> Alternatively, axioms are the things you assert because you believe
> them to be true but cannot prove them. For example, Euclidean
> geometry asserts the existence and properties of parallel lines;
> other geometries make different assertions, and one of them is a
> better description of the planet on which we live than Euclid's.
>
> "Existence exists" is very tempting, but the only one of Rand's axioms
> that I have seen demonstrated to my satisfaction is that I am aware of
> my own existence. (That goes back at least to Descartes's "cogito
> ergo sum.") As for "things are what they are," that may be valid, but
> it's not terribly useful: it doesn't give us any necessary connection
> between what is and what we perceive, or say anything about the ways
> in which things change.
Look: subjective reality is more *immediate* than objective reality.
"Existence exists" *doesn't* cover the extrapolation of objective reality
from the foundation of subjective reality.
#'s 1 and 3 are not really demonstratable, because the language [English,
in this case; mathematics confers no advantage here in flexibility]
chokes on any attempt to consider alternatives. They're part of the
definition of the language.
#2, being demonstratable, is the *least* stable of the 3 axioms proposed.
> At 02:43 PM 1/29/97 EST, David Rosdeitcher wrote:
> > Objectivist philosopher, Ayn Rand, made an important discovery: the 3
> >philosophical axioms. Axioms are basic concepts that are implicit in any
> >statement about reality. Rand's 3 axioms are: 1) Existence-an external
> reality
> >exists. 2) Consciousness-there is an awareness of existence.
> >3)Identity-Things
> >are what they are-A is A. These are axioms because and attempt to deny them
> >would be self-refuting.
[CLIP]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////