TTI Forums

Call this a grand thought experiment -

If you, dear reader, were provided with documented scientific evidence that altruism was an inherent part of human evolution, to the point that it was literally expressed on a biological level, would that be sufficient to cause you to abandoned the philosophy of Objectivism because of the fundamental contradiction between Ayn Rand's view of altruism as completely destructive, vs. the evolutionary concept of natural selection? In which Objective Reality do you truly place your 'philosophical faith' - the Objectivist fundamentals of human morality, or in the observable facts of science?

At the heart of Objectivism is the simple idea of A is A. A logical contradiction cannot exists - if a contradiction seems apparent, one must check their premises. One of Objectivism's premises is that altruism leads to the death of the individual. The theory of natural selections states that any trait which increases the survivability of an individual will tend to be passed to its descendents, and, thus, will be expressed in each subsequent generation.

If man had an 'altruism gene', implying that altruism was a trait increasing the survivability of humankind, in direct contradiction to Rand's premise, would that affect your philosophical stance?

AT

That's an impossible condition. Genes don't affect men's choices.

Free will is a fact of reality and man's consciousness. No biology founding can ever disprove that.

Thus, there is no reason to address or consider your proposition, since it has nothing to do with existence.

EDIT: clarifications

That's an impossible condition. Genes don't affect men's choices.

Free will is a fact of reality and man's consciousness. No biology founding can ever disprove that.

Thus, there is no reason to address or consider your proposition, since it has nothing to do with existence.

EDIT: clarifications

I'll take that as a 'No' from Oleksandr

The thing I find most interesting about the reasoning for your reply is that you appear to express a dualistic existence between biology and consciousness.

Isn't man's consciousness an outgrowth of his biology (his brain gives rise to his mind)? If they are one and the same, then there is no escaping the possibility that biology must affect a man's choices. The only way Free Will could be utterly independent of biology would be if it were utterly independent of his brain.

We are only beginning to scratch the surface on genetics - we don't know the true extent to which genes 'determine' the structures of the brain or its functioning. We also don't know exactly how the brain gives rise to consciousness. Perhaps we are merely biological Turning machines, whose complexity of computations gives rise to the illusion of Free Will.

You seem very certain of your conclusions to what are highly theoretical fields of scientific study. May I ask your basis for them?

AT

It all depends, you technically pose two questions...

1.

If you, dear reader, were provided with documented scientific evidence that altruism was an inherent part of human evolution, to the point that it was literally expressed on a biological level, would that be sufficient to cause you to abandoned the philosophy of Objectivism because of the fundamental contradiction between Ayn Rand's view of altruism as completely destructive, vs. the evolutionary concept of natural selection?

If the evidence proved that genetically there was a beneficial factor to an altruistic behavior in an evolutionary process, it would only serve to show that it has influence there. Just because it might be beneficial in a purely biological sense at a certain cellular level doesn't mean Altruism, taken in the context of society and social interaction, is a beneficial thing.

Now if you mean there was a gene that caused altruistic behaviors, you'd have to have evidence proving to me that gene was passed on due to positive natural selection. We have many genes that are currently passed on in humans that have no benefit, hell some are even harmful. Just because they exist in our evolutionary process doesn't make them beneficial or chosen. I'll try to avoid getting too deep into genetics so that we can keep this as easy to understand as possible.

The mere presence of such a gene would not challenge my philosophy of Objectivism. Now if you can prove that gene, it's effects (biological and social), and actual social Altruism are beneficial...then I might have reason to question.


2.

If man had an 'altruism gene', implying that altruism was a trait increasing the survivability of humankind, in direct contradiction to Rand's premise, would that affect your philosophical stance?

As I said above, the presence of a trait does not always logically transfer to it increasing survivability in the trait carrier. The survivability of a higher percentage of a species isn't always a good thing, at least for sentient beings. If we were simply trying to follow a model for maximizing our survivability there are alot better constructs physically and mentally for just surviving.

Surviving is simply making due with what happens in the world around you to maintain a basic level of life functions. True...altruism might help the many at the cost of the few...but that's at a very basic level of supporting life functions.

Currently one of the most promising hypothesis to come out of Physical Anthropology is that of the "selfish gene". There is quite a bit of evidence showing that even on a genetic level, organisms exist with selfish goals in mind (preservation of genetic material, territorial boundaries, etc). I'd be happy to link more information to it if any one is interested.


Also, due to several genetic factors, the theory of Natural Selection you gave is not 100% correct...although that could be placed more on the definition than your usage of it. An example of a type of natural selection follows:

A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms. Antibiotics have been used to fight bacterial diseases since the discovery of penicillin in 1928 by Alexander Fleming. Natural populations of bacteria contain, among their vast numbers of individual members, considerable variation in their genetic material, primarily as the result of mutations. When exposed to antibiotics, most bacteria die quickly, but some may have mutations that make them slightly less susceptible. If the exposure to antibiotics is short, these individuals will survive the treatment. This selective elimination of maladapted individuals from a population is natural selection.

These surviving bacteria will then reproduce again, producing the next generation. Due to the elimination of the maladapted individuals in the past generation, this population contains more bacteria that have some resistance against the antibiotic. At the same time, new mutations occur, contributing new genetic variation to the existing genetic variation. Spontaneous mutations are very rare, and advantageous mutations are even rarer. However, populations of bacteria are large enough that a few individuals will have beneficial mutations. If a new mutation reduces their susceptibility to an antibiotic, these individuals are more likely to survive when next confronted with that antibiotic. Given enough time, and repeated exposure to the antibiotic, a population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria will emerge.

For the "altruistic" gene to be passed on a variety of factors would have to be present. Most notably are its ability to be inherited from generation to generation, luck in that when the parents give their sets of chromosomes that the allele for the gene is present in a combination that would be phenotypically dominant, and the relative reproductive fitness that this altruistic gene would give its holder.

If anything it goes to reason that reducing your reproductive fitness through altruistic tendancies would be counter productive in a evolutionary standpoint. To pass the gene on you would want to mate as much as possible as well as provide yourself and your offspring with as many resources to ensure their survival while limiting that of your non-gene carrying counterparts.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:I'll take that as a 'No' from Oleksandr

No. You may take as same response I would give to "What if God existed and made us altruistic?"

Arakasi Takeda wrote:You seem very certain of your conclusions to what are highly theoretical fields of scientific study. May I ask your basis for them?

It looks like you disagree about existence of Free Will. As a matter of fact, free will is axiomatic. It's proof can be taken from introspection of our own consciousness. In fact, if you disagree with free will, then you may not claim any knowledge. But I won't show it here. Instead, I'll direct to the book:
http://www.peikoff.com/opar/index.htm where Peikoff does it very well.

Furthermore, as I said, no scientific evidence can ever disprove free will.

You can't disprove a philosophical axiom or a primary through science.

Our current state of knowledge in the field has no relevance whatsoever on argument of free will's existence.

I do not believe in axiomatic free will - not because I don't believe free will might exist, but because argument by 'self-evident axioms' is a notorious philosophical minefield.

Take, for instance, that something like 80% of the human population believe it is an axiomatic truth that 'God exists'.

According to you:

You can't disprove a philosophical axiom or a primary through science.

And you might be quite correct. However, just because I cannot disprove a philosophical axiom doesn't necessarily mean that axiom is correct or true.

After all - you yourself dismissed the 'axiomatic truth' that God exists.

No. You may take as same response I would give to "What if God existed and made us altruistic?"

So what makes your axiom self-evidently 'true', but the God axiom false?

You cannot disprove either.

Nor can you prove them.


AT[/quote]

AT, Your question is completely arbitrary. If you're gonna post questions like this and waste everyone's time, why don't you go somewhere else and do it?

Arakasi Takeda wrote:I do not believe in axiomatic free will - not because I don't believe free will might exist, but because argument by 'self-evident axioms' is a notorious philosophical minefield.

Well, then what is the base for your knowledge?

How do you know that A is A? How do you know your senses are valid? How do you know that reality exists? How do you know you exist?

P.S. I point you to http://www.peikoff.com/opar/index.htm again to see the arguments on axioms and free will. Granted you will have to find the book yourself.

I found an online exercpt from the book, here it is.

http://www.peikoff.com/opar/volition.htm

How, then, do we know that man has volition? It is a self-evident fact, available to any act of introspection.

You the reader can perceive every potentiality I have been discussing simply by observing your own consciousness. The extent of your knowledge or intelligence is not relevant here, because the issue is whether you use whatever knowledge and intelligence you do possess. At this moment, for example, you can decide to read attentively and struggle to understand, judge, apply the material — or you can let your attention wander and the words wash over you, half-getting some points, then coming to for a few sentences, then lapsing again into partial focus. If something you read makes you feel fearful or uneasy, you can decide to follow the point anyway and consider it on its merits — or you can brush it aside by an act of evasion, while mumbling some rationalization to still any pangs of guilt. At each moment, you are deciding to think or not to think. The fact that you regularly make these kinds of choices is directly accessible to you, as it is to any volitional consciousness.

The principle of volition is a philosophic axiom, with all the features this involves. It is a primary — a starting point of conceptual cognition and of the subject of epistemology; to direct one's consciousness, one must be free and one must know, at least implicitly, that one is. It is a fundamental: every item of conceptual knowledge requires some form of validation, the need of which rests on the fact of volition. It is self-evident. And it is inescapable. Even its enemies have to accept and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. Let us see why...

An axiom is undeniable.

Something is either true, or it isn't. An axiom is something that, in order to deny it, you first have to assume it is true.

God does NOT fit that category.

This is actually Peikoff talking about it on his radio show:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LZgr9jrQQ9w

AT, Your question is completely arbitrary. If you're gonna post questions like this and waste everyone's time, why don't you go somewhere else and do it?

Actually, it's not 'completely arbitrary' - but even if it was, this is a philosophy forum, and if the question has some philosophical merit, this would be one place to discuss it.

Responding to the question, however, is a conscious act of volition. If you believe the question to be unworthy of a response, you may chose to ignore it and go on your merry way.

The question asked has, in fact, two specific purposes. The first is to understand the metaphysical groundings individuals here use to argue philosophical points. For instance, I happen to be an empiricist, and believe the foundation of knowledge exists in experiental facts. Thus my 'scientific bent'. Rand, on the other hand, was a dual foundationalist - she placed the basis of knowledge in both empirical foundationalism (facts are gained through the senses, through direct experience) AND a rational foundationalist - seeking principals in broad abstractions - which she referred to as axiomatic concepts.

In discussing philosophy, it's good to understand the foundations of people's arguments. What I consider to be a 'truth' and what Olek, for instance, considers to be a 'truth' may not, in fact, be the same thing. In the current conversation, Olek has stated that Free Will is an axiomatic truth - based on a rational foundationalist view. Because I am an empricist, and have yet to have a 'sensory experience' of Free Will, I don't accept a rational foundationalist axiom as a verifiable 'truth'. Instead, I view Free Will as an abstraction of the physical 'experiences' of the human brain. You might say I have a causal definition of Free Will, instead of an axiomatic one.

If any intelligable conversation is to be had between myself and Olek on the subject of Free Will, I'd have to understand where he is coming from. I wouldn't know that until I asked. The same is true of anyone else who bothers to answer the question.


The second purpose of this discussion is to help me mull over some new scientific papers I've been reading on something called 'mirror neurons'. These are neurons in the brain which are normally active when one is experiencing pain or distress. Under clinical observation, it has been observed that these neurons are also active when one is viewing another human being in pain or stress. They could be responsible for the human sense of empathy. Likewise, they appear to be active when an individual is involved in acts of compassion or altruism.

Like most neurons, 'active' here means they are secreting specific brain chemicals - in this case, dopamine. This chemical regulates the pleasure centers of our brain, acting as a 'reward' similar to a chemical high.

My question is, what is the evolutionary advantage here? It appears that all human beings, with the possible exception of extreme sociopaths and those suffering certain brain injuries and diseases, have these mirror neurons acting regularly. So our brains are naturally wired to reward acts of compassion and altruism.

According to Rand's rationalist view, Altruism is axiomatically evil. It results in the destruction of the individual. Taken into a scientific context, destructive behavior is anti-evolutionary behavior. If individuals are self destructive, they tend to be 'naturally selected' out of a population. The fact that a very large majority of human beings carry these remarkable neurons is not absolute proof that they are evolutionarily advantageous, BUT it does indicate that, at the very least, these 'altruism neurons' are evolutionarily neutral.

So Objectivism says Altruism is destruction. Scientific study demonstrates that Altruism is either evolutionarily neutral OR evolutionarily advantageous. This is a contradiction, and makes the question I asked very relevent.


I didn't initially want to prejudice people's answers by bringing up mirror neurons right away - that makes the question I asked sound like a 'gotcha', and I precisely wished to avoid that. I am interested in other people's arguments as a way of counterpointing my own analysis and helping me reflect on this phenomenon. Basically, I just wanted a second opinion from someone whose own views were probably very different from my own.


AT
[/quote]

An axiom is undeniable.

Something is either true, or it isn't. An axiom is something that, in order to deny it, you first have to assume it is true.

Axioms are not undeniable - they are definitional, and that is an important distinction.

To use Rand's own formulation, 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 to all facts and all knowledge. It is fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explaination, but on which all proofs and explainations rest."

Ultimately, axioms are the base definitions on which all later philosophical proofs and explainations are built. A system of philosophy can be built entirely on axiomatic definitions and be internally self-consistentand logical, but still be based on axioms which are themselves unprovable, by definition.

Rand's axiomatic concepts are generally categorized as the 'second class' of Aristotelian First Principles. The 'first class' are those basic statements which are the result of direct scientific investigation (pure experience). The 'second class' are principles of reasoning, such as non-contradiction, or the mathematical principle or addition, subtraction, etc - principles that are not the direct result of a scientific observation, but are, instead, philosophical axioms and underlying assumptions and presuppositions that underline the scientific and rational processes.


Now, if I were to fully share Rand's view of the foundation of knowledge (a dual empirical and rational foundationist), then I would be bound by the statement that her axioms are undeniable because they set the definition of what can and cannot be denied. The argument is a circular logical form - the result is automatically implied within the axiom.

The reason I do not agree with Rand is because I find several of her axioms to be questionable in the 'self-evident' department. Rand _defines_ Altruism as axiomatically evil. I don't beleive that is necessarily true. In fact, there appears to be verifiable scientific observation contradicting this so-called self-evident statement. I argue against her 'second class first principles' on the basis of 'first class first principles'.

In other words, if I scientifically observe something that contradicts one of Rand's axioms, I have a legitimate Aristotelian cause to question her reasoning, on the basis of the principle of non-contradiction. What is self-evident for Rand is _not_ self-evident to me. As an empiricist, direct scientific observation carries more weight with me than any definition produced by 'logical fiat'.

AT

Tolthar said:
God does NOT fit that category.

Only true because your philosophical system carries the stated axiom[/i] that the supernatural does not exist. God, as supernatural being, is therefore deniable. You have defined God out of existence by conveniently making it's non-existence a part of your definition.

Theists would assert that God exists axiomatically, and derive all their logical reasoning from that definition. As such, God must exist, because it is part of their definition in the same way God's non-existence is part of yours.

And neither of you can prove the opposite to the other, because you are arguing about definitions, not about verifiable, observable, and, probably most relevant, falsifiable[/b] statements of fact. You prevent the possibility of learning any objective truth about the existence/non-existence of God by assuming your specific position rather than arguing to it.


AT[/quote]

Arakasi Takeda wrote: Rand _defines_ Altruism as axiomatically evil. I don't beleive that is necessarily true.

Please provide quotation from Ayn Rand works, where she says that altruism is _axiomatically_ evil.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

An axiom is undeniable.

Something is either true, or it isn't. An axiom is something that, in order to deny it, you first have to assume it is true.

Axioms are not undeniable - they are definitional, and that is an important distinction.

What does this even mean? "Definitional"?

Is this like in deduction: green is green?

Also, AT, you didn't answer my question: what are the axioms you accept?

Axioms are not undeniable - they are definitional, and that is an important distinction

No, they are undeniable. What you quoted was a definition. But a definition does not incorporate every property of a concept.

This is explicitly stated in "OBjectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". Have you read any of the nonfiction?

Your response to my statement that God is not undeniable was pointless if you don't agree with the premise of my argument (that axioms _must_ be undeniable).

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
Rand _defines_ Altruism as axiomatically evil. I don't believe that is necessarily true.

Please provide quotation from Ayn Rand works, where she says that altruism is _axiomatically_ evil.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--4 ... hness.aspx

Rand writes, "[A]ltruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others … it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men … it permits no concept of justice" (VOS, ix).

In the above quote, Rand is _defining_ Altruism as the negation of virtues she holds as good - virtues which are axiomatically true. The negation of an axiomatic 'truth' is, itself, axiomatic, because it is not derived - it is defined.

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

Tolthar wrote:
An axiom is undeniable.

Something is either true, or it isn't. An axiom is something that, in order to deny it, you first have to assume it is true.

Axioms are not undeniable - they are definitional, and that is an important distinction.

What does this even mean? "Definitional"?

Is this like in deduction: green is green?

To state that an axiom is 'definitional' is to acknowledge the purpose of an axiom - to create (define) the boundary conditions or foundation from which all subsequent knowledge is derived. For instance, to say that a circle is a geometric figure consisting of a line draw so that all points constituting the line are equa-distant from a single point, or axis, is to _define_ what a circle is. A circle is a derived concept, itself dependent on the definitions of concepts of a line, an axis, and 'equa-distant'. Eventually, you arrive at the axioms of Euclidean geometry - what is a line, what is an axis, etc. These axioms are, themselves, a definition. From that definition is derived all subsequent knowledge of Euclidean geometry.

The reason I say that axioms are definition but NOT undeniable is because there is, in my mind, no condition that a stated axiom must actually resemble 'reality'. Axioms are used to define logical systems (Euclidean geometry is a 'logical system'. Aristotelian philosophy is a 'logical system'); they create the boundaries and foundations of what are considered knowledge and logic within those systems. So long as one speaks of 'Euclidean geometry' or makes arguments about Euclidean geometry, one must argue from a position grounded in the axioms of Euclidean geometry. It would be non-sensical to make an argument about Euclidean geometry by trying to use non-Euclidean axioms - these simply wouldn't be accepted as 'truth' within the logical system.

The mistake made by many rational foundationists is the _assumption_ that the axioms of their particular logical system are, in fact, the same axioms governing 'the real world'. According to Rand, for instance, the 'real world' is essentially Aristotelian. All knowledge about the 'real world' is derivable ONLY from Aritotelian first principles, following Aristotelian logical constructs.

The fact is, however, that there are other forms of philosophy than Aristotle. Other individuals have created entirely logical, self-consistent logical systems (philosophies), based on their own axiomatic definitions. The question philosophers pose to each other is a simple one - which of these myriad of philosophical systems contains the 'correct' axioms - the ones that are identical to the axioms defining 'the real world'. Everyone has their arguments and counter arguments for why their specific set of axioms are the 'correct' ones.

Because these systems all have their own axioms, I believe it is foolish to begin with the idea that 'all axioms are undeniable'. Some of these axioms are downright foolish. Of course, my judgement of which axioms are foolish would be very different from someone elses. Therefore, I acknowledge that axioms are 'definitional' - setting the boundaries of what each philosophy considers logical, or how it derives its knowledge, but that is all. Until a process exists to weed out which 'axioms' are in fact mistaken, I adopt a skeptical view and only grant what is absolutely necessary to define axioms, and no more.

To answer specifically your example Green = Green can be used in multiple ways. It can define the non-contradiction axiom (A = A). It can be used to define Green as an absolute (not sure what purpose that would serve, except maybe as a Platonic concept?). It might be used scientifically to define an Identify for green....Green - (specific wavelength of light). Each of these is a definitional axiom from which may be derived other knowledge within the specific logical system that holds it.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

Rand writes, "[A]ltruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others … it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men … it permits no concept of justice" (VOS, ix).

In the above quote, Rand is _defining_ Altruism as the negation of virtues she holds as good - virtues which are axiomatically true. The negation of an axiomatic 'truth' is, itself, axiomatic, because it is not derived - it is defined.

AT

Your quote has no mentioning of 'axiomatic'. In fact, Ayn Rand never said that virtues are axiomatic true. Can you provide citation for that?

To further illustrate the reason I do not hold axioms as 'undeniable truths', here's a simple example:

Until the 20th century, it was an axiomatic truth of science that Space was Cartesian, and that Time was an absolute at every point in Space. From these axioms are derived the whole of Newtonian mechanics. In order to have any sensical discussion of Newtonian mechanics, you must discuss them in terms of Cartesian space and absolute time. These two axioms _define_ what constitutes knowledge within Newtonian mechanics.

Of course, in 1905, a Swiss patient clerk completely blew the idea of Cartesian Space and Absolute Time out of the water with the theory of Relativity. It defined a new set of axioms - time and space are not independent concepts - they are one concept called space/time. Time is not an absolute - it is dependent upon the position and speed of the observer. Time is relative.

These are axioms completely contradicting the 'axioms' of Newtonian mechanics. They define a new logic system - Relativity. From them are derived the whole of Relativistic mechanics.

[It is interesting to note that, under proper conditions, Newtonian mechanics can be derived as a subset of Relativistic mechanics, and can be used as an approximation at low speeds - this does not, however, mean that Cartesian space and absolute time are true axioms].

The upshot is, Relativity is a testable, observable theory in the 'real world'. Until Relativity, Newtonian mechanics were considered 'self-evidently true' or 'undeniable' as Tolthar uses the term. In fact, however, they ceased to be undeniable at the time Einstein proposed his theory, and were subsequently _falsified_ by observation of the 'real world'.

So here you have a contradiction. Axioms are undeniable - Cartesian Space and Absolute Time are axioms - Cartesian Space and Absolute Time are _false_, by observation.

So where is the failure? I tell you that the failure is contained within the definition of the word 'axiom' itself. The way Tolthar uses the word axiom implies that a stated axiom must be _true_. If you use that definition, you run into the contradiction above. To fix the problem, you change the definition of the word axiom. Axioms are _definitions_ within their specific logical systems that are true within that specific system. But they are not necessarily true unless one can prove that the axioms of a specific logical system are identical to the axioms of the 'real world'.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:To state that an axiom is 'definitional' is to acknowledge the purpose of an axiom - to create (define) the boundary conditions or foundation from which all subsequent knowledge is derived. For instance, to say that a circle is a geometric figure consisting of a line draw so that all points constituting the line are equa-distant from a single point, or axis, is to _define_ what a circle is.

Your post made no sense to me at all.

Are you saying that the reason that we have to base our knowledge on the fact that existence exists is just a definition and has nothing to do with facts of reality?

How are these definition you speak of are based on knowledge by provided by senses? All I see is that you are describing somebody standing up and making a random definition. How is this related at all to reality?

Arakasi Takeda wrote:To further illustrate the reason I do not hold axioms as 'undeniable truths', here's a simple example:

...

But they are not necessarily true unless one can prove that the axioms of a specific logical system are identical to the axioms of the 'real world'.

AT

This doesn't make since to me. First, just because some calls time an axiom doesn't mean I think it is. I have never thought that it was an axiom. In fact, I have always thought of time as just a measurement.

I also don't see how your example makes time 'relative'.

If I am at the sun (getting a tan or something) and am 2 light minutes away from the earth; and there is someone watching the sun from earth (Bob), time is not different for us.

If I were to travel towards Bob at the speed of light, two minutes still went by for both of us. Bob won't see me for about 2 minutes, and I won't see Bob for about two minutes.

This is really a different topic though since I don't hold time as an axiom. I only hold things that are undeniable as axioms.

Your post made no sense to me at all.

Without trying to sound cute, I think that is part of the point - what I'm saying doesn't make sense to you because the axioms upon which we both base our logical systems appear to be at odds. Right now, we are talking across each other, discussing apples and oranges, and neither of us can get our point across to the other. I'm trying to make a conscious effort at explaining non-Euclidean geometry to an Euclidean, by framing concepts in ways similar to, but not identical, to Euclidean concepts. It's a real challenge.

Are you saying that the reason that we have to base our knowledge on the fact that existence exists is just a definition and has nothing to do with facts of reality?

Yes and no...you have constructed the above sentence in a way that actually includes two contradictory statements within my own logical system. Let me break them down:

"We base our knowledge on the fact that existence exists is just a definition..."

Existence exists _is_ an axiomatic definition. It may or may not be true, depending on whether or not the axiom is identical to one in the 'real world'. For this specific axiom, I agree that existence exists, both in the real world and in Rand's philosophy. So yes, this is a true statement. In my logical system, I believe it is a true statement based on the evidence of my senses. I perceive that I exist, and that must be true, in order for me to perceive it.....Cogito ergo sum.

The point is, the axiom does not _necessarily_ contain the condition of truth. One can construct an axiom - God Exists - which might, in fact, be false. Whether or not an axiom is true is dependent on its conditional relationship to reality, something which can be ascertained by observation (the evidence of the senses).

I guess the disconnect is this - there are two kinds of truth being discussed here. The first is 'truth within a logical system'. An axiom always contains this type of truth as a condition, because an axiom within a logical system is the _definition_ of what is considered truth within that system.

There is also 'truth' as defined as the relationship between the axioms of a specific logical system and 'reality'. A logical system can be stated to be 'true' or 'correct' IF and ONLY IF its axioms are identical to the axioms which define objective reality. It is therefore possible for an axiom to be true within its logical system and false in regard to reality. The reason this contradiction is possible is because the definition of the word axiom is flawed.

"is just a definition and has nothing to do with reality?"

This is the contradiction in your statement. I never said that an axiom has nothing to do with reality. I said the truth of an axiom is dependent upon its relationship to reality, which can only be ascertained by direct observation. Axioms do not automatically contain the condition of truth. Anyone who uses axiom as an 'automatic truth' is mistakingly granting a status to a definition which may be incorrect.

How are these definition you speak of are based on knowledge by provided by senses? All I see is that you are describing somebody standing up and making a random definition. How is this related at all to reality?

Again, you create a contradiction of yourself. So I split your statements -

"How are these definitions you speak of based on knoweldge provided by the senses?"

Within my logical framework, they are completely dependent upon physical observation. I accept Rand's empirical foundationalism. I reject her dual foundationalism because it includes rational foundationalism - it establishes certain logical foundations as axioms. I consider such rational foundations NOT as axioms, but as useful hypothesis based on physical observations, and then abstractions. Reason is a derivative, not an independent axiom.

Some philosophers may consider that to be hair splitting, but I believe it is an important distinction to maintain. The reason it is important is because it is a necessary condition for skepticism. Knowledge derived from sources other than direct observation can be flawed if the condition exists that an axiom upon which the knowledge is based is, itself, flawed. And, by flawed, I mean the second definition of truth - the axiom does not actually reflect an axiom in 'reality'.

Falsification is also dependent on this condition. A statement cannot be falsified if it is based on an 'absolute' axiom. By holding all axiomatic truths as suspects, using them purely as definitions (as a kind of logical hypothesis used until it is, itself, falsified), it is possible to derive knowledge and correct it when that knowledge is later shown to contradict reality.

"All I see is that you are describing somebody standing up and making a random definition."

And here is your contradiction. A definition based on physical observation cannot be random. It is bounded by the observation itself.

There are logical system which propose axioms which are not based on physical observation (like Theism); I consider this to be flat wrong, and, in your words, could very well be creation definitions at random. But no system of knowledge to which I personally hold can be random, because it is strictly defined by physical observation.

In fact, Objectivism is more random than my own form of empiricism, becuase it claims to hold certain axioms which are based in rational foundationalism, which is itself not dependent strictly on physical observation.

AT