Their is nothing obscure about what is provided, as obscurity is a subjective interpretation and as an "objectivist" you cannot "objectively" makes such claims. Their are no uncertaintaties about axiomatic function. Their are uncertainties about the self affecting axiomatic function. The uncertainty is not with the nature of evidence, but rather the relativity of the "self" to evidence.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Historically the ratio of randomness came to be removed from objectivity—the farther removed, the more completely objectivity was subjected to its axioms, and finally to the one axiom of identity.Eodnhoj7 wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:
They are not bloody random then are they?
All axioms manifest randomness through self-evidence as the self is undefined.
Their is no objective argument for objectivism as objectivists acquire knowledge (whether history, philosophy, etc.) from non-objectivists. Their are several interpretations of objectivism that include but are not limited to: Rand, Plato, Gottlob Frege, Kant, Leonard Peikoff, etc. All of them reflective of one another in one degree or another, and with that reflectivity an increase in definition akin to randomness as these objectivist perspectives require a nature of subjectivity that causes the axioms to differ from one another.
However, you are giving me a pseudo history on the nature of objectivity...not an argument. The point about "the self" within axioms it not argued against. Rather your above argument is equivalent too: "The philosophical community (ie a group of people) has changed the definition of objectivity over time to avoid randomness." What you have failed to observe is that "the definition has been changed over time" which means their is some element of randomness as a flux.
I am arguing the that nature of the "self" is what magnifies randomness within axioms...and then you emphasizing that objectivity has excluded randomness over a period of time proves I am wrong. But the argument I am providing is about "the self" being the cause of randomness within all axioms. Objectivism (although I do not strictly believe in the system, nor am arguing for it) is congruent with this premise.
The pedantries of all systems, down to the architectonic complexities of Kant—and even of Hegel, despite the latter’s program.
This is not even a sentence...it is somewhat of a pedantry. Throwing around names of people who have had brilliant thoughts is more akin to an argument for subjectivity, not objectivity.
Consequently the open thought has no protection against the risk of decline into randomness; nothing assures it of a saturation with the matter that will suffice to surmount that risk. But the consistency of its performance, the density of its texture, helps the thought to hit the mark.
"The consistency of it performance, the density of its texture, helps the thought to hit the mark" is an example of a necessary subjectivity in aquiring definition as all of these points (and you are welcome to give an example to prove me wrong) require an axiomatic self evidence in nature. Its sounds more like a writing on the sensory experience of eating at some restaurant.
I will agree that the manifestation of ratios in order to acquire definition does help to avoid randomness. But the argument I provided was about "the self" within self-evidence having no strict definition therefore is akin to randomness, not the fact that ratios are necessary in definition as I have post elsewhere agreeing to this point. This randomness magnifies along with the axiom being magnified because the axiom has at minimum a dualistic nature of stability in dimension and a flux congruent with randomness.
There has been an about-face in the function of the concept of certainty in philosophy.
No example provided, and you are arguing truth is subject to people's opinions (ie: "There has been an about face") What you are arguing for, without realizing it is the inherent nature of flux within philosophy.
Thus the assertive pedantry of the obscurantist is marked by the uncertainties of axiomatic function which thrusts trust in the sense experience in which axioms are wrought. In simple terms you are wrong.
You are arguing objectivism is right because generally speaking "the self" is what can dilute truth or take away its definition as truth. This deficiency in structure is what randomness is equal in definition too. The argument provided is based upon the unavoidable element of the self in all axioms, and that this element due to its undefinability is akin to randomness; therefore the axioms magnify it. Objectivism reflects this point in one degree or another. So in effect you are agreeing with me while trying to say I am wrong. Axiom as having a random element due to "the self" helps objectivism by avoiding a "sensory only experience" (although the senses have their place in truth).
I am sorry, but your argument is pedantry...you are just pissed because you feel inferior...and I could care less because people like you are a dime a dozen...and it gets boring after awhile. Please don't tell me this is your best.