Part 4 (1/2)
The function of psychological integrations is to make certain connections automatic, so that they work as a unit and do not require a conscious process of thought every time they are evoked.
[”Art and Sense of Life,” RM, 45; pb 36.1 A mind's cognitive development involves a continual process of automatization. For example, you cannot perceive a table as an infant perceives it-as a mysterious object with four legs. You perceive it as a table, i.e., a man-made piece of furniture, serving a certain purpose belonging to a human habitation, etc.; you cannot separate these attributes from your sight of the table, you experience it as a single, indivisible percept-yet all you see is a four-legged object; the rest is an automatized integration of a vast amount of conceptual knowledge which, at one time, you had to learn bit by bit. The same is true of everything you perceive or experience; as an adult, you cannot perceive or experience in a vacuum, you do it in a certain automatized context-and the efficiency of your mental operations depends on the kind of context your subconscious has automatized.
[”The Comprachicos,” NL, 192.]
The status of automatized knowledge in his mind is experienced by man as if it had the direct, effortless, self-evident quality (and certainty) of perceptual awareness. But it is conceptual knowtedge-and its validity depends on the precision of his concepts, which require as strict a precision of meaning (i.e., as strict a knowledge of what specific referents they subsume) as the definitions of mathematical terms. (It is obvious what disasters will follow if one automatizes errors, contradictions and undefined approximations.) [ITOE, 86.).
See also INTEGRATION (MENTAL); LEARNING; PSYCHO-EPISTF. MOLOGY; SUBCONSCIOUS.
Awareness. See Consciousness.
Axiomatic Concepts. Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But 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-consists of axiomatic concepts.
An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be a.n.a.lyzed, 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.
The first and primary axiomatic concepts are ”existence,” ”ident.i.ty” (which is a corollary of ”existence”) and ”consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot a.n.a.lyze (or ”prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to ”prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to ”prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.) [ITOE, 73.1.
[The] underscoring of primary facts is one of the crucial epistemological functions of axiomatic concepts. It is also the reason why they can be translated into a statement only in the form of a repet.i.tion (as a base and a reminder): Existence exists-Consciousness is conscious-A is A. (This converts axiomatic concepts into formal axioms.) [Ibid., 78.]
Epistemologically, the formation of axiomatic concepts is an act of abstraction, a selective focusing on and mental isolation of metaphysical fundamentals; but metaphysically, it is an act of integration-the widest integration possible to man: it unites and embraces the total of his experience.
The units of the concepts ”existence” and ”ident.i.ty” are every ent.i.ty, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. The units of the concept ”consciousness” are every state or process of awareness that one experiences, has ever experienced or will ever experience (as well as similar units, a similar faculty, which one infers in other living ent.i.ties).
[Ibid., 74.]
Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of ”faith” or of man's arbitrary choice, there is a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all knowledge, that it has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.
For instance, when modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on ”existence,” ”consciousness,” ”ident.i.ty,” which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, ”stolen” concepts.
It is worth noting, at this point, that what the enemies of reason seem to know, but its alleged defenders have not discovered, is the fact that axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man's mind and the foundation of reason -the keystone, touchstone and hallmark of reason-and if reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed.
[Ibid., 79.J It is only conceptual awareness that can grasp and hold the total of its experience-extrospectivety, the continuity of existence; introspectively, the continuity of consciousness-and thus enable its possessor to project his course long-range. It is by means of axiomatic concepts that man grasps and holds this continuity, bringing it into his conscious awareness and knowledge. It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.
[Ibid., 75.]
It is only man's consciousness, a consciousness capable of conceptual errors, that needs a special identification of the directly given, to embrace and delimit the entire field of its awareness-to delimit it from the void of unreality to which conceptual errors can lead. Axiomatic concepts are epistemological guidelines. They sum up the essence of all human cognition: something exists of which I am conscious; I must discover its ident.i.tv.
Ibid., 78.]
Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition-e.g., to define ”existence,” one would have to sweep one's arm around and say: ”I mean this.”
[Ibid., 53.]
See also AXIOMS; CONCEPTS; CONSCIOUSNESS; COROLLARIES; EXISTENCE ; HIERARCHY of KNOWLEDGE; IDENt.i.tY; IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE; IRREDUCIBLE PRIMARIES; OBJECTIVITY; PRIMACY of EXISTENCE vs. PRIMACY nf CONSCIOUSNESS; ”STOLEN CONCEPT,” FALLACY of.
Axioms. 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.
[GS, FNI, 193; pb 155.]
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.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.
To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an ent.i.ty of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was-no matter what his errors -the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Ident.i.ty, Consciousness is Identification.
[Ibid., 152; pb 124.]
”You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.
When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence -when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness-he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both-he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.
When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn't choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut one's mouth, expound no theories and die.
[Ibid., 192; pb 154.]
See also AXIOMATIC CONCEPTS; CONSCIOUSNESS; COROLLARIES; EXISTENCE; HIERARCHY of KNOWLEDGE; IDENt.i.tY; IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE; OBJECTIVITY ; PRIMACY of EXISTENCE vs. PRIMACY of CONSCIOUSNESS; SELF-EVIDENT; ”STOLEN CONCEPT,” FALLACY of.
B.
Ballet. The keynote of the stylization achieved in ballet is: weightlessness. Paradoxically, ballet presents man as almost disembodied: it does not distort man's body, it selects the kinds of movements that are normally possible to man (such as walking on tiptoe) and exaggerates them, stressing their beauty-and defying the law of gravitation. A gracefully effortless floating, flowing and flying are the essentials of the ballet's image of man. It projects a fragile kind of strength and a certain inflexible precision, but it is man with a fine steel skeleton and without flesh, man the spirit, not controlling, but transcending this earth....
Strong pa.s.sions or negative emotions cannot be projected in ballet, regardless of its librettos; it cannot express tragedy or fear-or s.e.xuality ; it is a perfect medium for the expression of spiritual love.
[”Art and Cognition,” RM, pb 68.]
See also ART; Ch.o.r.eOGRAPHER; DANCE; MUSIC; PERFORMING ARTS.
Beauty. Beauty is a sense of harmony. Whether it's an image, a human face, a body, or a sunset, take the object which you call beautiful, as a unit [and ask yourself]: what parts is it made up of, what are its const.i.tuent elements, and are they all harmonious? If they are, the result is beautiful. If there are contradictions and clashes, the result is marred or positively ugly.
For instance, the simplest example would be a human face. You know what features belong in a human face. Well, if the face is lopsided, [with a] very indefinite jawline, very small eyes, beautiful mouth, and a long nose, you would have to say that's not a beautiful face. But if all these features are harmoniously integrated, if they all fit your view of the importance of all these features on a human face, then that face is beautiful.
In this respect, a good example would be the beauty of different races of people. For instance, the black face, or an Oriental face, is built on a different standard, and therefore what would be beautiful on a white face will not be beautiful for them (or vice-versa), because there is a certain racial standard of features by which you judge which features, which face, in that cla.s.sification is harmonious or distorted.
That's in regard to human beauty. In regard to a sunset, for instance, or a landscape, you will regard it as beautiful if all the colors complement each other, or go well together, or are dramatic together. And you will call it ugly if it is a bad rainy afternoon, and the sky isn't exactly pink nor exactly gray, but sort of ”modern.”
Now since this is an objective definition of beauty, there of course can be universal standards of beauty-provided you define the terms of what objects you are going to cla.s.sify as beautiful and what you take as the ideal harmonious relations.h.i.+p of the elements of that particular object. To say, ”It's in the eyes of the beholder”-that, of course, would be pure subjectivism, if taken literally. It isn't [a matter of] what you, for unknown reasons, decide to regard as beautiful. It is true, of course, that if there were no valuers, then nothing could be valued as beautiful or ugly, because values are created by the observing consciousness-but they are created by a standard based on reality. So here the issue is: values, including beauty, have to be judged as objective, not subjective or intrinsic.
[Ayn Rand, question period following Lecture 11 of Leonard Peikoft's series ”The Philosophy of Objectivism” (1976).]
See also ART; ESTHETICS; INTEGRATION (MENTAL); OBJECTIVITY.
Behaviorism. Many psychologists are envious of the prestige-and the achievements-of the physical sciences, which they try not to emulate, but to imitate. [B.F.] Skinner is archetypical in this respect: he is pa.s.sionately intent on being accepted as a ”scientist” and complains that only [the concept of] ”Autonomous Man” stands in the way of such acceptance (which, I am sure, is true). Mr. Skinner points out scornfully that primitive men, who were unable to see the difference between living beings and inanimate objects, ascribed the objects' motions to conscious G.o.ds or demons, and that science could not begin until this belief was discarded. In the name of science, Mr. Skinner switches defiantly to the other side of the same basic coin: accepting the belief that consciousness is supernatural, he refuses to accept the existence of man's mind.
[”The Stimulus and the Response,” PWNI, 169; pb 140.]
Apparently to appease man's defenders, Mr. Skinner offers the fullowing: ”In s.h.i.+fting control from autonomous man to the observable environment we do not leave an empty organism. A great deal goes on inside the skin, and physiology will eventually tell us more about it” [Beyond Freedom and Dignity, p. 195]. This means: No, man is not empty, he is a solid piece of meat.
[Ibid., 175; pb 144.]