Objectivism does not regard, "acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational," as an axiom, and you will never find it described as such.
To these you posted:
"The principle of non-initiation of force was popularized by Ayn Rand, and it certainly is a key aspect of the Objectivism." -- William Thomas, The Objectivist Center.
and then a definition of axiom from Newspeak.
My post pertained only to axioms as objectivists define it. What others consider axioms is irrelevant. If you want to know what objectivsts consider axioms, you have to find out what they consider axioms, not pop in any idea you or anyone else things they might mean.
Anybody may call anything they want an axiom, I was only saying the objectivsts reject assumptions as axioms.
Do you think I made this up?
Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of "faith" or of man's arbitrary choice, there is a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all knowledge, that is has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.
For instance, when modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alledged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on "existence," "consciousness," "identity," which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, "stolen" concepts.
--Ayn Rand, Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology, pp. 74
Hank
Judging from the AR quote you posted on axioms, Ayn Rand's definition of axiom is no different than the definition of absolute - are these synonyms? The dictionary defines axiom as "a universally recognized truth" however, there is no such thing as a "universally recognized truth" in human-land because people disagree about everything. In effect, axioms are "truth by definition." From your post, Ayn says that "axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of "faith"", however, how does a human decide which principles are axioms and which aren't? The only principles that one can authoritatively say are universal are the ones that come from God. Any other is a human invention and does not have universal applicability, regardless of whether someone labels them as "axiomatic." Of course, that would mean that many of AR's philosophical beliefs are her opinion only which she calls axioms, but insofar as they disagree with God's moral absolutes, they are certainly not universal truths.
Backwards. The definition of "axiom" from Merriam-Webster.
My post pertained only to axioms as objectivists define it.
Exactly. Newspeak.