Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy.

1. Existence a. (1)She used the axiom by her own definition incorrectly. Only Objective empirical things are real. Existence is Existence, it's not physical or Objective it doesn't exist. (2) Leibniz says Leibniz argued that "A is A" tells you nothing of existence. He meant it's means that you gets you nothing new. What can you learn if I tell you "a fox is a fox", "an atom is an atom", "a hurricane is a hurricane"? Nothing. Only empirically justified things can be applied otherwise they're not Objective. What exists in the mind is not Objective IE EXISTENCE. b. Stance 1: "existence" is a thing; Stance 2: Reality is human perception, but never mind. i)"You're trying to make it out like some kind of physical object, which it isn't." You got it. Rand says it isn't too but she says that Objectivism is the philosophy of reason, of what is Objectivly deducted from reality and sensed. Existence is void of that Objective world your great knowledge is based on, YOU DON'T SENSE EXISTANCE YOU DEDUCT IT, OBJECTIVISM DOESN'T TRUST THIS SUBJECTIVE DEDUCTION. It's disproved by Rand's own objective theory of only recognition of objective things. ii)"His entire argument is based on the premise that the human mind/senses distort reality." No it's not. You made deviation in round 2. The only knowledge we have is from our senses and what me make of things we sense. Objectivism recognizes this. (1) (see ii above) I've never said we could perceive reality without senses. I see what you mean now - you Mistake what I meant, I meant existence(concept) only exists in the mind. Not Existence can only be perceived in the mind and you think I mean. The latter is true we both agree. The Former you haven't addressed mistaking it for the later. (2) Let get some things straight. -Concepts aren't concrete. -Existence isn't a concrete object. -"Concepts are a product of our direct sensual experience (and rational processing) of objective reality." (but are Subjective themselves.) Not once is this whole debate have you treated the concept of existence as a concrete. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT CONCRETE IT'S NOT OBJECTIVE IT'S NOT REAL OUTSIDE THE MIND. (3) " Reality is based on logic." Did you read that right? What is real(Objective) is based on logic. Reality shifts itself for the "logic" you deducted? You never said why this odd assertion is true. Objective existence is true and real, dependent on anything we think. Logical rules/laws that we prove by practice are also Objective. These laws also become Objective when proved. However concepts of the mind things that our mind creates like life, liberty and existence are not Objective. Implied attack on Kant? Unrelated statement: Kant does not prove anything with the noumenal world. It's incomprehensible for a reason. I'll debate again on Kantianism in July. "Even though reality is based on logic, not everything that is logically possible is possible in reality." No, no, no. Reality is not based on logic. See the first paragraph. Where are you getting this from? Identity is also a concept. (4) Why should the process of acquiring TERMS AND DEFINITIONS be acknowledged as part of the process of acquiring knowledge? I shouldn't. It's based on the terms. You learn basics to use latter on. Again 2 was acquired by posteriori knowledge. 2+2=4 is based on those terms you acquired I don't see the connection. WHY DOES THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING THESE WORDS MATTER? "He focuses only on the ends, ignoring the means employed to that end - that concepts don't just float around, and that humans can't just pick them up, but must form them." We got them from experience so... I stand by what I said round 2 I haven't made a direct mistake. But regardless, I haven't seen why the way the terms where acquired effect whether something is a priori or posterior truth? 2. A Selfish Trick He's arguing that, because existence is a property, it doesn't exist. For the sake of argument, let's accept that. The question becomes: do properties exist? Let's say, like Pro asserts, that they don't. Existence doesn't exist. Neither does identity; ergo, neither does my opponent. Nor this debate. We exist outside the mind outside reasoning. Identity, Existence or life do not. Thank you, does this mean I win? c. Irrationality is Objective. Happy? Now what? 3. Ding an Sich a)1(4) b. 1(4) 4. Selfishness biological a. "Objectivism and Social Darwinism are Individualist theories." I never equated them. I never said Objectivism = Social Darwinism. My post in Round 2 where you got your question was saying that Rand justified Objectivist rational self interest with Social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. [Rand, Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness] You knew what I said and meant, why would you even pull a move like that? Desperate? b. None. He needs to be moral for him to follow his basic instincts in life to reproduce. However I can value your hedonism[5c] but only for the majority, a utilitarian collective hedonism not social civil war caused by individualism and rational self interest. c. I agree until you reach what you value, that's all I wanted not a obvious rhetoric on Moral value: "His happiness is the ultimate purpose of his rational pursuits[Hedonism see 5b]. d. Your telling me Dagny Taggart and John Galt aren't meant to be Uber humans? 5. Selfishness? a. I never said they were the same. I said they where similar, related. b. We value happiness as the goal to be achieved. In Hedonism it doesn't matter what the means of achieving them are it just where or not your goal is happiness. "a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain)". Hedonism is quite fallacious Eg a hedonist can do anything that makes him happy, why is his happiness to be valued above law and rights. The one I'm using is: "What if the happiness of many clashes?" Wealth and claim. c. For the sake of this debate, I will use the same source as Rand natural right, in this case what makes the whole the collective survive and not the self interested individual, Naturally justified Altruism. For the base it's the last round I will tell you why is selflessness to be valued over selfishness? It helps our accul goal in live to reproduce. We don't have a reason to follow it but it makes others happy and it helps the collective happiness always better than the minority happiness. See this Anthropological study on pre civil altruism - Richard Fisher "Why altruism paid off for our ancestors" http://www.newscientist.com... d. "Workers are as free to quit as the employer is to fire them." True, but for third time the BOSS NEEDS THE WORKER LESS THAN THE WORKER NEEDS THE BOSS. If someone needs you more than you need them manipulation oven subconsciously is all too easy. Psychology sir. He holds the means to sustain liffe. You can say the Labours should all just rebel but I thought Objectivism says you can't rely on others and an individual boycott is stupid. Summary O'ism promotes Selfishness in the better interest of the individual. It justifies it's morality with mistaken natural right and supposed observation. At many times it's pure Objective nature is hypocritical having Rand common the same errors as those she hates so vigorously, Kant. It's own major axioms are mal used, it claims to be accepting of only what is objective and real and not what humans claim or think. Existance is void of this. It was fun, I didn't get my objective of bringing you back but I think I've proven O'ism to be fallacious. Thanks for reading, Vote Pro. Txt. References, Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand, For the New Intellectual, Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Leibniz, Nouv. Ess. IV, Aquinas, Summa Theologica Metaphysics IV, Aristotle, Organon, Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality