The judge excused Mr. Blind Man and asked Dr. P if he would like to call his next witness to the stand. Dr. P called on Professor William Thompson, a philosophy professor at the local university, Objectivist Land University.
After taking the oath and taking his seat, the professor, a distinguished looking and well-dressed older gentleman with a well-groomed gray beard and shoulder length gray hair, prepared himself for questioning from Dr. P.
“Can you tell us, Professor Thompson, about pragmatism, existentialism, and the Objectivist epistemology?†asked Dr. P.
“Certainly,†replied the professor, “Where would you like me to begin?â€
“Let’s take these topics in order then,†said Dr. P. “Please tell us Objectivism’s position on pragmatism.â€
The professor began quoting passages from Rand and Peikoff:
“In For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand said:
“In Ominous Parallels, Leonard Peikoff said:
â€
“Okay,†said Dr. P. “Now, tell us about existentialism.â€
The professor began quoting paragraphs from The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff:
â€
Some people in the audience and the jury shuddered when they heard this, and many seemed to stare at Alice, the alleged Existentialist.
“I know there’s much more,†said Dr. P, “but could you get into the Objectivist epistemology? Please just focus on the parts which are relevant to this case.â€
“Yes,†said the professor, as he got right into it, “There are two types of valid knowledge: (1)knowledge determined contextually, knowledge which is “contextually absolute†and (2) axiomatic knowledge, which is categorically true and beyond contextual demonstration. The most objective knowledge consists of this latter, or axiomatic, knowledge.
“There are, at basis, three axiomatic truths: “existence,†“identity,†and “consciousness.†“Identity†is merely an aspect of “existence.†“Existence†is, in turn, merely the objective (or content) dimension of “consciousness.â€
“As soon as a human becomes aware that something exists, he or she must be aware that existence exists, and this is essentially Aristotle’s law of identity, A is A, which implies the corollaries of non-contradiction and even causation, the law of identity applied to action. He or she must also be aware that he or she is conscious, conscious that existence exists. There is a world that exists, as it is, and a consciousness to be aware of it.
“If reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed.
“In the writings of mysticism and irrationalism, one finds, sooner or later, a clear, simple, explicit denial of the validity of axiomatic concepts, most frequently of “identity.â€
“Since we were talking about Existentialism a while ago, I can use the example of their regarding “nothing†as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent.
“Anyway, since all humans are both logical and apprehend the fundamental nature of objective reality, all humans unavoidably know that which is true, and those who describe reality in varying terms are guilty of volitional error (which is both self-destructive and immoral in its consequences).
“Since all humans know axiomatic truth, and since all other truths are derivative, all non-axiomatic knowledge, contextual truths, are objective in so far as they do not contradict prior axiomatic beliefs and are fully compatible with previously established “objective†conclusions. They are integrated into a systematic whole. This is the only criterion for validating knowledge.â€
“Thank you, Professor Thompson,†said Dr. P. “I have no further questions.â€
The judge then looked to Dr. K, who was already standing up to ask questions for the defense.
“Professor Thompson,†began Dr. K, “do Objectivists maintain the logic is the art of non-contradictory identification?â€
“Yes,†said Professor Thompson, “of course. Galt said, ‘To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.’â€
“Okay, Professor,†said Dr. K, “let’s look at your testimony regarding the Objectivist epistemology, specifically when you are talking about axiomatic concepts and one of those three main concepts, consciousness. Do you remember saying ‘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.’?â€
“Yes,†said the professor.
“A little later,†continued Dr. K, “you said consciousness had two attributes: content and action. Is this a contradiction, Professor?â€
“Where’s the contradiction?†asked the professor. “I don’t see it.â€
“First, you say axiomatic concepts cannot be broken into component parts, then you say consciousness has two attributes; content and action. Isn’t this braking consciousness into component parts?†asked Dr. K.
“No, I’m afraid you just don’t understand,†said the professor.
This post was removed from the philosophy forum without my permission. I think it is a malicious act. I am no threat to the philosophy forum. I request that this post be returned to where it was so that my series of posts on that forum have the continuity I intended for them to have, and so I can continue with the series there.
I’d rather participate in discussion and debate than see my posts disappearing from where I posted them.
Thank you for returning my post. I will now post the two remaining posts in this series. Hopefully, people will read the entire series in order, from one to ten, and tell me how they would vote if they are on the jury.