Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Why Axiomatix?

Why “Axiomatix”? Well, one way of understanding how we learn, how we think about the world, and how we imagine new and different worlds is to assume that we hold to certain basic axioms, that is, unproven and unprovable statements that we consider true. Indeed, that we do hold to such axioms might be the first axiom of this blog I’m calling Axiomatix. While axioms may be argued for and justified – while scads of evidence can be accumulated to “prove” them – what makes them axiomatic is that they are “self-evident”, as in one of the scriptures of U.S. American society: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” The word “axiom” comes from the ancient Greek, and means something like “worthy”, “required”, or “proper”, and among the Greek philosophers an “axiom” was understood to be true without any need of proof or argument. Now, the reason I’m interested in exploring my own axioms and giving the readers of this blog some opportunities to explore theirs is that they demonstrate how important simple faith and self-evident understanding can be in establishing the tenor and texture of our everyday lives. Axiomatix does not aim to prove that any particular axioms are “wrong” – indeed, that would assume that they could be “right” – but instead to show how different axioms generate different worldviews and how different worldviews literally create different worlds.

For the most part, we remain ignorant of our axioms. This is one reason that the Socratic Method is a powerful teaching tool: by asking questions and exploring the logical consistency of the answers, Socrates helped bring to light the axioms of his students and fellow philosophers. Unless you belong to a group that places great importance on orthodoxy – that is, one that includes the possibility of heresy – then you probably don’t have a very good idea of what your axioms are. The problem is that those axioms – self-evident truths that are often sexist, racist, heterosexist, speciesist, etc. – have even more power by being invisible to you. In the context of Axiomatix, therefore, I hold this truth to be self-evident: Knowing our axioms is the first step towards changing them, or, indeed, in embracing them more fully. I think, for example, that the Golden Rule – Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You – is a very cool axiom; I also think that, while many in U.S. American society pay lip-service to it, most of us do not in fact attempt to fully articulate it in our everyday lives. This is just one example of the kinds of axioms I’d like to explore here.

In my own work as a theorist and ethicist, I've had the opportunity to bring to light, reject, and transform many of my axioms. With Axiomatix, I'd like to continue that process, and I invite you to join me. What truths do you hold to be self-evident? What worlds and ways of being do those truths imply? And indeed, do you truly hold to them – do you practice them – or do you simply hope to? If you wanna play, try answering these questions, and maybe through conversation we can come up with some interesting new axioms - and some interesting new worlds and worldviews to live in.

4 comments:

  1. No comments, huh? Some "followers" I got. Socrates would have never let his followers get away with this, woulda skooled 'em good. I guess I'm no Socrates, *snif*.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well... There are axioms that attempt to deny axioms, such as these two

    >value and meaning are local, i.e., no axiom is universal

    >every axiom is potentially a trapping, in the same way that any well intended law can be exploited to pervert its intent

    I find these very appealing. The first can be very self-evident, (depending on the observer). It may seem, if you grant the first, that really no other axioms are necessary or appropriate, but it's elusive too, not much follows from it. The second is elusive and dismissive. In fact, the mind has layers of axioms, and likely there is no bottom layer, if they could even be ordered, but we still make decisions frequently based on some principle (expressible in a few words) that, at least at that moment, is self evident AND paramount.

    >the socratic method is flawed

    or said positively: > sometimes an inconsistent point of view is superior to a consistent point of view.

    (By superior I suppose I mean 'is more persuasive.')

    For me, film has the ability to affect me emotionally in a way that allows me to understand points of view inconsistent with those I normally hold. I think this reflects the fact that the hypotheses conjured for a typical "what would you do" scenario, never do justice to the innumerable variables we act on *in* those situations. So a film can have me sympathize with a soldier to the extent I understand the act of killing, and how it was righteous, and can imagine I would do the same. This sort of experience is more persuasive to me than any essay on why or why not people should be killed by other people.

    Another example is when you feel morally appalled by some action, but under careful scrutiny you find no violation of your code of ethics. Typical example I heard in a talk recently: brother and sister decide they want to fuck each other. They use 2 forms of protection, do it once and that's it. Now, I'm not necessarily appalled, but I don't believe one necessarily *should not* be appalled by that which under scrutiny seems consistent with one's ethics. There is a place for intuition. A similar example with virtual worlds such as Second Life: is it wrong to participate in sexual fantasies with adults using avatars resembling children. I think even you allow yourself the "no victims->no crime" justification, turns out if you find out your best friend regularly does this on Second Life and regularly has sex with his sister (2 forms of protection, remember!) this affects your friendship, probably severely.

    I don't think the type of prejudice you act on by withdrawing from this friend, (or whatever the reaction), can be completely discredited. I don't think it should be. I think on the contrary people should be a little more open to xenophobia, and prejudice, and allow intuition to be a guide. I suppose that's because I tend toward the axiom

    >hypocrisy is inexcusable.

    (Now, if inconsistency is the same as hypocrisy, then I am both inconsistent and a hypocrite, but I see them as different. Hypocrisy can involve deceit to others but more severely involves lying to oneself, inconsistency involves change based on changing variables.)

    I feel that axioms push the politically left both to great progress, say for example axioms which effected the civil rights movement, and to great hypocrisy by their perversion, say the predominant inability to distinguish between mild forms of racism (that are arguably present in us all) and racially motivated violence. I think people on the right, being loyal first to convention, tend to follow intuition more and rationalization less, and therefore are more prone to a different type of hypocrisy, namely hiding avarice.

    >deceit is usually to be avoided

    >cruelty is almost always to be avoided

    >one needs to make oneself happy to improve the world

    >goodness cannot exist in the absence of power

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Awesome, Andrew - thanks so much. I'm going to avoid the temptation to respond to your comment in detail here, and focus instead on running with your first few axioms in the next post of the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. god is good, god is great, picking up my fork, I stab my beefsteak

    ReplyDelete