any single state of awareness; but what is added by subsequent knowledge is the epistemological need to identify them consciously and self-consciously. The awareness of this need can be reached only at an advanced stage of conceptual development, when one has acquired a sufficient volume of knowledge—and the identification, the fully conscious grasp, can be achieved only by a process of abstraction.
“This quote does not say that basic facts are different from the axiomatic concepts. It says that subsequent knowledge adds nothing to them and that at an advanced stage of conceptual development, they can be made explicit by a process of abstraction. They are still necessary for knowing, itself.’
"The fact that axioms are available to perception does not mean that all human beings accept or even grasp axioms in conscious, conceptual terms. Vast numbers of men, such as primitives, never progress beyond implicit knowledge of the axioms. Lacking explicit philosophic identification of this knowledge, they have no way to adhere to the axioms consistently and typically fall into some form of contradicting the self-evident, as in the various magical world views, which (implicitly) deny the law of identity. Such men stunt their minds by subjecting themselves to an undeclared epistemological civil war. The war pits their professed outlook on the world against the implicit knowledge on which they are actually counting in order to survive." [OPAR 9, bold mine]
“You used this quote in your first failed attempt to refute me. I told you then how it doesn’t refute but actually supports my point. It says that even primitives have this knowledge implicit within them. They count on it to survive, even if they don’t grasp it conceptually. They don't have to grasp something conceptually for the axiomatic concepts, terms, to be implicit in their awareness. The concepts are implicit but not explicit. My statement: "According to Rand, the axiomatic concepts of existence, consciousness, and identity are implicit in all human awareness, human experience," is not a mischaracterization of Rand.’
“There is no red herring on my part. I am pointing out inconsistencies in the statements Rand makes about knowledge. She doesn't say, "This is the broader sense of knowledge, and this is the narrower sense. She is talking about "knowledge" She says it is always derived, processed, and contextual but axiomatic knowledge is not. You try to excuse this by talking about two senses of knowledge, but this is what you add to the literature to make it more consistent to you. You sound like a Christian excusing the two versions of the creation story in Genesis.”
After this, Greg posted a Utube video of Monty Python’s The Black Knight to ridicule me. I think he is the one who has shamed himself here and lost his honor. He did not win. It is not a draw. I won. Certainly a few wahoos on the board will laugh at me and think Greg has shown me up, made a fool of me. If that satisfies Greg, then so be it. It wouldn’t satisfy me. Perhaps nobody with any intelligence and integrety will read this debate all the way through and care. However, if they do, they will see that I am not dishonest, incompetent, and all those other things Greg tried to put on me in his effort to win this debate. I can stick to the facts and win on reasoning and evidence, not personality.
The End
bis bald,
Nick
The Real Black Knight, part four
Greg said, “Nick, here's what I wrote again, mildly updated to try to help you understand what you are looking at:
“1. All knowledge is derived, meaning all knowledge is experienced indirectly, from the senses, and contextual, relative.”
“FALSE PARAPHRASE. According to Objectivism, NOT ALL knowledge is experienced indirectly: “The perceptual level of consciousness is automatically related to reality; a sense perception is a direct awareness of a concrete existent.” [OPAR 96, bold mine] And according to Objectivism, NOT ALL knowledge is formed in and given meaning by a context: “Leaving aside the primaries of cognition, which are self-evident, all knowledge depends on a certain relationship: it is based on a context of earlier information.” [OPAR 123, bold mine]’
“As written, bullet #1 is a misrepresentation of Objectivism and your argument depends on it -- would you care to try rewriting it again? By all means, please do give it a shot if you really think you can rescue your argument from its current complete failure.”
I said, “Your quote from page 96 of OPAR is not talking about knowledge. It is talking about perception in the context of concept formation. Perception, as I explained, is not, by itself, what Rand considers knowledge. What does Rand consider knowledge? Rand defines it as “a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.” Is a perception, by itself, a mental grasp of itself? Apparently not. Rand also talks about how babies are born tabula rasa, with no automatic knowledge. However, it is a given that all sorts of sensations and perceptions take place in the womb. Rand is, evidently, not considering that knowledge yet. Knowledge implies not only a recognition of a phenomenon but some degree of comprehension as well.’
“Your other quote leaves aside axioms, which are not contextual. However, on page 121 of OPAR, under the title of “Knowledge as Contextual”, Peikoff begins the third paragraph saying “Concepts are a relational form of knowledge.” He doesn’t say “some” concepts. However, axiomatic concepts are clearly not contextual. They are fundamentally given and true independent of any context and implied in any state of awareness. They are irreducible primaries. So, give Peikoff your lecture on intellectual sloppiness.”
Greg said, “Rand, like many philosophers, uses both a broader and a narrower sense of 'knowledge' (the narrower being reserved for humans' distinctive form of knowledge, conceptual knowledge).’
Please notice that here is where Greg is again adding something of his own to the literature to avoid the conflict of two different definitions of knowledge. He is acknowledging the inconsistency but excusing it as a broader and narrower form of the word.
“Here is an example of her using the broad sense, and it certainly includes perception as a species of knowledge: "All knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition."[ITOE 81] And here is Peikoff likewise regarding perception as a species of knowledge: "Few men flout their perceptual knowledge." [OPAR 259] And perception it is not "a mental grasp of itself" (where did that come from?); Peikoff is clear that Objectivism recognizes that the perceptual form of awareness -- perceptual knowledge -- involves direct awareness of reality: “The perceptual level of consciousness is automatically related to reality; a sense perception is a direct awareness of a concrete existent.” [OPAR 96]’
“Rand of course recognizes that axiomatic concepts are special/peculiar in various ways -- in fact, she has an entire chapter on them in ITOE -- and in that chapter she is clearly regarding perceptual awareness of the fundamental facts identified by axiomatic concepts as knowledge of those facts: 'After the first discriminated sensation (or percept), man's subsequent knowledge adds nothing to the basic facts designated by the terms "existence," "identity," "consciousness"—these facts are contained in any single state of awareness; but what is added by subsequent knowledge is the epistemological need to identify them consciously and self-consciously. The awareness of this need can be reached only at an advanced stage of conceptual development, when one has acquired a sufficient volume of knowledge—and the identification, the fully conscious grasp, can be achieved only by a process of abstraction.’
“It is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents, but of a basic fact from all facts.' [ITOE 56, underline mine]’
“As for your comments on tabula rasa, you have simply confused the essential with the incidental. First, tabula rasa does not mean no AUTOMATIC knowledge (that after all would be excluding perceptual knowledge, which IS automatic and infallible); rather, it means no INNATE ideas (i.e., no innate conceptual knowledge). Once you understand that, you can see that "at birth" is not the important detail (and picking the real, non-poetic point in time is a matter for science, which seems clear now that perception is possible for some time before birth). The unproblematic philosophic essential is that no conceptul knowledge could be present prior to perception. Peikoff is clear on what is being said: "Since concepts, according to Objectivism, are integrations of perceptual data, there can be no concepts apart from sense experience. There are no innate ideas, ideas in the mind at birth. Consciousness begins as a tabula rasa (a blank slate); all of its conceptual content is derived from the evidence of the senses." [OPAR 38]’
“Moving on, I had written: 'And according to Objectivism, NOT ALL knowledge is formed in and given meaning by a context: “Leaving aside the primaries of cognition, which are self-evident, all knowledge depends on a certain relationship: it is based on a context of earlier information.” [OPAR 123, bold mine]'
“Nick comments, "Your quote here leaves aside axioms, which are not contextual. However, on page 121 of OPAR, under the title of “Knowledge as Contextual”, Peikoff begins the third paragraph saying “Concepts are a relational form of knowledge.” He doesn’t say “some” concepts. However, axiomatic concepts are clearly not contextual. They are fundamentally given and true independent of any context and implied in any state of awareness. They are irreducible primaries. So, give Peikoff your lecture on intellectual sloppiness."
“Peikoff was of course giving a structured presentation and it is not out of line to assume his reader will pay attention to his development through the end of a section. A handful of paragraphs later he had built up to the fuller and more precise formulations about the implications of context, which I drew from. (It is a bit ironic that you would quote Peikoff out of context in his section on context.)’
“So we return to my observation: As written, bullet #1 is a misrepresentation of Objectivism that your argument depends on -- would you care to try rewriting it again? By all means, please do give it a shot if you really think you can rescue your argument from its current complete failure.”
I said, “I’m just using the definition of knowledge she, herself, provided, which I quoted as a mental gasp of a fact of reality reached by perception, not just the perception. It requires comprehension. Yes, she may use a broader sense of the term in some places. That is just more evidence of her inconsistency. Back when Nathaniel Branden was speaking for Objectivism, he said, in the “Intellectual Ammunition Department,” of The Objectivist Newsletter, II, (January 1963), p4, that for something to be “known,” in short, it is not enough that it be “perceived” to be. It must also be comprehended as a particular type of object or event complete with a specific meaning. Also, note the inconsistency in the quote above from ITOE 81: It says that all knowledge is processed knowledge, then it gives an example of “unprocessed” knowledge. This is not coherent.’
And here is Peikoff likewise regarding perception as a species of knowledge: "Few men flout their perceptual knowledge." [OPAR 259]
“Peikoff is being ironic or sarcastic here. He uses the example of people on LSD or Jim Jones, people who are clearly irrational, not acting on knowledge but feeling, people who would walk into the path of a speeding truck “because I feel like it” or “because the leader expects it.” On the conceptual level, he goes on to explain, the consequences of flouting one’s knowledge are not thus inescapable.’
And perception it is not "a mental grasp of itself" (where did that come from?);
"I don’t know. I didn’t say it was. I quoted Rand saying, “Knowledge is a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.” And, I asked if perception was a mental grasp of itself. If it is not, then it is not knowledge according to that definition.'
Peikoff is clear that Objectivism recognizes that the perceptual form of awareness -- perceptual knowledge -- involves direct awareness of reality: “The perceptual level of consciousness is automatically related to reality; a sense perception is a direct awareness of a concrete existent.” [OPAR 96]
"That quote does not call perception knowledge. I addressed this in my previous two posts.'
Rand of course recognizes that axiomatic concepts are special/peculiar in various ways -- in fact, she has an entire chapter on them in ITOE -- and in that chapter she is clearly regarding perceptual awareness of the fundamental facts identified by axiomatic concepts as knowledge of those facts: 'After the first discriminated sensation (or percept), man's subsequent knowledge adds nothing to the basic facts designated by the terms "existence," "identity," "consciousness"—these facts are contained in any single state of awareness; but what is added by subsequent knowledge is the epistemological need to identify them consciously and self-consciously. The awareness of this need can be reached only at an advanced stage of conceptual development, when one has acquired a sufficient volume of knowledge—and the identification, the fully conscious grasp, can be achieved only by a process of abstraction.
It is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents, but of a basic fact from all facts.' [ITOE 56, underline mine]
"This quote does not say the subsequent knowledge is sensation or percept. It just says subsequent knowledge, after axiomatic knowledge, adds nothing to that implicit axiomatic knowledge."
As for your comments on tabula rasa, you have simply confused the essential with the incidental. First, tabula rasa does not mean no AUTOMATIC knowledge (that after all would be excluding perceptual knowledge, which IS automatic and infallible); rather, it means no INNATE ideas (i.e., no innate conceptual knowledge). Once you understand that, you can see that "at birth" is not the important detail (and picking the real, non-poetic point in time is a matter for science, which seems clear now that perception is possible for some time before birth). The unproblematic philosophic essential is that no conceptul knowledge could be present prior to perception. Peikoff is clear on what is being said: "Since concepts, according to Objectivism, are integrations of perceptual data, there can be no concepts apart from sense experience. There are no innate ideas, ideas in the mind at birth. Consciousness begins as a tabula rasa (a blank slate); all of its conceptual content is derived from the evidence of the senses." [OPAR 38]
"None of this conflicts with my point that perception is not knowledge. And, that Rand says all knowledge is derived, but axiomatic knowledge is not."
To be continued...
bis bald,
Nick
The Real Black Knight, part three
Greg continued, “Then, perhaps not trusting that separate argument, Nick continued by bringing up an entirely separate issue as if it were the same one: “The inconsistency is that in one place, she says all knowledge is derived and contextual, concepts are formed in a context, but axiomatic concepts are not contextual.”’
“This contextuality point is different and clearly outside the scope of our agreement (to assess the first point of the essay). It can of course be taken up later if there is interest.’
“First things first. Nick: this isn’t over until you’ve explicitly tapped out. Are you in fact conceding that the first argument you presented as solid in your essay, and which you then claimed to have backed up with those Rand quotes, has fallen?”
I said that I said “yes” to indicate that Rand said what he was quoting, not to concede that my argument had fallen flat.
I quoted other passages to better explain the passage he quoted and show that it doesn’t cohere with the usage of ‘derived’ I quoted before. When ‘derived’ was used before, it was talking about sense experience which is indirect and contextual. Axiomatic knowledge is implicit in the state of awareness.
‘... but, “They are implicit in every state of awareness, from the first sensation to the first percept to the sum of all concepts.” (Ibid) So, they had to be implicit in themselves when they were first experienced. They form the bases for objectivity. The axiomatic concept of identity has to be known before or at least at the same time someone identifies identity. This seems incoherent.’
I said, “This is not a different argument. It is an extension of the one I made at the beginning, that axiomatic knowledge is different than the knowledge included under “All knowledge”. It is not derived in the same way. If it were, it would need itself to derive itself. It is a precondition for integrating or conceptualizing non-axiomatic knowledge.’
“The fact and concept and the knowledge are the same; they are all implied in any single state of awareness and necessary even for the survival of primitives, who can’t make them explicit by conceptualizing them. At advanced stages of conceptual development, according to Rand, the implicit can become explicit by the abstraction process. The implicit concept or fact is still a concept. It just isn’t explicit until it has been defined and grasped, and Rand says this can be done even by ostensive definition, which is waving ones arms around and saying, “This is existence.” Before one does that, however, existence still exists. It is an axiom implicit in every act of awareness.’
“It’s not a separate argument. It is just further explanation of the first, because Greg could not understand it yet. And, it is not for circularity. It is for inconsistency and incoherence. And, that can be shown on several levels. Each level, though, is taken as a different argument by Greg.’
“Almost an exact restatement of my original contention is that all knowledge is derived and axiomatic knowledge is not derived in the same way. It is implicit in the knowledge process itself.’
“It is part of the first premise, that all knowledge is derived. This meant experience indirectly from the senses and limited and influence by context, something which is not done with axiomatic knowledge.’
“The contradiction is still there.”
Now, Greg took a different approach, he tried to contradict some statements I made with statements from OPAR. They only confirmed my contentions that there were inconsistencies in the literature:
“1. All knowledge is derived, meaning all knowledge is experienced indirectly, from the senses, and contextual, relative.”
Greg said, “FALSE. Not ALL knowledge is experienced indirectly: “The perceptual level of consciousness is automatically related to reality; a sense perception is a direct awareness of a concrete existent.” [OPAR 96] And not ALL knowledge is formed in and given meaning by a context: “Leaving aside the primaries of cognition, which are self-evident, all knowledge depends on a certain relationship: it is based on a context of earlier information.” [OPAR 123]’
“2. Axioms are knowledge.”
“TRUE. Though one should be careful when using the term ‘axiom’ to make it clear whether one is talking about the fundamental facts axioms name, or the awareness/identification of said fundamental facts.’
“3. Axioms are experienced directly, thus derived, but not contextually like non-axiomatic knowledge. ... “
“TRUE. Though this of course only conflicts with Nick’s misunderstanding in [1], not with Objectivism.’
Notice right here that Greg has conceded an inconsistency in Rand’s treatment of knowledge, even though he is going to try and identify two types of knowledge in the literature and say I misunderstand the type Rand is using in some places. If the inconsistency can’t be avoided, just say it is a different sense of the word. Trick 15.
“... Axioms have to be present to integrate contextual knowledge.”
“AMBIGUOUS ala my note in [2]. Here are two senses I can think of where it is true, though: First, the fundamental facts named by axioms are available in any act of awareness, so they do “have to be present” for any cognitive act in the simple sense that it is impossible for them to NOT be available. And second, it is these fundamental *facts* which enable and demand integration -- even before one is consciously aware of them. If Existence, Identity, and Consciousness were not true, integration would be neither necessary nor possible. Oh, and on their truth, Nick added, “Pragmatists don't claim that axioms like A is A are true because they are true, like Rand does. They say they are true because they are experienced as such.” But Rand DOES NOT claim these are true because they are true, and this is a shocking mischaracterization for a supposed Rand scholar; she is perfectly clear that we know axiomatic facts not by fiat or assumption, but because we experience them directly via the senses.’
"So Nick’s claimed demonstration of a problem with Objectivism turns out to be nothing more than a compelling demonstration of problems with his scholarship.”
I said, “There is a problem with Greg’s scholarship.’
“When I said Rand said all knowledge is derived and that that means it is experienced indirectly, I meant that she meant that it is experienced through the senses first and then processed by cognition and based on context. The initial perception, of course, is direct. However, this isn’t conceptual knowledge. Even animals have perceptions.’
“And, yes, she does claim they are true because they are true. They may be experienced directly along with our awareness of anything else, I say they have to be there before we can even experience other knowledge, and that’s the inconsistency, but that is not how we know they are true. We know they are true because they are, according to her, self-evident. They are the primaries of cognition. It’s the pragmatist who says they are true because we experience them to be so.’
“Gee, Greg’s mischaracterization of Rand is shocking!”
Greg said, “Nick, you carefully crafted bullet #1 to talk about ALL knowledge -- yet what it said is not true of SOME knowledge. If you didn't really mean ALL, you shouldn't have talked about ALL. Please don't blame others for the consequences of your intellectual sloppiness. As written, bullet #1 has been proven simply false -- do you care to try rewriting it again? By all means, please do give it a shot if you really think you can rescue your argument from its current complete failure.’
"Yes she does claim [axioms] are true because they are true."
“Objectivism holds that we know the axioms are true because we validate them via sense perception. We experience their truth directly; we don't need to make up or assume their truth.’
'"Validation" I take to be a broader term than "proof," one that subsumes any process of establishing an idea's relationship to reality, whether deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, or perceptual self-evidence. In this sense, one can and must validate every item of knowledge, including axioms. The validation of axioms, however, is the simplest of all: sense perception.' [OPAR 8]
"...I say [axioms] have to be there before we can even experience other knowledge, and that’s the inconsistency..."
“Sorry, but this is an inadmissibly vague statement. Please indicate what you are actually talking about: "be there" in what sense? In the sense of being facts of reality? Of being facts available to our direct awareness, at least implicitly? Of being grasped explicitly? Being grasped explicitly in conceptual form? Something else? What could it be?? You seem to think this is crucial, so I'm on pins and needles.’
“Please, dazzle us with your potential for scholarly precision and rewrite your bullets again. As it stands, your argument proves nothing but an inability to establish your point.”
I said, “I blame Rand and Peikoff. This is their sloppiness. I am merely pointing it out. It is they I am quoting and paraphrasing in my bullets and in my initial argument. What does Rand consider knowledge? Rand defines it as “a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.” Is a perception, by itself, a mental grasp of itself? Apparently not. Rand also talks about how babies are born tabula rasa, with no automatic knowledge. However, it is a given that all sorts of sensations and perceptions take place in the womb. Rand is, evidently, not considering that knowledge yet. Knowledge implies not only a recognition of a phenomenon but some degree of comprehension as well.’
“On page 121 of OPAR, under the title of “Knowledge as Contextual”, Peikoff begins the third paragraph saying “Concepts are a relational form of knowledge.” He doesn’t say “some” concepts. However, axiomatic concepts are clearly not contextual. They are fundamentally given and true independent of any context and implied in any state of awareness. They are irreducible primaries. So, give Peikoff your lecture on intellectual sloppiness.’
“No. The argument has to be challenged first. My statement above is enough to make your attempt at a challenge go away. Please do give it another shot if you really think you can.’
“First, validation is not “proof”. It is weaker than proof. It is one step up from apology, saying, “I’m sorry. I can’t prove this but at least I can validate it.” Logic gets treated this way, since we can’t use logic to prove logic. We vindicate its use. It’s all we have. Existentialist also use validation to talk about their own existence, which they admit they can't prove. They reject Descartes' cogito as circular, but they say they can validate their own existence as the experience other things. Second, sense perception is not pure, not self-evident and not always accurate. Science tells us that because of the construction of the eye, we have a blind spot which we fill with illusions. So, our perception of reality is not necessarily what reality is. It is not really great proof or validation, as was illustrated by the blind man, the turkey, and the frog in the first part of the Alice series.’
“Perhaps I can’t establish my point to you. I would have trouble establishing it to my pet hamster also. That doesn’t mean it is not an establishable point. When I say axioms have to be there before we can experience other knowledge, I am paraphrasing Rand. She is the one saying they are the base of knowledge and necessarily contained in all knowledge. According to Rand, and John Galt, there can be no consciousness without their prior existence and our knowledge of them. “Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.” Since Rand later defines man as a volitionally conscious being, she is saying we already know, by virtue of being human, the axiomatic knowledge. They have to be there before we can have any knowledge. This is the inconsistency of treating all knowledge as something which is derived but axiomatic knowledge is not derived, it is implied in what is derived. It is necessary in the process of deriving knowledge, although she tries to make it seem axiomatic knowledge comes at exactly the same time as non-axiomatic knowledge and differs only in that it is more direct and not contextual.”
To be continued...
bis bald,
Nick
The Real Black Knight, part two
I said, “First, I don’t care about explicit grasp of axioms. Rand presents axioms as something given and not definable, yet must be defined, made explicit, but that is another subject which you will probably not want to get into, since you are not getting into the other problems I raised about the component parts of consciousness and the first cause arguments for volition.’
“Second, your first paragraph is circular. If one needs axioms to derive knowledge, then how does one derive axiomatic knowledge? With axiomatic knowledge? You are saying it is done simultaneously with any awareness of knowledge, but awareness can’t take place without prior knowledge of axioms, not simultaneous knowledge of axioms, even if not explicit. Objectivists say there is no prior knowledge, but this is inconsistent with requiring axiomatic knowledge to have any knowledge.”
Again, Greg acted like I didn’t make a point, like the Black Knight who ignores his injuries. He said, “Nick, our agreement was to discuss this first point first. Are you admitting your failure here? If not, then please take your Ritalin.’
“You write, "but awareness can’t take place without prior knowledge of axioms, not simultaneous knowledge of axioms, even if not explicit."’
“You think this is Objectivism? Quote please.”
I said, “I've already quoted the pertinent passages:
On page 55 of ITOE, she says, “An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.”
She says, in ITOE, on page 78, “Man is a being of volitional consciousness:…”
One can't derive until one has chosen. And, one chooses an axiomatic concept, a primary fact of reality which cannot be analyzed, is implicit in all facts and all knowledge. Therefore, consciousness must be implicit in itself, but this can't be analysed or proven. I wonder how it can be made explicit. It just can, according to Objectivism. This is all inconsistent and incoherent, as I maintained in my first post.”
Greg said, “Nick, those quotes do not support your contention. Your circularity argument here appears to critically depend on the error of confusing a concept with its referents.’
"And, one chooses an axiomatic concept, a primary fact of reality which cannot be analyzed, is implicit in all facts and all knowledge."
“Choosing to be conscious isn't choosing an axiomatic *concept*, but merely choosing to create/maintain an *instance* of one. (And no, one needn't know a concept to create or stumble across an instance. For example, people commonly create and wrestle with others' logical fallacies before learning the concept.)’
“Yes, the fact of consciousness is implicit in itself, and trivially so: it *is* itself. Also, Peikoff and Rand both explain how one makes the referents of axiomatic concepts explicitly clear: *ostensive definition* (because they are philosophical primaries and cannot be analyzed). They both likewise discuss how they are *validated* (not proven, because any proof assumes their truth).’
“If a scholar thought axiomatic concepts could not be defined, he would be addressing their discussion of ostensive definition. You are not. A scholar would appreciate that they distinguished between the broader category of validation and the narrower category of proof, and speak to that distinction and the non-proof method they rely on if he had a problem with our knowing whether not these ideas are true. You have not.”
I said, “First, these quotes along with the quote you already accepted, that all knowledge is derived and contextual, support my original contention that it is inconsistent to say all knowledge is derived from experience but that all men already have knowledge of axiomatic truth, which is not experienced but experienced directly.’
“According to Rand, implicit knowledge of axiomatic concepts is in all facts and all knowledge. One only has to choose to focus, to be conscious. Most people would interpret this to mean implicit knowledge of axiomatic concepts is a prerequisite for contextually derived knowledge, and is not the same as such knowledge. Therefore, not all knowledge is derived contextually, and this contradicts the quote you accept, that all knowledge is derived contextually. Axiomatic knowledge is not. It is implied and possessed by all humans as soon as they choose it. Yes, Rand denies inherent knowledge and intuition, but this is inconsistent with what she is saying about implied knowledge of the axiomatic concepts.’
“If you have to have these concepts to have knowledge, then you have to have implied consciousness in order to have consciousness. This doesn’t make sense.’
“And, *ostensive definition* is not real definition. It is waving one’s arms around to say, “This is existence.” This does not limit an abstraction and put it into a concept distinct from other concepts. Finally, people often use the word “valid” incorrectly. How do you define it?’
“I don’t mind broadening this discussion to include their problems with definition, but you said you want to deal with first things first. Are you ready to move on?”
At this point, there were many interruptions and side discussions. I’ll skip ahead to where the main debate picks up again.
Greg said, “Nick writes, “First, these quotes along with the quote you already accepted, that all knowledge is derived and contextual. Support my original contention that it is inconsistent to say all knowledge is derived from experience but that all men already have knowledge of axiomatic truth, which is not experienced but experienced directly.”’
”Nick, you did share a quote which talks about all phenomena of consciousness being derived, but you have shared NO quote discussing context.”
I said, “Again, I was assuming that people who claim to know about Objectivism wouldn’t need to be shown what Objectivism says. They would agree that Rand said that non-axiomatic knowledge is contextual as well as derived. Anyway, a paragraph which discusses context in ITOE is on the bottom of page 42 to the top of page 43:
Concepts are not and cannot be formed in a vacuum: they are formed in a context: the process of conceptualization consists of observing the differences and similarities of the existents within the field of one’s awareness (and organizing them into concepts accordingly). From a child’s grasp of the simplest concept integrating a group of perceptually given concretes, to a scientist’s grasp of the most complex abstractions integrating long conceptual chains—all conceptualization is a contextual process; the context is the entire field of a man’s awareness or knowledge at any level of its cognitive development.
“One can infer from this that one Objectivist who doesn’t have as much knowledge as another may hold a conflicting view, because of different contexts. Contextual knowledge is relative. Remember, though, axiomatic concepts are not contextual. They are implicit in every state of awareness.”
Greg said, “Now, you have used this phrase, “not experienced but experienced directly” a few times to express the core of your incoherency charge, but you have failed to associate it with Rand. The closest I saw you come was when you finally quoted Rand and followed up with questions stiching it all together:
‘First, I asked you if you denied that Rand said all knowledge is derived. Most Objectivists would concede this, and I shouldn’t have to provide quotes. However, I did provide a quote from ITOE page 29, “Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one’s awareness of the external world.”'
"Sure, and I will note that this usage of 'derived' includes BOTH ‘directly’ and ‘indirectly’ “derived from one’s awareness of the external world.”
'Second, I asked you if you denied that she said knowledge of axioms is not derived but experienced directly. I quoted her from page 55 of ITOE, “An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.”'
I said, “On the same page as the quote above, the last paragraph talks about the three axiomatic concepts of existence, identity and consciousness being peculiar. “Their peculiarity lies in the fact that they are perceived or experienced directly, but grasped conceptually.””
Greg said, “This is an inconsistency on your part, Nick. She indeed said that the primary fact an axiom identifies IS directly perceived -- and that certainly coheres with the usage of ‘derived’ you just approvingly quoted: “DIRECTLY or indirectly … derived from one’s awareness of the external world”.”
I said, “Yes, but, “They are implicit in every state of awareness, from the first sensation to the first percept to the sum of all concepts.” (Ibid) So, they had to be implicit in themselves when they were first experienced. They form the bases for objectivity. The axiomatic concept of identity has to be known before or at least at the same time someone identifies identity. This seems incoherent.’
“These quotes together support the paraphrase that all knowledge is derived from experience but that all men already have knowledge of axiomatic truth, which is not experienced but experienced directly.’”
“The inconsistency is that in one place, she says all knowledge is derived and contextual, concepts are formed in a context, but axiomatic concepts are not contextual. It seems that all men have them and have them exactly the same, they are what they are, by virtue of being conceptual beings.”
Greg said, “Regarding Nick’s explicit defense of his first-point argument, I had said: ‘This is an inconsistency on your part, Nick. She indeed said that the primary fact an axiom identifies IS directly perceived -- and that certainly coheres with the usage of ‘derived’ you just approvingly quoted: “DIRECTLY or indirectly … derived from one’s awareness of the external world”.’
“Nick began, “Yes,” apparently conceding that his argument had fallen flat. (There must be a god! :^)’
“In fact, he abandoned it and seamlessly moved to something else: ‘... but, “They are implicit in every state of awareness, from the first sensation to the first percept to the sum of all concepts.” (Ibid) So, they had to be implicit in themselves when they were first experienced. They form the bases for objectivity. The axiomatic concept of identity has to be known before or at least at the same time someone identifies identity. This seems incoherent.’’
“Well, we should note that that is a different argument. And one I even pointed out the essential flaw in earlier: this is simply confusing the *concept* with the *referents*. The axiomatic FACT is “implicit in every state of awareness”, not the axiomatic CONCEPT. Here is Rand putting the lie to Nick’s interpretation in the sentence following the one he quoted: “...these facts are contained in any single state of awareness; but what is added by subsequent knowledge is the epistemological need to identify them consciously and self-consciously. The awareness of this need can be reached only at an advanced stage of conceptual development, when one has acquired a sufficient volume of knowledge—and the identification, the fully conscious grasp, can be achieved only by a process of abstraction.”’
“So Nick’s alternate argument for circularity falls as a simple misreading as well.’
To be continued...
bis bald,
Nick