@Jsynon
Does it prove something? The whole point seems to be the idea of passion. Kierkegaard say "truth is precisely the daring venture of choosing the objective uncertainty with the passion of the infinite" and "Faith is the contradiction between the infinite passion of inwardness and the objective uncertainty". The question I ask is, why is infinity only perceived in passion? And what do "passion" and "infinity" signify here?
@Elevenness
"What is, is" is a meaningful statement, but it does not say much more than "what is red, is red" except of course we aren't dealing with a first-order predicate but with a quantifier, namely existence. But I would like you to quote Aristotle since I wasn't able to confirm this quotation so far. On the other hand, "Existence exists" is not equivalent to "what exists, exists" but states that the predicate of existence itself exists (and not that it is just exemplified but those things that exist). Honestly though, I do not see what this has to do with epistemological honesty. And to make it an antithesis to Christianity is quite artificial. Not all forms of Christianity opposed faith to reason. St. Thomas Aquinas would be totally d'accord with Aristotle on this point.
Just to make a few comments on the so-called axioms of objectivism.
"Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception."
This is just plain wrong. Neither everything I am conscious of also exists independent of my consciousness. Nor does every perception include consciousness, as psychology knows (see phenomena such as blindsight). So except for the case that perception is explicitly defined so as to include consciousness and existence, it does neither implicitly contain being conscious of the perceived object, nor the existence of the perceived object.
"This law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is."
Two remarks. To see the causal role of a thing as its essence or nature is a tenable position. But it can also be rejected. Moreover it is not necessary for a thing to be definite on all possible properties. If one rejects the classical bivalence principle A or not A and allows for a thing to be neither A nor not A one can think of the possibilty of undecideable properties.
The problem with these axioms is, that one can think of tons of interesting ways to avoid their acceptance. Even the law of non-contradiction isn't a must-have in modern mathematical logic any more. This of course seems to disprove the idea that those axioms are really axioms in the classical sense, i.e. self-evident statements. They can be altered and one can observe the logical consequences from such alternations (some alternations of course include alternations of the axioms of logic itself).
Does it prove something? The whole point seems to be the idea of passion. Kierkegaard say "truth is precisely the daring venture of choosing the objective uncertainty with the passion of the infinite" and "Faith is the contradiction between the infinite passion of inwardness and the objective uncertainty". The question I ask is, why is infinity only perceived in passion? And what do "passion" and "infinity" signify here?
@Elevenness
"What is, is" is a meaningful statement, but it does not say much more than "what is red, is red" except of course we aren't dealing with a first-order predicate but with a quantifier, namely existence. But I would like you to quote Aristotle since I wasn't able to confirm this quotation so far. On the other hand, "Existence exists" is not equivalent to "what exists, exists" but states that the predicate of existence itself exists (and not that it is just exemplified but those things that exist). Honestly though, I do not see what this has to do with epistemological honesty. And to make it an antithesis to Christianity is quite artificial. Not all forms of Christianity opposed faith to reason. St. Thomas Aquinas would be totally d'accord with Aristotle on this point.
Just to make a few comments on the so-called axioms of objectivism.
"Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception."
This is just plain wrong. Neither everything I am conscious of also exists independent of my consciousness. Nor does every perception include consciousness, as psychology knows (see phenomena such as blindsight). So except for the case that perception is explicitly defined so as to include consciousness and existence, it does neither implicitly contain being conscious of the perceived object, nor the existence of the perceived object.
"This law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is."
Two remarks. To see the causal role of a thing as its essence or nature is a tenable position. But it can also be rejected. Moreover it is not necessary for a thing to be definite on all possible properties. If one rejects the classical bivalence principle A or not A and allows for a thing to be neither A nor not A one can think of the possibilty of undecideable properties.
The problem with these axioms is, that one can think of tons of interesting ways to avoid their acceptance. Even the law of non-contradiction isn't a must-have in modern mathematical logic any more. This of course seems to disprove the idea that those axioms are really axioms in the classical sense, i.e. self-evident statements. They can be altered and one can observe the logical consequences from such alternations (some alternations of course include alternations of the axioms of logic itself).
Upvote
0
