Help with Ayn Rand's metaphysics.

[Sebastian Lundh]

Hello!

 

So, I recently bought a book on anarcho-capitalism, called The New Libertarianism: ANARCHO-CAPTALISM by J. Michael Oliver. It's an attempt to reconcile objectivism with anarcho-capitalism, and as such it explains the basics of objectivist metaphysics. I'm at the very beginning of the book, where he talks about the existence axiom, but the problem is that I don't get it. The basic argument is that we are conscious, and if we're conscious there has to be something objective (outside of our minds) that we're conscious of, but is that really true? Can't I be conscious of my own fantasies? 

Thank you!
/Sebastian

[Pepin]

I'm not quite certain that I understand. Could you expand on your question and give some examples? I just want to make sure that I respond to your actual contention as opposed to something unrelated.

[tasmlab]

At risk of not answering your question, I understood Rand's view to be that Existence and Identity were philosophic primaries i.e., existing is what we agree to call this thing of existing.

 

From the lady herself:

 

"Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. 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.

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

 

Being conscious of your fantasies probably isn't an either/or situation.  Or perhaps, if your fantasies were the exclusive thing you were conscious off, then you exist because you have something to be conscious of.

Perhaps I'm daft, but I found this stuff kind of fussy (more of a knock on Mrs. Rand and the topic, not you Sebastian)

[cynicist]

I'm at the very beginning of the book, where he talks about the existence axiom, but the problem is that I don't get it. The basic argument is that we are conscious, and if we're conscious there has to be something objective (outside of our minds) that we're conscious of, but is that really true? Can't I be conscious of my own fantasies? 

Thank you!/Sebastian

 

Hi! This is a pretty famous philosophical issue that goes all the way back to Rene Descartes. I'm sure you've heard of the Cartesian demon. Basically he became obsessed with the idea that everything we perceive is merely an illusion conjured up by a malevolent demon, including our own physical bodies and corresponding sensual experiences. So if that were the case, how would we know that anything at all truly exists? This is where the phrase, "I think therefore I am" comes from. The meaning is that thinking about one's existence proves that a self exists in order to do the thinking. It's a fact of reality that cannot be further reduced and requires no proof or explanation as it is self-evident, it's axiomatic because you would need to accept it in order to even argue against it. 

 

I hope that helps.