And that's true of almost all moral structures - almost everyone claims that their system of morality is grounded in objective truth, with the possible exception of consequentialist systems. If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you don't accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.
-----------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your taking the time to explain the subjectivity of objectivism. I'd say that on the underside of what we take as "axiomatic" in any philosophy or religion are subjective decisions.
Also, that underneath this, as with all of life, it's a matter not just of what one believes and knows, but of "who you know" --and how you respond with all else. I mean, it looks to me that human beings are beings who relate (to other beings and all the other 'stuff') and who do so much more consciously and creatively by far than any other being of the known world. Who are humans? We are conscious beings, yes, but more than this, we are conscious (and even unconscious) relaters.
"Relationality" may not be in the dictionary, but from what I see, it is the most essential aspect of being, more essential than knowing, I think. "I think and therefore" I think about something that relates to me --which may (or may not be) there for me, whether or not I think about it. Even when I am at my least conscious points in my life, I never cease to be related to and to relate. And thinking this, I think that our identity as a relational being is determined by how we relate with what and whom we relate with. That being the case, the most basic decision we must make about what is axiomatic is about what else it is most important to relate with. Since this is about essential subjectivity, the question is: what are we most subject to?
I think there are many clues to the answer to this in our lives, when we look at ourselves for who we are... how we function... how it is we are prone to do what we do... etc., especially as it pertains to whatever is "other" that may be related with. I think the essential decision, that these clues may afford us (and inadvertently agreeing with the expressions of some theologians, from what heresay I've heard said;-) is to be found by the answer to the question of what is the most essential other?
To go to the essense of this, I think it becomes a matter of dust and of breath. Of those two, there is breath which purports to have made the dust and at my core, I cannot argue with it. I cannot. There is someting that is me at the core of me, that just cannot.
But thank God, I can agree with it.
Objectivism does not accept any assumption as an axiom. It is the only system that does not. All other systems do. That is one of the primary differences between objectivism and all other philosophies and ideologies.
First, there must be an observation and identification of some fact of reality or our knowledge that is discovered to be both primary and irreducible. What determines which such observations are axioms or only derivative concepts is the law of non-contradiction. If the assertion of some discovered aspect of existence or knowledge cannot be denied without being self-contradictory it is an axiom.
For example. The mystic "axiom," "there is a god." To say, "there is no god" is not self-contradictory, and therefore not an axiom. The logical "axiom" "existence exists" (or there is existence). To say "existence does not exist" (or there is no existence) is self-contradictory, thus, "existence exists" is an axiom.
Hank
That’s a quote from you, general_re. Of course, you are citing the same logic that kept (keeps) Karl Marx in business. He gave us a model of a relentlessly internally-consistent system based on certain fundamental axioms; and the whole thing worked out just fine, on paper so to speak -- just so long as you didn’t ask any “embarrassing” questions (like: what possible bearing can Marxian social-reconstructivist theory have on the way human beings actually live?).
What the system does not anticipate does not exist. All questioning of that sacrosanct premise is absolutely forbidden.
You go on to say:
If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you don’t accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.
All of which begs the question: How many “systems of morality” can possibly exist without nullifying the entire idea of “morality” in the first place?
Which gets us straight to the issue: You clearly make the basis of morality a matter subject to human “preference.” You clearly say as much when you say we humans are completely free to choose the “axioms” that seem best to us. But doesn’t that gut the entire idea of moral order – by making it something that is established by means of personal, private judgment?
Which again begs a question: By what criteria can such judgments legitimately be made?
This is the problem that an alienated man, Karl Marx, once faced. And he faced it, by taking up more or less permanent residence in the stacks of the great library of the British Museum. He thought that the human mind, aided by all the relevant books in that establishment, could finally figure out the destiny of man, and so put man on a sound course to a utopian future.
The point is, Marx’s entire project is in abject denial of actual Reality – the way human beings actually live, and must live if they are truly human.
unspun very gingerly touched on this point with his term “relationality.” I gather that, like me, he finds objectivism’s overemphasis on radical individualism to just be a tad “over the top.” This theory turns a blind eye to the connectedness of the human person with other persons -- his relations in society and the world, and his relations (if any) with God.
There is a narrowing and flattening of the problem simply by virtue of making the human individual perfectly ultimate – such that questions of moral truth can only be decided according to individual taste and discretion. And just to say that only those things that can be proved can be true is to deform Reality itself.
But it seems clear to me that “certainty” and Truth are, if anything, mutually exclusive propositions.
Getting back to Karl Marx: Here’s a guy that thought he could reconstitute the world in his own image. At bottom, that’s what his entire project is all about – a “will to power” to explain Reality according to his own judgments and preferences.
But the world of Reality remains precisely what it is, regardless of Karl Marx. Though it’s true the world of human social relations has been profoundly roiled by Marxian doctrine, the world of natural reality just keeps on ticking….
Hopefully people can recover their senses and stop repeating Marx’s enormity of a theoretical mistake, which I would simply designate as: the flight from Reality.
No matter what system of morality and ethics you evolve, it's ultimately going to rest on premises that must be taken as axiomatic because they are fundamentally unprovable, and objectivism is no different than any other system in that regard.
Actually, I disagree. They are not fundamentally unprovable, they are self evident and all further constructions rely upon them for their existence. Their proof is that they cannot be dispensed with. For example, morality or ethics presume the concept of choice. You can prove that choice exists but you cannot reduce any further than choice. If there is no choice, there can be no morality or ethic, since there would be no way ‘choose’ a higher value, namely life over death. Thus the error of the following:
Thank you for your taking the time to explain the subjectivity of objectivism.
Then the following:
I'd say that on the underside of what we take as "axiomatic" in any philosophy or religion are subjective decisions.
See, ‘decisions’ implies something to choose between, or there would be nothing to decide. You can reduce decisions to choice but can go no further. Even the concept of ‘value’ requires the ability to choose one thing over another that contributes to life. Rocks compared to food.
The rest of this isn’t worth (value) taking time (choice) to respond to. For example:
"Relationality" may not be in the dictionary, but from what I see, it is the most essential aspect of being, more essential than knowing, I think.
Now, how can he know there is anything other than himself to relate to, if he doesn’t know anything? Hierarchy of conceptual develop is violated here. I suppose if he rises no higher than an animal, which relate to each other. But to live as a human being, using concepts, knowing comes prior to relationship. He must know himself and know the other for there to be a relationship.
And thinking this, I think that our identity as a relational being is determined by how we relate with what and whom we relate with.
See? All this knowing, how, who, what. He’s thinking about all this, conceptual symbolism. How can one have an 'identity' to relate with without first knowing it? Behind it all is choice. Do I choose to eat a rock? Do I choose to steal her food? Do I jump off this cliff?
Somebody put this guy through a logic course please.