[Ask the Gulch] What is the objective, logical proof of fundamental, inalienable individual rights?
Posted by DrJoelBross 8 years, 6 months ago to Ask the Gulch
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
As a rep of NBI I read the monthly installments of IOE as they came out in the 60's and discussed science with Miss Rand. So be assured you offered no useful insights or advice.
I also had the opportunity to be present for all of Dr. Peikoff's lectures on the writing of OPAR and his concern over the problem of sequence of the derivation of existence, identity, and consciousness which he changed from Miss Rand's sequence. He explained it using the information on observation of his daughter Kira's sequence of acquiring concepts. He explained that the sequence in which one grasps concpets is different from their logical sequence. You may want to reflect on what is a "logical sequence" if it is not deduction. The reason is the problem of getting from an axiom to an empirical statement. The "trick" is in the empirical basis of concepts. If you have read Binswanger, "How We Know" which I read in draft with Harry you know that he contends "consciousness" is an axiom and axioms cannot be defined as they have no genus. So getting from an axiom to an empirical statement about the particular of something is impossible. If I say existence exists and existence is identity those are true by the definition of axioms but cannot be used to differentiated particulars as they apply to all particulars. If you understand why in OPAR Peikoff states metaphysics and epistemology are empirical you will begin to understand the nature of concepts. Remember Miss Rand used "consciousness" only as a term denoting man's consciousness not an abstract platonic universal or axiom. Good luck thinking by deduction about axioms.
"There is something of which I am aware" is not a random linguistic construct, but is formed from derivative concepts denoting something concrete (i.e. there is the pressure of the keys on the keyboard which I feel with my finger tips, there is the glow of the backlighting on the monitor which blurs my sight when I shift my gaze, etc.). Can we imagine a world in which it can be proven that existence does not exist? No. Even dark matter has a name, even if it lacks a well defined identity (i.e. the substance which has mass but does not have other properties which matter has).
I do not think that because existence exists could be a proposal about an infinite number of existents that it means that existence exists actually is a claim about an infinite number of existents. Actual existents are always finite in number. It seems strange therefore to say that a priori knowledge is required to conceive of a posteriori knowledge. That seems to be necessary only when we define the universe as something infinite, rather than finite.
One is first aware that it is, then that it is something particular, then that you are observing it. This is developmental science not philosophy. Please think through the difference between an infinite set of numbers and all possible numbers. Axioms are not about an infinite set of properties but all encompassing of the universe regardless of the number of particulars. The set of infinite numbers is smaller than the set of all numbers. Thus axioms have a special status from which no particular can be derived.
If you have concepts of particulars then you have conscious awareness of them and can deduce propositions from their properties forming vast numbers of sets to see if they can be classified by similarities with measurement omission into concepts but you cannot do this with axioms. A priori knowledge about something does not exist. Axioms are self evident necessary statements entailed in all statements.
I have to admit I cannot understand the first two sentences of your third paragraph. A posteriori statements come after the observation and make knowledge possible.
As I like to say never give up your posterior.
Anyway Bro, I've got your back.
If consciousness is not an axiom, then it does seem to follow that no particular can be derived from axioms. Does that mean consciousness would be given epistemological and not metaphysical status?
Then again, not sure that developmental science can explain the order of existence, identity, consciousness. These three seem bound together, and to operate under the control of a volitional process.
Here are reasons I think the three axioms are bound up in each other. To separate existence from identity is to allow something to be A and not A at the same time. To separate existence from consciousness is to allow for a consciousness without percepts or concepts. To separate consciousness from identity is to allow for consciousness precedes existence.
I think it's difficult when we say consciousness is volitional. How can an axiom be volitional? But I think that is why the Peikoff states that a person must choose to think or to evade. He says, it seems, that there is no alternative to choice. Is consciousness equivalent to thinking? Again, I'm unclear. It would seem consciousness denotes awareness. But awareness seems to be volitional...
Separately: With regard to the first two sentences from the third paragraph of the previous post, what I meant to say was that if existence is taken to mean all existents, then existence cannot be infinite because the number of existents is never infinite.
What I am really curious about is whether the continuum hypothesis is compatible with the assumption that existence is finite. I think so, because each time we subdivide an atom, it yields some number of smaller particles (i.e. puffs of meta energy).
Also don't worry about existence is finite. You need to rethink your definition of finite and existence. There are no units to existence because it is all.
Keep thinking you are on your way.
"The argument is simple: analytical and a priori true statements cannot be contradicted by synthetic facts. If a statement cannot be contradicted by facts it cannot be meaningful. If it cannot have meaning it is nonsense. Nonsense does not belong in philosophy."
Is three less than four? Yes. Is three greater than two? Yes, again. Is three therefore the number that is less than four and greater than two? No. It is the integer between two and four. But does a child have to know the concept of integer to grasp that three is less than four and greater than two? No. It is enough to refer to them as numbers to still retain the meaning of the concept.
' means prior to observation, knowledge prior to been seen hence God and other chimera.
rights of humans are derived from their innate characteristics
and the proof of survival of the fittest." . while the proof statement
tends to favor "might makes right," I submit that the United States
has improved that proof by its very existence. -- j
.
I agree with johnpe that Ayn Rand's works are good examples of a fitness test: In spite of their being socially unacceptable, they have been successful in proliferating.
Jan
as a novelist and philosopher, I have not met her match.
and I did not claim that might makes right. . I claimed that
the U.S. has made its own variation on might makes right,
implying that the founders went beyond that principle
in making this country great. -- j
.
But...any species, with the cognoscent ability for self rule, with a sub conscious connection to a mind, mutuality to it's species and creates value does have an uninalienable right to live it's life however it chooses so long as it does no harm to others of it's kind...and for those with a sensibility for nature...not cause undo pain and suffering of the life forms it presides over as is necessary for it's survival.
Interesting to note; it would seem that is a consequence of how things have been created, (however one thinks that happened) and that is all, viewed in a conscious way, is being referred to by our pagan bicameral (pre-conscious) biblical ancestors.
B: Or it meant you used a PC dictionary
C: Or you can't spell.
D: Or you weren't referring to the Constitution.
A B C D. But A is A.
The difference there is mere advertising. The difference here is your individual freedom. Such as it is these days.
Thank you.
This is my rifle.
This is my gun
This one's for fighting
This one's for .....
Unless it's an artillery piece.
I own myself.
I am responsible for the consequences of my own choice of actions.
...and work forward.
I am a thinking reasoning individual.
I am responsible for my own actions since I attained adulthood and accepted responsibility - an adult trait. A state not measured by accident of birth place or birth date nor by social promotions.
I am not responsible for events prior to my birth in general nor prior to attaining adulthood specifically.
I am responsible for my own action or inaction as pertains to events in my time in the context of my time.
I do not judge that which came before except in the context of their time. Nor do I judge events of my own time with prejudice but with post judice and in the context of my own times.
Such as they are.
Locke's argument is based on the idea that if you were alone (in a state of nature) what actions would you be free to take. Perhaps most importantly you have a property right in yourself. In other words you own yourself. From there almost every substantive right can be easily derived. Slavery is illegal (immoral) because it deprives a person of their ownership in themselves, Murder is illegal because it violates their ownership in themselves. Property rights arise from the fact that you own yourself and therefore you own those things you create. This means that theft and burglary are illegal.
Note that both Rand and Locke were clear that that the only right a person gives up to a proper government is the right to retaliatory force. You retain the right to self defense when the danger is clear and present, but not the right to use force to redress a wrong that happened a week ago.
A variation on Locke is that no one has a stronger claim (legal – property right) on your life than you do. Thus you have a property right in your life.
Rand approaches the question from a fundamental nature of man. Namely that man is rational and that reason is man’s basic tool of survival. Since man has to think for himself (we do not think collectively), then he has to have the rights necessary to sustain his life (a political/ethical system that promotes death is a contradiction – see Rand’s discussion of the ‘is ought problem’). This means each man most have sovereignty over his own life. “Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products …” Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 10. Thus we see that Rand gets to the same point as Locke, namely that each man owns himself or has self-sovereignty.
Interestingly Leonard Peikoff and many Objectivists have argued against the idea of self ownership. When the do they are arguing against Rand, Locke, and the founding fathers.
BTW: The opposite of self-ownership is slavery. This may be the easiest way to get the point across in a discussion.
How does it tell you what to do if someone steals from you? Or whether you can shoot someone for trespassing on your land or who has the mineral rights?
The state of nature requires that some one show what "the state of nature" is scientifically not as Christian doctrine. That is my point above. Natural is nice . when free.
Reductio ad absurdum is a process of showing through clear logical steps that if you disagree with the proposition, you will invevitably end up contradicting yourself. Since contradictions cannot exist, then you are automatically wrong to oppose the initial premise. Therefore, the premise is true.
So to prove the individual rights claim, you may do well to demonstrate that anyone opposing these rights is headed into self-contradiction.
ciousness; the fact that he must use his mind in
order to survive, and if he is subject to the will of
another he cannot exercise this free will and sur-
vive; and the fact that, in fact, in literal reality, what really, literally exists are individuals, and not
collectives. (As to free will's being debatable,
if man cannot exercise his mind to check what
to know, he can never know if his ideas are
true or false [see Branden in The Objectivist
Newsletter]; and if he cannot know anything,
someone saying he cannot know cannot know
that, either).
Basically, though, if you start with "A is A" and then follow logically with the primacy of existence as a guide, rather than the primacy of consciousness, you'll get there.
The proof is that A is A.
Since the overwhelming majority of successful human interaction is the result of agreements and contracts contract and private property rights are the conditions required for man's proper survival.
Freedom and Political equality is the political expression of equal rights.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. The purpose of the government in capitalism is the definition and the protection of individual rights; life, liberty, contract and property.
The main moral principle of capitalism is free market equilibrium. The free market is the sum total of all the valid voluntary trade of goods and services in a given geographic location. Free market equilibrium is the best quality product at the lowest price to the most consumers. Free market equilibrium is the product of rational selfishness, free trade and a gold standard stable currency. Charity is private.
Simply put if my 'rights' were truly incapable of being suppressed then I could violate the rights of others with impunity.
What the supposition seeks to impose is the premise that there are 'fundamental' rights that cannot be abridged without causing an inherent state of discontent among the people whose rights are so impinged.
And that returns us to the circular argument that it is as wrong to impose a set of restrictions on another individual, as it is to allow another to impose restrictions upon ourselves! It is in our nature to resist.
Since man has to choose which actions to take to ensure his survival he needs the freedom to do so. The protection of that freedom is the proper function of government. Government needs to recognize the nature of man and respect mans right to take whatever action he deems necessary -- save the initiation of force.
The Founding Fathers identified this fact and proclaimed a constitution based on "unalienable rights".
Ayn Rand's Philosophy -- In a Nutshell - PaulNathan.biz
I know objectivist are not going to like this but as far as I can tell, about the only argument you could get a large percentage of people to agree with is that these rights are granted from God. Those that believe that understand that these rights can not be infringed by man or government. Take away a belief in God and the majority of people do not care about logical arguments. If a large number of people feel like infringing on your rights they will do so with no guilt at all.
So, as much as objectivist may hate it, I believe the exercise of their most sacred rights are dependent upon the deity they generally do not believe in.
Once we establish that everyone has the claim to independently perceive reality and act, then comes the application of cause and effect, i.e. the application of justice. Justice dictates that reality isn't subject to whim - its laws exist independent of the actions of agents who may choose courses of action which either adhere to the principles of reality or not. Justice dictates certain reactions to go with certain actions. Rights then are derived from the application of these "just" reactions which are calculated to adhere to the laws of reality and promote the pursuance of acts conforming to the laws of reality.
I would also point out that cause and effect are independent of our perception of them. The orbits of the planets and revolutions were active long before we ever recognized such or came to understand the principles of astral physics. They operate according to the laws of reality and exist independent of man's reasoning on the matter. We can use reason to understand the principles by which reality operates, but we did not will them into existence nor can we alter them. Reason is a tool of understanding what exists - it isn't a source for derivation of reality or its operations, so I must disagree with you.