humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:38:22 -0700, Mark N
wrote:

>Malrassic Park wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:03:38 -0700, Fred Weiss
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The more important point is that belief usually conveys some degree of
>>>doubt and therefore is weaker than knowledge. In any case, a belief
>>>can clearly be mistaken, as many are and have been. Knowledge cannot.
>>
>> Now this is a question of epistemology, unlike everything Rand wrote
>> in ITOE which had little if anything to do with the question of
>> knowledge.
>>
>> The question is not so much the distinction between belief and
>> knowledge, but how justified knowledge can be grounded in *assumed*
>> "axioms."
>
>Are axioms really assumptions?

Yes, because they cannot be proven, they are the basis for proofs.

> Or are they more like principles that one
>must accept, as a precondition for rational thought? (Maybe they are
>something like unavoidable assumptions?)

You can call them anything you like, just as long as I know what
you're talking about, and vice versa.

However, it would be more productive to find the preconditions for all
thought in general, and then work your way to distinguishing the
rational vs. irrational ones, rather than simply assuming that such
and such are rational or irrational. So it seems that the axioms for
rational thought are not axiomatic enough, since rational thought does
not complete the set of all thoughts, and this set must be based in
some other axioms.

>> And how knowledge, reducible to these axioms, conveys
>> moreness to it such that it is "more than mere belief."
>
>Knowledge is reducible to axioms? I thought knowledge was supposed to be
>reducible to things that are self-evident, or "the evidence of the
>senses," with axioms acting as guides to keep one's thinking clear.

Peikoff has many references to reducing knowledge and concepts to
axioms. See OPAR.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this. I was addressing Fred who I
must assume believes in it.

>> It is an
>> example of how belief justifies knowledge. That is not to say it is
>> true because I believe in it, but it is true because it is
>> well-founded in belief.
>
>Or maybe the belief and the knowledge are both well-founded (i.e.,
>justified) by the evidence?

Maybe.

--
How was chirch this morning? - Michael Gordge

...wake the fuck up, you dumb and desperate commie
context dropping stupid knuckle-dragging...
ignorant cunt. - Michael Gordge