RazorsKiss
on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge
Part 2: RK's
Axioms
Originally published on Incinerating
Presuppositionalism on August 18, 2009.
Continued from Part 1.
* * *
Contents:
The Criteria Qualifying Truths as Axiomatic
The Proper Alternative to Christianity
We continue now with our examination of RazorsKiss’ case for knowledge finding its basis in the
Christian god.
Given RK’s choice to defend the view that knowledge has its basis in the Christian
god, he at least seems to recognize that knowledge requires a basis.
Unfortunately, his concern is not genuinely for the integrity or objectivity of
knowledge, but for safeguarding his god-belief by inserting it into the very
foundations of knowledge as such. Make no mistake about it,
RK’s concern is not for anchoring knowledge to reality, but rather to
assimilate the entire body of human knowledge to Christian theism, as if
knowledge could not be possible if Christianity were not true. This is one reason
why RK affirms the alleged reality of his god’s existence and its revelation as
“two axiomatic, interrelated foundations for my epistemology, and for
everything else I encounter through the grid of that epistemology.” Those two
“axioms” are:
1) “The Triune God of Scripture – who
created the universe and all it contains; who established and even now
maintains the laws which govern that creation.”
2) “The self-revelation of that self-existent, self-conscious, self-sufficient,
omniscient, omnipotent, all-wise, immutable, eternal, and sovereign God; The Scrptures of the Old and New Testament, are the
self-communication of the extent, nature, and specifics of His eternal
properties – which are the guarantor of the laws and assumptions which we, as
creatures in the image of that God, require to operate rationally and
coherently.”
I find it baffling that anyone would call either
of these two statements “axiomatic.” Not surprisingly, RK nowhere explains what
he means by “axiomatic,” nor does he show how the two statements he provides
here qualify as “axiomatic.” Rather, they appear to be faith assertions which
he simply labels “axiomatic” as a shortcut to scoring a major debating point.
By calling these statements “axiomatic… foundations,” RK seeks to front-load
his god-belief claims into a fundamental position in his overall
epistemological structure. But this is entirely artificial and disingenuous.
Only if axioms, and knowledge in general, were
completely arbitrary, could RK’s statements qualify as “axiomatic,” but in such
a case any statement one may want to affirm would qualify as
“axiomatic.” For instance, why would RK’s proposed statements qualify as “axiomatic,” but the following statements would
not? Consider:
1’) The Infinitune
Blarko of Wonder – who created the universe and all
it contains; who established and even now maintains the laws which govern that
creation.”
2’) The self-revelation of that self-existent, self-conscious, self-sufficient,
omniscient, omnipotent, all-wise, immutable, eternal, and sovereign Blarko: The Wonder is the self-communication of the extent,
nature, and specifics of Blarko’s eternal properties
– which are the guarantor of the laws and assumptions which we, as creatures in
the very vision of Blarko, require to operate
rationally and coherently.
If RK’s proposals 1) and 2) should qualify as
“axiomatic… foundations,” I see no reason why statements 1’) and 2’), or any
others which one could invent in their place, cannot. And to help the
uninitiated like me along, RK provides no rationale or criteria which validate
his own claims as “axiomatic” and/or which rule out statements such as those
which I have presented here. (And we can be assured that RK’s “axioms” are not
affirming the same thing as my proposed alternates, for “Blarko”
is not identical to the Christian god; for instance, Blarko
did not have a son, and Blarko is not a three-in-one
deity – Blarko is “infinitune,”
not “triune.” Moreover, Blarko’s self-revelation is
contained in The Wonder, not “the Scriptures.” Thus, one could argue from the
basis of the two “axiomatic… foundations” which I have offered against RK’s,
that any time one “wonders” he is making personal contact with Blarko.)
The Criteria Qualifying Truths as Axiomatic
Yes, I would agree that all this is most arbitrary, which is why, in my blog Probing
Mr. Manata’s Poor Understanding of the Axioms, I identified six criteria which a philosophical axiom
would need to fulfill in order to be genuinely axiomatic. They are:
It names a perceptually self-evident fact
Its truth is not inferred from prior
truths
Its truth is conceptually irreducible
Its truth is implicit in all perception
Its truth is implicit in all knowledge and
any statement
Its truth must be assumed even in denying
it
RK’s proposed “axiomatic, interrelated
foundations” fail to provide knowledge with a starting point which is:
- objective
- conceptually
irreducible
- perceptually
self-evident
- undeniably true
- universal
My examination below shows why RK’s proposed
“axioms” lack these qualities which legitimate axioms possess:
1) Objective: Genuine axioms need to be objective. However, by appealing
to the “sensus divinitatus,”
RK concedes that his axioms are not objective. Objectivity is
intentional conformity to the primacy of existence. In his Rebuttal to
RK, Mitch LeBlanc explained why “the Christian worldview has denied the
metaphysical primacy of existence,” which means that, as a worldview,
Christianity is fundamentally at odds with the very basis of objectivity. RK’s
need to appeal to the “sensus divinitatus”
confirms this, as my discussion of this alleged faculty in Part
I demonstrates. If that which RK identifies as the basis of knowledge is
not objective, then his account for knowledge should be rejected, for it can
only lead to subjectivism. Since this is what his “two axiomatic, interrelated
foundations for epistemology” in fact do, his case for the thesis that the
Christian god is the proper basis for knowledge is doomed.
2) Conceptually Irreducible: To qualify as an axiom, a statement must at
minimum be conceptually irreducible. Unfortunately, RK’s two proposed “axioms”
are, to put it plainly, loaded to the hilt with prior assumptions, sub-assumptions
and notions which themselves would need to be defined in terms of prior
concepts in order to have any meaning at all. Thus they are not conceptually
irreducible. Notice how, in RK’s first “axiom,” he needs to
qualify his god as “Triune” (a concept which must be defined in terms of more
fundamental concepts) and as belonging to “Scripture” (another concept which
must be clarified by reference to prior concepts). RK’s axiom
identifying his god also points to achievements in its career (it “created the
universe and all it contains,” and “established and even now maintains the laws
which govern that creation”), which are specified in his axiom. These notions
are not themselves axiomatic in nature, since they are not conceptually
irreducible notions. To have meaning, they need to be defined in terms of more
fundamental concepts.
Similarly in RK’s second “axiom,” the notion of “revelation” is not a
conceptually reducible idea. It must be defined in terms of prior concepts. The
abundant verbiage of RK’s second “axiom” by itself indicates how much
qualification is required to specify what it is supposedly identifying, which
only tells us that it cannot be conceptually irreducible. Notions like
“self-revelation,” “self-existent,” ‘self-conscious,” “self-sufficient,”
“omniscient,” “omnipotent,” “all-wise,” “immutable,” “eternal,” and
“sovereign,” are not conceptually irreducible ideas, and this we can know
because they need to be clarified by definitions which make use of prior
concepts.
All of RK’s qualifications, which are rampant throughout the content of his
proposed “axioms,” can only invite further elaboration, because they contain a
vast assortment of underlying presuppositions, which only means that they are
not and cannot be conceptually irreducible. According to RK, even the notion
“God” has a definition. This becomes evident in his defense against the
proposal that his supernatural object of worship might be deceiving him, a
question which LeBlanc raises in the cross-interrogation session of the debate.
RK rejects this proposal on the basis that it “redefines” the Christian god.
You cannot “redefine” something unless it is already supposed to have a
definition in the first place (even though definitions pertain to concepts, and
from what I understand “God” is supposed to be a supernatural being, not a
concept). Genuinely axiomatic concepts are in fact conceptually irreducible in
that their definitions are not in terms of prior concepts, but ostensive
in nature, i.e., by pointing to something and saying “that’s what I mean.” The
definition of the notion of a god cannot be ostensive since gods are supposed
to be imperceptible. You cannot indicate something that you cannot perceive by
pointing to it.
3) Perceptually Self-Evident: An axiom identifies a fact which is
perceptually self-evident. But the final point in the discussion of the
previous point indicates that RK’s “axioms” fail to meet even this
qualification. RK’s “axioms” do not identify anything that is perceptually
self-evident. Christians are always reminding us that their god is immaterial,
non-physical, supernatural, invisible, beyond the
reach of man’s senses. RK indicates no differently. We do not see RK’s
god, we do not hear it, touch it, taste it, and thank
goodness we do not smell it. If it were the case that RK did
think his god were accessible to our sense organs, he would not need to make
appeals to the so-called “sensus divinitatus,”
which he describes as an “internal ‘sense’” through which he claims (along with
everyone else) to have awareness of his god somehow. In fact, however, even
though he claims to be in possession of this mystical faculty through which he
receives transmissions from the divine, RK acknowledges that he really gets his
information about his god from a storybook. In a response to a question from
LeBlanc, RK stated:
Scripture states that God is good, that He
is Almighty, that He is a God of order, not confusion, and that He knows even
the thoughts of men (as well as the entirety of His creation) when He “knows
all things”. The Created order attests to these things as well, in a lesser, and more inferential way.
Here RK confirms my point that the alleged truth
of his “axioms” is not perceptually self-evident, for not only does he need to
learn what he “knows” about his god by reading from a storybook, when it comes
to learning about his god from what it allegedly made (e.g., the natural
world), he must still rely on inference. Knowledge that is inferred is
not perceptually self-evident. Genuine axioms are not inferred from prior
truths or from facts which we discover through perception; on the contrary,
axioms identify facts which are themselves perceptually self-evident. So RK’s
“axioms” fail this criterion of what an axiom should be.
4) Undeniably True: The truth of an axiom must be undeniable.
Specifically, it should be obvious that the truth of an axiom must obtain in
order for one to deny it, dispute it, evade it, or simply wish it were
otherwise. Thus, to deny an axiom (a real axiom) results in immediate contradiction.
There’s certainly no obvious contradiction between having knowledge of the
world and denying the existence of RK’s god. There is no obvious contradiction
between having awareness of objects which exist in the world and concluding
that god-belief (including RK’s) is irrational. In fact, in order to “know”
RK’s god, we need to imagine it behind everything we know about the
world – as Van Til puts it:
Looking about me I see both order and
disorder in every dimension of life. But I look at both of them in the light of
the Great Orderer Who is back
of them. (Why
I Believe in God, emphasis added)
Van Til makes it clear
here that he must actively imagine his god existing “back of” everything
he perceives and experiences in the world. Nothing in reality requires us to do
this, even the fact that some people have adopted Van Til’s
habit of imagining his invisible god lurking behind the scenes everywhere as a
result of their confessional investment. Consequently, since the imaginary is
not real, there can be no contradiction whatsoever between having knowledge of
what is genuinely real and denying the alleged “truth” of what some people can
only imagine. Thus RK’s “axioms” fail to meet this requirement of what an axiom
must be.
5) Universal: To qualify as an axiom, a statement must, in addition to
the above criteria, identify a truth which is universal.
To test this, we must ask whether its truth is implicit in all perception and
throughout the sum of our knowledge. Rk’s “axioms”
are not implicit in all perception and throughout our knowledge. When we
perceive a rock, a tree, or a skyscraper, we are not
perceiving something which is supernatural, infinite, non-physical,
transcendent, etc. When we identify these objects and integrate them into the
sum of our knowledge, there is nothing implicitly supernatural, infinite,
non-physical or transcendent about them. Even if RK wanted to claim that we can
infer an origin to these objects which is allegedly supernatural,
infinite, non-physical or transcendent, this would not make his proposed axioms
universal in their scope of reference. RK’s god and its revelation, to which
his proposed axioms refer, could at best be specific things, and
consequently statements denoting their alleged reality could at best be
considered specific truths - i.e., truths pertaining to specific things,
not truths which pertain universally, i.e., which apply to everything which
exists.
Curiously, Greg Bahnsen affirms that specific “truths” such as RK proposes in
his “axioms” are philosophically insufficient to render one’s experience
intelligible. He writes:
if one does not begin with some such
general truths (universal) with which to understand the particular observations
in one’s experience, those factual particulars would be unrelated and uninterpretable – i.e., “brute.” (Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings &
Analysis, p. 38n.10)
Since RK begins with specific suppositions
rather than universal truths, the “factual particulars” of RK’s
experience must, according to Bahnsen, be “unrelated and uninterpretable
– i.e., ‘brute’.” This means that RK’s proposed axioms are at odds with
presuppositionalism’s own stated position (for how could Greg Bahnsen be
wrong?). Moreover, statements which Bahnsen makes in his thick tome (cf. p.
466) suggest that the celebrated popularizer had a
low opinion of axioms, chiding his mentor’s rival Gordon Clark for affirming “unprovable” axioms which are thereby “dogmatically posited”
and consequently leading Clark to “a fideistic stance
that precludes the apologist from offering the unbeliever rational grounds for
believing the Christian’s presupposition.” Of course, there are no “rational
grounds for believing the Christian’s presupposition,” and RK’s designation of
his two statements as “axiomatic, interrelated foundations” of his epistemology
is consistent with this. By calling them “axioms,” RK concedes that he does not
establish their supposed truth by argument. Since they are proposed as axioms,
they must be accepted at face value, without the benefit of informing concepts
or supporting argument, essentially for no reason at all.
By affirming the statements he proposes as “axioms,” RK undermines the
credibility of the position he seeks to defend with respect to identifying the
proper basis of knowledge. His proposed “axioms” fail to meet each of the
requirements of a legitimate axiom, and thus prove insufficient to serve as the
basis of knowledge.
It must be borne in mind that the task of axioms is to anchor all of
one’s knowledge to reality. RK and other presuppositionalists speak of
“grounding” knowledge. But grounding it to what? They will say that their
worldview’s foundations ground knowledge to “Truth. But it cannot do this
reliably if their worldview blurs the fundamental distinction between reality
and imagination. Moroever, their foundations are to
be rejected if they depend on confusing the imaginary with reality, as we have
seen.
The opposite of anchoring knowledge to reality is allowing the mind to detach
its contents from what is real and consequently confusing the arbitrary with
the real, thus treating the arbitrary as a substitute for the real. The
Christian worldview invites such confusion by failing to address the question
of the proper relationship between the subject of consciousness and its
objects. By failing to address this question, a question which pertains to the
most fundamental relationship in all philosophy, a relationship which is
present in all philosophical inquiry, the Christian worldview fails to equip
its adherents with the cognitive equipment needed for identifying the very
basic distinction between the real and the imaginary. Consequently, by blurring
this fundamental distinction, the believer is philosophically disabled when it
comes to the task of discriminating the imaginary from the real, the subjective
from the objective, the arbitrary from the factual.
To correct this misuse of one’s own mind, an individual needs to grasp the
distinction between the activity of his consciousness and the objects of his
consciousness explicitly. The Objectivist axioms of ‘existence’,
‘consciousness’ and ‘identity’ empower a mind to do just this. Moreover, the
Objectivist axioms meet each of the criteria identified above.
1. Objective: The Objectivist axioms are objective because they identify
facts which obtain independent of anyone’s knowledge, preferences, evasions,
imagination, wishes, fits or tantrums. The concept ‘existence’ denotes
everything which exists, including everything one perceives as well as the
faculty by which he perceives. The units of the concept ‘existence’ exist
independent of any individual’s conscious activity. The concept ‘consciousness’
denotes the faculty which perceives, and this faculty exists even if one denies
it, prefers that it did not exist, seeks to evade it, imagines that it does not
exist, wishes otherwise, etc. To deny, prefer, seek, imagine and wish are all
activities of consciousness. So consciousness would be a precondition to these
actions. The concept ‘identity’ denotes the nature of anything which exists,
including both the subject as well as the objects of consciousness. To exist is
to be something, to be something specific, to have identity. A thing (including
one’s own consciousness) has identity independent of anyone’s awareness,
knowledge, wishes, preferences, imagination, desires, etc. A tree’s nature qua
tree does not change even if one wishes it were a fireplace, or imagines that
it does not need to be felled in order to be turned into firewood.
2. Conceptually Irreducible: The concepts of ‘existence’,
‘consciousness’ and ‘identity’ are conceptually irreducible. They are not
defined in terms of prior concepts. What prior concepts could possibly inform
them meaningfully, and to what would those concepts refer? Since concepts are
the mind’s means of identifying things which exists, the facts which the axioms
of existence, consciousness and identity denote are already implicit in the
very act of identifying anything. To identify something genetically presupposes
that at least something exists (e.g., a subject and any objects of which it is
aware), that one is aware of what he is trying to identify (even if his
identification is incorrect), and that the thing which he is trying to identify
has an identity which can be identified, i.e., that it is distinct from
anything else in his awareness. So any act of consciousness implies the
validity of these concepts, and any attempt to define these concepts by means
of more fundamental concepts would require that these prior concepts be formed
by a conscious process of identifying things which exist. But this would be
cognitively redundant.
3. Perceptually Self-evident: The concepts of ‘existence’ and ‘identity’
denote facts which are perceptually self-evident, and the concept
‘consciousness’ denotes the faculty which perceives. The concept ‘existence’ is
the widest of all concepts, in that it includes everything that exists.
Epistemologically, this begins with the objects which we directly perceive, and
in this way the concept ‘existence’ denotes a perceptually self-evident fact.
When you see a tree, for instance, you do not need to construct a proof to
demonstrate that it actually exists; you see it directly, you are aware of it
as an existent through immediate, firsthand means. The concept ‘existence’
includes the tree which you see with your own eyes, as well as all other trees
which exist, have existed, and will exist. It is that wide in its scope of
reference. Even if the believer claims that his god is a “concrete universal,”
as Van Til did in regard to the god he worshipped, he
would still have to concede that the concept ‘existence’ is wider than his
“concrete universal,” for on his view the concept ‘existence’ would have to
include everything distinct from his god as well as his god. Moreover, since
there are no degrees of existence (where one thing exists “more” or “less” than
something else), since something either exists, or it does not, there is no
justification for pitting one kind of existence against another (e.g.,
“immaterial existence” vs. “material existence,” or “absolute existence” vs.
“contingent existence”) at the fundamental level of an axiom. Additionally,
since identity is concurrent with existence (to exist is to be something), when
we perceive an object, we perceive it as distinct from other objects which we
perceive. In this way, the concept ‘identity’ denotes a perceptually
self-evident fact. And although we do not perceive our conscious activity with
our senses, we are aware of it directly through introspection, and since we
need consciousness in order to perceive anything, it comes along for the ride.
4. Undeniably True: The axioms of existence, identity and consciousness
are also undeniably true. Specifically, they have to be true in order for one
to question them. Leonard Peikoff presents an elegant
illustration, in the form of a mock dialogue in which the defender of these
axioms assumes for the sake of argument that they are false, in order to show
how they are in fact inescapably true and fundamental, even in an attempt to
deny their truth:
A. “Your objection to the self-evident has
no validity. There is no such thing as disagreement. People agree about
everything.”
B. “That’s absurd. People disagree constantly, about
all kinds of things.”
A. “How can they? There’s nothing to disagree about,
no subject matter. After all, nothing exists.”
B. “Nonsense. All kinds of things exist. You know that as
well as I do.”
A. “That’s one. You must accept the existence axiom even to utter the term
‘disagreement’. But, to continue, I still claim that disagreement is unreal.
How can people disagree, since they are unconscious beings who are unable to
hold ideas at all?”
B. “Of course people hold ideas. They are conscious beings – you know
that.”
A. “There’s another axiom. But even so, why is disagreement about ideas a
problem? Why should it suggest that one or more of the parties is mistaken?
Perhaps all of the people who disagree about the very same point are equally,
objectively right?”
B. “That’s impossible. If two ideas contradict each
other, they can’t both be right. Contradictions can’t exist in reality. After
all, things are what they are. A is A.” (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 9-10)
So contrary to what detractors of Objectivism’s
foundations intend, their denials of the axioms only confirm their truth, since
they would need to be true in order for them even to contemplate denying them.
Even though this kind of reaction is common among Objectivism’s detractors, my
question is: Why would someone deny truths which are so obviously true, all the
while carrying on as if they were concerned for defending something they call
“the Truth”?
5. Universal: Lastly, note that, unlike RK’s proposed axioms, the axioms
of existence, identity and consciousness are universal. This should be most
evident in the case of the axiom of existence. The concept ‘existence’ is the
widest of all concepts in that it includes everything which exists. We do not
need to know all the objects which it includes, since conceptual awareness does
not require omniscience (in fact, it
presupposes non-omniscience). The universality of concepts is their open-endedness,
which allows the mind to include new units into their scope of reference as
they are discovered. When a child first forms the concept ‘ball’, for instance,
he does not know how many balls are in existence, nor does he know all the
variations in which balls can come. But as he goes through life and discovers
new specimens and types of balls, the concept ‘ball’ allows him
to include them as additional units which the concept subsumes. Similarly with
the concept ‘existence’: its open-endedness allows us to include every entity,
attribute, action, relationship, etc., which we find in our experience.
Moreover, since, as we saw above, identity is concurrent with existence, the
same applies to the axiom of identity. This is precisely why the traditional
formulation of the law of identity is given as: A is A. The symbol “A” can
stand for anything in existence; it does not specify anything other than that
it exists (or, in the case of hypothetical or fictional referents, that it is
conceivable).
While the concept ‘consciousness’ is not as wide a concept as the concept
‘existence’, the axiom of consciousness is universal in the sense that it
applies throughout all of one’s thoughts, desires, judgments, inferences,
emotions, etc. In short, consciousness is universal to our experience. Every
time we see a tree, we are engaged in an activity of consciousness. Every time
we listen to speech or music, we are engaged in an activity of consciousness.
Whenever we think, we are making use of our consciousness. Every time we
introspect, we are adding new units to the concept ‘consciousness’, since what
we are focusing our awareness on are new actions of consciousness. It is in this
way that the axiom of consciousness is universal.
Review
The upshot is that RK’s axioms do not meet the criteria of objective axioms,
and thus fail to meet the task of providing objective grounding for knowledge. Moreoever, RK’s proposed axioms assume the truth of the
Objectivist axioms, thus making use of their truth while simultaneously
affirming that “every possible foundation for every way of thinking not in
accordance with [the Christian god’s] perfect ordinance is utter, absolute
folly.” Since RK’s position actually depends on the truth of the Objectivist
axioms, one can legitimately note that RK’s position “borrows” from
Objectivism, even though RK himself has stated that “any worldview attempting
to argue from other than the Christian foundation is, in fact, borrowing from
that foundation to do so.” Objectivism does not argue from “the Christian
foundation,” or from the assumption of the metaphysical primacy of
consciousness which the Christian worldview assumes. So while it can truly be
stated that Objectivism does not borrow from Christianity to establish
its philosophical foundations, the same cannot be said on behalf of
Christianity. The very notion of a god would not be possible without the truth
of the Objectivist axioms, but Christianity’s foundations deny the truth of the
Objectivist axioms while making use of them. RK charges non-Christian
worldviews of the very sin his own worldview commits.
RK’s “axiomatic… foundations” are actually a mask which he dons so that he can
avoid identifying what his actual foundations are. His actual foundations are emotional
in nature, as the bible itself admits (cf. Proverbs 1:7). RK claims that the
foundation of his reason and knowledge is the Christian worldview. But what is
the foundation of the Christian worldview? It is not “God exists” or “the
Scriptures are the self-revelation of God,” as these are teachings of
that worldview. The question I’m asking is: What is the foundation of the
Christian worldview? To discover this, we need to understand the orientation
between subject and object in the subject-object relationship assumed by the
Christian worldview, for the question of the relationship between a subject and
its objects is unavoidable throughout philosophy, including especially in
epistemology. The fundamental teachings of the Christian worldview tell us what
that orientation between subject and object they assume, so long as one knows
what to look for.
It is here, in Christianity’s foundations, where we will find, endemic
throughout all its teachings, the primacy of consciousness.
For further support on these points, I direct the reader to the following
resources:
The Axioms and the Primacy of Existence
Theism and Its Piggyback Starting Point
A
Reply to Tennant on Theistic Foundationalism vs. The Objectivist Axioms
The Proper Alternative to
Christianity
Given the above points, both those identifying the failings of RK’s “axioms” as
the proper foundations of knowledge as well those validating the Objectivist
axioms as the proper basis for human cognition, I can say that, if I were
called to identify the proper basis of knowledge, I would point to the following
facts as the necessary preconditions of knowledge:
1) The fact that existence exists: This identifies the realm of objects
which inform our knowledge, answering the question: knowledge of what?
2) The fact that consciousness is consciousness of objects: This
identifies the faculty of awareness possessed by the knower, providing the
meta-answer to the question: How do you know? The subject knows,
and what he knows are the objects of his knowledge. Consciousness gives
the knowing subject cognitive access to what he can know.
3) The fact existence is identity: This is the baseline recognition by a
consciousness that an object is itself, that A is A, not something other
than itself.
4) The fact that existence has metaphysical primacy: This is a baseline recognition
that an object of consciousness exists as itself independent of
conscious activity.
5) The fact that knowledge depends on concept-formation: This is the
ability to form concepts on the basis of objects perceived by the subject. The
method of how the mind forms concepts is explained by a theory of concepts.
There you go. These facts are fundamental, and
should be identified explicitly in any discussion of the foundations of
knowledge. Moreover, they must be assumed to be denied or disputed, and they
are presupposed even by erroneous positions (such as RK’s “axioms”). Of course,
we cannot say, when discussing a topic as important as the foundations of knowledge, that these points all go without saying. The
“Yeah, that goes without saying” response to their explicit identification
would only demonstrate an individual’s unpreparedness to discuss epistemology
intelligently and credibly. Such a response only indicates that one is taking
fundamentals for granted, without understanding the importance of identifying
those fundamentals explicitly. It may even indicate that the person offering
such a response is trying to hide something.
Not surprisingly, RK nowhere identifies these points as the preconditions of
knowledge, as the foundations of a rational epistemology. Why? It is true that
they are involved whether he acknowledges them or not. So why does he not
acknowledge them? And is he aware that what he does identify as his axioms in
place of these can only blur his understanding of these facts?
The primacy of consciousness in metaphysics leads to mysticism in epistemology
(e.g., faith in revelations), self-sacrifice in ethics (e.g., Christ’s “work”
on the cross, where Christ is considered to be the exemplary model of moral
perfection), and collectivism in politics (e.g., we are all “servants” – either
to a god or to a devil, we do not belong to ourselves, an invisible magic being
“owns” each of us). If one follows RK’s “axioms” to their logical conclusions
in philosophy, don’t be surprised when you come to these positions.
To Part 3.
________________________
Back to RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge