Hello Herb7734,
It sounds like a variant on the stolen concept. In order to make the argument one must recognize that- “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.” 1
“Existence exists—Consciousness is conscious---A is A. (This converts axiomatic concepts into formal axioms.)” 2

“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 in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.” 3

“There is no such thing as a state of consciousness without a person experiencing it. What does one mean by ‘state of consciousness’? A state of a faculty possessed by an entity. Consciousness is not a primary object, it is an independent existent, it’s an attribute of a certain kind of existents.
You cannot project what you mean by a state of consciousness---neither by synonyms nor in any way---without referring to the person or the animal who possesses that consciousness: an entity of whom consciousness is a faculty. It is not possible to protect it.
Now why isn’t it possible? Because such a thing as a state of consciousness is obviously a derivative concept---derivative qua attribute. It’s a primary, as far as the conceptual chain is concerned, but in regard to observation, you have no way of experiencing or observing a state of consciousness without the entity which experiences it. It’s a concept that could not enter into your mind or your language unless in the form of faculty of a living entity. That’s what that concept means. Therefore to ask, “Well, I know I have states, but how does it prove that I am?”---is a question that’s not worth discussing.
Incidentally, I know a lady who once gave the proper answer to that kind of question, the kind of question you have been confronted with, so let me quote her with the appropriate answer, Some young college student said to her, “I don’t know whether I exist.” which is the same issue. She said, “You’d better find out, because I don’t want to be talking to myself.” And that’s about the seriousness this question deserves.
The consciousness of self is implicit in [any grasp] of consciousness.” 4

All quotes from “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.” (Expanded Second Edition)
1 pg. 3-4, 2 pg. 59, 3 pg. 55, 4 pg. 251-252

To ask a question or pose an argument is to recognize the fact of your consciousness, your existence and that of whom you address. The corollary implicit in this, is the acknowledgement that one can discern facts/axioms of existence from one’s consciousness…one’s senses. Res ipse loquitur. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Respectfully,
O.A.

I've encountered several similar comments lately. Although I doubt that the commenter has any interest whatsoever in realizing his limitations in the area of applied reasoning much less the broader impact of not understanding the definitions of the words used in his comments, it can still be rewarding to respond to him at times.

Let's take the first two words used in the comment you quote; 'Objectivism logics'. I've done some searching, but I haven't been able to find any references to 'logics' (sic) that derive from Objectivism. But I did find some stuff about things like 'cause and effect', you know where some guy says that A has to happen before B, tough things like that. Even though some old guy back in BC times apparently figured that out before Ayn Rand was born, those Objectivists do claim to use it.

But never mind the 'minor' inconsistencies. Just think of it as the commenter has discovered a new form of logic(s). I call it 'cloud logic(s)'. The way it seems to work is that one goes through this big process associated with rational reason and gets a result, only to discover that answer doesn't 'FEEL' right. So what to do? Well, with 'cloud logic(s)' it's simple. One just simply looks through their imagination till something's found that 'feels' right, and Tah-Dah. That's it! Feelings problem solved.

Perhaps too easily, I find jame464 to be a troll. Objectivism has questionable tenets. If you want to delve into them, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has no shortage, issue after issue. However, jame464 just offers sophomoric challenges, which is fine if they are a sophomore, and never any further evidence of thought, investigation, research, or reflection. When In ninth grade honors geometry, the guy in front of me turned around and said, "Prove that I exist." I was bafffled. The girl next to him just rolled her eyes. Hers was the cogent response.

So, too, here.

Reason is based on perception. A percept is an automatic integration of sensation into an identification. Sensation is the basis of knowledge, but sensation alone tells you nothing except that you sense "something" - but you do not know what that is. Considering synesthesia, you might not even differentiate a sound from a touch - as hearing is a kind of touch, or touch from warmth or cold (again, all of them kinds of skin responses). When you identify that "something" and thereby create in your mind a perception, you know that you are aware of "something".

When you integrate perceptions into concepts, you begin the process of reason.

Rather than debate our opinions here, I suggest that anyone interested in this begin with _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. Otherwise, we are going to be reinventing the wheels of Plato, Aristotle, and all of their successors. This is all known stuff, like chemistry or accounting.

If this is to be a fruitful discussion, it should be based on working knowledge... "the kind of information they hide in books."

The Perfect Knowledge Fallacy

Jame464 made a similar comment to me. He is using the perfect knowledge fallacy common among religionist (him), but also Kant and the German counter enlightenment. The argument is that if you do not know anything, then you do not know anything. The tactic of these people is to say since you do not know x, then you can't know anything.

This argument is based on a false definition of knowledge. They will argue that a man 3000 years ago who thought the Earth was flat had no knowledge. Note however if you are building a small house, even today, we assume the Earth is flat and this is fine. This does not mean we do not have knowledge. We still don't know the mechanism for how gravity works, that does not mean that we do not have knowledge about gravity. There are also open questions about mass and inertia, not to mention question about calculus. This does not mean we do not have knowledge.

I have to admit that the perfect knowledge fallacy usually sneaks up on me and it takes awhile to see that this is the other person's argument. However, it is used quite a bit so it is worth remembering.

I tried to point this out by example to Jame464, but he is not interested in logic, reason, and evidence.

"What do you propose instead?"
I cheered at this line. :)

I'll stick with reason as the tool I use in reality. Other methods don't have a good track record.

He hasn't given given an argument to reject Ayn Rand's philosophy. His statements are incoherent gibberish. Every attempt to answer him has to give him a benefit of the doubt he doesn't deserve, ascribing some attempted rational argument that he did not make in order to try to answer it. He is illiterate.

First "sentence": "Objectivism logics is flawed from the perspective of its principles because it relies on reason as the ultimate means for man to determine reality."

What is "Objectivism logics" supposed to mean? What does "flawed from the perspective of its principles" mean? What does "ultimate means for man to determine reality" mean? What does he think anyone is "determining"? He has made sweeping arbitrary assertions employing floating abstractions as he manipulates words with no meaning, and which in his mind are not intended to mean anything other than his vague feelings.

All his first "sentence" says is that for some unexplained reason [sic] he rejects Objectivism because 'something' about it entails "relying on reason as the ultimate means" for something unspecified but suggesting that consciousness dictates and determines what reality must be. What besides reason is available to know anything (let alone "determine reality")? He doesn't say but has previously invoked religious faith. He rejects Objectivism because it dismisses his vague fantasies. He rejects reason because he rejects standards of assessing claims to knowledge and for not giving him the mental content he wants.

So let him, and let him go somewhere else with his nonsense. There can be no discussion or arguing with someone who insists on his own arbitrary pronouncements, rejecting standards in advance because he demands acceptance of the arbitrary pronouncements.

Second "sentence" : "This [reason] is entirely subjective because you cannot reason to fundamental absolutes such as are we here by purpose or accident."

What in his mind is a "fundamental absolute"? He doesn't say, but illustrates it with a false alternative of "purpose or accident". What happened to 'causality' and 'identity' that he left out? Whose "purpose" and what is a metaphysical "accident"? He doesn't say, but his previous religious injunctions reveal he believes in the "purpose" of the supernatural, a meaningless use of words in an arbitrary decree that explains nothing, only turning back inwards on his own feelings without cognitive meaning.

Third "sentence": "I believe that a philosophy that says 'existence exists' has holes in the bottom of the pale where it contains all its principles and corollaries and postulates and theories, etc."

What does he think the axiomatic concept "existence" means in Objectivism, and what does he think Ayn Rand meant by the formulation "existence exists"? As a mystic who rationalized feeling as primaries he doesn't have a clue. What is "'existence exists' has holes in the bottom of the pale" supposed to mean? His inability to spell is the least of it. What is the "where" "containing principles" supposed to mean? What does he think "principles and corollaries and postulates and theories, etc." that he dismissively jumbles together mean, and what does he think the connections between them are and their basis is? He doesn't say, but he clearly has a rationalistic mentality of arbitrary manipulation of ideas with equivocations cut loose from meaning in reality and has no idea what Ayn Rand is talking about, let alone the entire scientific revolution, and how it is the diametric opposite of his own free-floating mystic mentality.

No, there isn't anything interesting or serious about his rambling nonsense. It isn't even sophomoric philosophy. Nor is it honest. Specific points he has questioned previously have been answered and he ignores it as if nothing has been said, without even an honest acknowledgement. He doesn't listen and he doesn't discuss. He only repeats his mystical gibberish attacking a philosophy of reason he doesn't understand and doesn't want to, based on nothing but his own mystical, meaningless pronouncements -- which is why he doesn't belong here.

Herb wrote that Jame seems to believe "we cannot reason until we know everything". Jame said that previously, but not in this nonsensical post. His insistence on omniscience as a standard of knowledge, which he thinks is attainable by his own arbitrary mysticism, which meaningless dreamy fantasy is not knowledge at all. It is only one form of his attack on existence and identity, this time as the definite and specific means of human conceptual knowledge based on finite sense experience of the real world.

That our human form of knowledge has a definite and specific form, limited to what it is by specific abilities we have, is not a "problem" of epistemology remaining unresolved. It does not require that we wait until "we do know everything", nor is such omniscience -- unlimited knowledge with no limits to its own identity -- possible at all.

jame464 does not have any defense of his position. He is nothing more than an individual with nothing to contribute but hostility.

Cogito ergo sum.

When someone puts this in an argument: "holes in the bottom of the pale" I'm not tempted to delve into their point of view very deeply.

One of james464's nonsensical comments, provided by Herb7734 above, was "you cannot reason to fundamental absolutes such as are we here by purpose or accident."

I dispute that that statement is a fundamental absolute. Knowing why humans exist is irrelevant when theorizing how we know things, how we learn, etc. In fact I declare it a big, stinky red herring because there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a "why". The best we can do is recognize that we do exist, proof of which has already been thoroughly described on this page.

"By purpose or accident" assumes someone or something put us here. The fundamental fact is that we are here. Existence exists. Man has to choose life in order to live. One cannot force a man to accept reason.

Indeed, stolen concept.

Remark to those defending the concept of "the stolen concept":

Occasionally you will encounter someone who says it is invalid to talk about the stolen concept in Objectivist philosophy because "Rand stole her concepts from other philosophers." That is of course the fallacy of equivocation, where the opposition deliberately misconstrues term "stolen concept" in an attempt to overturn the discovery of his error.

I find james464's commentary somewhat illiterate or, at the very least imprecise; and if I'm looking for holes, I'll look in a "pail", not a "pale".

the person is using reason and logic to deny reason and logic...fallacy of the stolen concept...

You can reason to fundamental absolutes which
are inescapable, because any attempt to deny them involves their acceptance. (Of course, they
must be demonstrably inescapable; it's not a mat-
ter of just arbitrarily picking whatever you want to be an axiom). I do not think that whether we
are here by purpose or accident is an axiom, but
one can use reason to figure it out, and its valid-
ity rests ultimately on the axioms. (I think of
axioms as selvages on the edge of the universe,
which keep it from unraveling).

I believe that james464 is mis-understanding objectivism.
the reason which is characteristic of objectivism requires
factual evidence for decisions. . when facts are unavailable,
decisions are made using inductive logic, based on probabilities
or estimates from the rest of the facts. . the simple fact
that existence is there is an adequate foundation for
a rational philosophy, but he doesn't like that.
so, we disagree. . go for it, Herb! -- j
.

"Existence exists" is a self defining axiom. The statement does not identify the nature of existence only that there is an underlying reality and that we can observe some aspects of that reality. Inherent in that statement is the assumption that it is possible to learn more about that reality. As a result this fundamental component of Objectivism hangs on the question "Does underlying reality exist?" Whether or not we can ever come to a complete understanding of that reality is a separate issue.
Most of our understanding of reality is based on internal models that are behavioral in nature. By this I mean we understand the properties of reality in terms of how it behaves.
Even our most thoroughly validated models of reality such as Newtonian dynamics, special and general relativity, and quantum electrodynamics are behavioral in nature. They provide a description of how things behave, they do not tell us what these things ARE.
I like to think of reality as a box that contains an underlying mechanism while the outside of the box reveals how that mechanism behaves. It is possible to arrive at many different explanations for the contents of the box, which can be called "the theory of the enclosure", but unless we can open the box the true nature of the mechanism will remain unknown.

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."

In Jame 464 statement, do I see the attempt to use reason to defeat reason?

I think we make waaaay to much out this statement. In order to reason one must begin with an observation: existence exists; then we move on to: how might it come into existence and why, what was the cause or will it continue to exist. It would be illogical to think it has always existed and always will, ex. no beginning and no end, It is simply an observation. The statement was never intended to be the end of the discussion.
As I posted at the time, it just might have been a reaction that expresses: Come on, lets not make a big deal about it...it exists, we might never know why so let's move on and live out our lives. That's what I think Ayn meant at that time and somehow we've tried to make a big thing about it. It's something no one can be purely objective about therefore it is not the basis of being objective.

I found OA's and MM's responses very interesting. I think they are on the right track in responding jame's claim.

Absolutes are irrelevant. What is important is the ability to apprehend reality by a process of reason and make choices based on one's apprehension. Some absolute purpose or accident question is first of all a quite flawed question and second of all can only be a subjective matter of opinion.
To say there is a problem with "existence exist" is to be absurd because it denies one's very existence to even raise the question.