In a message dated May 12, 1998 BKNewton writes:

I use the term ‘exile’ figuratively, and in my last post I referred to the island of Sakhalin as the figurative ‘address’ of my exile. However, I hasten to point out that this ‘exile’ was not self-imposed. I think you all know what I mean. Now on to BKNewton’s thoughtful post.

This presupposes that there is a thing called a ‘god’. I know already that you accept the entire package that Christianity serves up, ready for perfect obedience among its sheeplike followers. The ‘epistemology’ of religion is known as MYSTICISM, which is the acceptance of allegations without evidence and/or against one’s own reasoning. Its ‘method’ is: FAITH. Faith is defined by Paul in Hebrews 11:1 thus: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Two things are already implicit necessarily by this statement about Christian epistemology: 1) wishful or hopeful thinking, and 2) antagonism towards sense-perception. The Christian is asked by his philosophical ‘principles’ - which are at best left as implicit inferences from emotionally endowed statements such as the richly poetic example above - to accept the claims of its church leaders, such as Paul or Jesus or Moses, etc., as truth on faith, i.e., on the hope that it is true. However, hopes do not validate knowledge claims. Nor does ‘evidence of things not seen’ lead man to certainty in any field of knowledge. This, however, is exactly what religious philosophy offers in the place of epistemology. Its consequences are extremely hazardous to man.

However, Christian ‘epistemology’ - that is, MYSTICISM, is not a primary, but presupposes a system of metaphysics, which is also gleaned from scriptural writing by implicit inferences. For instance, the Bible asserts that there is a ‘god’ - the doctrine of supernaturalism, which is responsible for the creation of the universe - the doctrine of subjectivism, which is the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness (i.e., ‘god’). Thus, MYSTICISM in epistemology follows necessarily as a consequence of subjective premises in religious metaphysics.

Remember that knowledge is hierarchical. This is extremely important to keep in mind in the discussion of the roots of a philosophy. Just as one cannot begin his study of differential calculus without first understanding the principles of arithmetic (i.e., 1+1+1=3, not 1), so one cannot begin constructing his philosophy with epistemological or ethical doctrines - but must begin with METAPHYSICS, the foundation of a philosophy, which studies existence, reality and nature. It is also in the metaphysical province of a philosophy that such questions as What is man? are considered and answered.

(It may be pointed out that BK and Howard seem to be in conflict with each other here, for BK seems to think that Christian philosophy begins with epistemological principles, and Howard - as he himself stated in a post a couple weeks back, seems to think that philosophy begins with the province of ethics, as revealed by his statement in a post on April 20, 1998: "Even atheists hold to values, the first trait of a worldview." We should not be so quick to forget how Christianity as a philosophy (or ‘worldview’ as some would like to call it) fails to isolate its principles in the form of explicit essentials. This is one of the primary reasons why it fails man as a ‘worldview’. Where does the Bible define such concepts as morality, virtue, reason and logic if these concepts are - as the Christian often claims - essential to his worldview and exclusive to his religion? These concepts are left completely undefined in explicit terms in biblical doctrine, and thus one can only infer that the Jewish elites responsible for its authorship were completely unaware of them on a conscious, indeed philosophical, level.)

The only rational place to begin one’s quest for a philosophy fit for man is with his understanding of reality as his starting point. No other area of concern to him can replace the primacy of reality in his pursuit of knowledge, survival, and happiness, all of which require the foundation of a view of reality and of man. Hence, man’s need for a ‘starting point’, which some may call an ‘ultimate presupposition’. In Objectivism, this starting point is called an axiom. According to Rand, axioms are "propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth" (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg. 73). She goes on to explain that "explicit propositions as such are not primaries; they are made of concepts. The base of man’s knowledge - of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought consist of axiomatic concepts" (Ibid.).

Rand defines an axiomatic concept as: "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" (Ibid.).

(Note that Rand’s philosophy consistently DEFINES its terms; Christianity, in its primitive lack of regard fro intellection, makes no attempt to identify axiomatic concepts as the initial tools of man’s knowledge. Instead, Christianity simply commands belief. How this is supposed to be superior to definitions and rationality is never explained.)

Rand continues:

So, as Rand points out, the first axiom - i.e., the ‘ultimate presupposition’ - is EXISTENCE (I’ve already said this, but apparently people still take it for granted conceptually).

Thus, the recognition that existence exists is the ‘starting point’ of Rand’s philosophy, which she calls OBJECTIVISM. It is the first and only philosophy to identify in EXPLICIT TERMS the PRIMARY ESSENTIALS of ‘existence’, ‘identity’, and ‘consciousness’ as the core basis for a consistent, integrated philosophical system. One of Objectivism’s most important qualities is its vigilance for DEFINITIONS, which Rand called the ‘guardians of rationality’ (Bsmith5044 has concluded more than one post with this inspiring perspective of definitions, which most philosophies leave in extremely vague and nebulous orbits of ‘personal interpretation’.)

I’m quite sure you do to a great extent. Reason is inescapable for man any time he seeks to deal with reality and achieve his goals, be they simple - such as tying his shoe, or complex - such as running a business. None of these things can be accomplished by an appeal to ‘faith’ or by whispering to one’s bedspread (so-called ‘prayer’). For man to achieve any goal, he must apply his mind in purposeful thought. The Bible does not give man directions for this task.

I am not trying to make fun of the Christian here; neither of BKNewton nor of any other ‘representative’ of the Christian faith. My point is that one cannot achieve his goals by an appeal to the lilies of the fields, just as he cannot drive an automobile by closing his eyes and meditating on the name "Jesus". Man - in order to achieve his goals - must grasp the fact that existence exists (usually he does so IMPLICITLY, as Rand mentions above) - and incorporate a long and extremely complex chain of knowledge gathering and knowledge validation, beginning with sense-perception and processed by identification and concept-formation, mental integration and reasoning. This process is too complex to define here in this present post, but suffice it to say that even the average Christian in modern America - especially those capable of signing onto and maneuvering around the internet - is able to use reason. My point here, however, is, is that reason functions by an appeal to reality - i.e., to existence, not to supernatural entities (as if they truly existed). The Bible, again, does not define a rational means of epistemology. It in fact condemns it. (See Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter one, where in he categorically denounces what he calls ‘men’s wisdom’ of the Greeks - "the Greeks seek after wisdom", etc. Compare these statements with those of Paul to the Hebrews - chapter 11, which I cite above.)

Keep in mind also, that Paul in his Second Epistle to the Corinthian church, states "we walk by faith, not by sight" (5:7). This statement alone infers the division and incompatibility of faith/mysticism with sense-perception. Since Corinth was influenced heavily by Greek philosophy, much of Paul’s message to the church there dealt with epistemological concerns. It is good reading for those who wish to understand the "Christian mindset" (notice I did not say Christian mind, for this would be an oxymoron). However, on that note, I’ve not yet met a sighted Christian who walks with his eyes closed. Most Christians argue that I am guilty of taking Paul’s advice too ‘literally’. I, however, think Paul’s assessment of Christian practice was unusually explicit in this case. Therefore, I disagree most profoundly with this accusation.

This statement is essentially hypothetical, and indeed arbitrary, as it presupposes that a ‘god’ is possible. As I have mentioned already, subjectivism is the view that EXISTENCE FINDS ITS SOURCE IN A FORM OF CONSCIOUSNESS. This form of consciousness, according to the Christian, is called ‘god’. Its presupposition leads to informing an errant form of philosophy which is unfit form man’s survival, emancipation and happiness.

[It may also be pointed out, concerning BKNewton’s point above, that the Bible is erroneous even in its description of the constitution of man, for it claims in Genesis that man is formed from dust; however, man is made mostly of water, some 70% of his body is liquid, not earthen.]

The mind/body dichotomy is a metaphysical doctrine that is a natural corollary to the subjectivism of its immediate and ultimate presupposition that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness. As this last statement will undoubtedly cause quite a stir among the present audience, I leave further explanation to a later post, when dealing with this subject is more appropriate. It is of primary importance to deal with the essentials of reality before moving on to the subject of man’s nature.

Of course you aren’t. In fact, you cannot. Existence is axiomatic; i.e., it is self-evident perceptually. To deny the fact of existence is to deny EVERYTHING. This is precisely why it is the only rational place to start building one’s philosophy. No other starting place can take the place of the axiom existence exists.

To say that the axiom existence exists is ‘void of substance upon examination’ is to state, quite frankly, that "existence doesn’t matter," or that the recognition of existence does not matter. Whether this statement was motivated by the fact that most individuals take ‘existence’ for granted as a given without consciously considering it, or by animosity for reality, I cannot tell. The ‘substance’ of reality is EXISTENCE. Reality is the realm of existence. This statement of BKNewton’s is really quite ironic for the fact that all SUBSTANCE (his word) presupposes existence necessarily. What ‘substance’ is BKNewton looking for in an axiom if not the fundamental of reality itself? Of course, in order to be true to subjectivism (the view that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness), BKNewton - if he is consistent as a religionist - is looking for a form of consciousness (i.e., ‘god’) as the ultimate presupposition, even though this ‘presupposition’ itself cannot escape presupposing that existence exists.

Or, as Parmenides (5th cent. BC Greek philosopher) put it: "What is, is". This is the only rational place to begin building one’s philosophy, if indeed he seeks to build a philosophy of reason, i.e., which is consistent with reality.

Axioms such as existence exists are necessarily tautological. This is hardly a point against the axiom I’ve offered. Any primary axiom that could serve as the starting point of a philosophy (i.e., any irreducible primary) would necessarily have to be stated propositionally as a tautology. If NOT, then it would presuppose something prior to it, conceptually speaking. Existence does not.

Existence has no cause, no ‘source’, no contingency. The assertion of any of these would necessarily presuppose that existence exists as a necessary condition. One cannot start ‘before existence’ as there is no such ‘place’ as ‘before existence’.

I will continue my response to BKNewton’s post in short course. Until then, please consider deeply what I have stated here.

Thank you for your time,

Tindrbox

_________________________________