Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy.

Thank you, 1. Existence 1a. A is A, a jew is a jew, a fascist is a fascist. Jews and Fascists are things with properties that can be defined. The Law of existence is true however it only applies to objects and REAL things. As you will see below[1b] existence isn't existence. 1b. (1)Existence is a human conception like life, humour and rationality. One cannot sense existence, existence has no properties. Existence is dependant of what we see of it. (2) Concepts are indeed integrations of multiple precepts bound by a specific definition. Your very list of what makes something objective to you limits the existence of concepts "Concepts, to put it simply, are man's means of objectively identifying, defining, and judging reality for what it is." As I said, existence only exists as human(man's) cognition. (3) It's not a contradiction because it doesn't exist in reality, that's the whole point. Contradictions can occur in one's mind not, as you rightly said, in reality. (4) "Also, I would love some proof that the existence of objective reality (which is independent of man's mind) is contingent on human perception of it." The noumenal. A Human's perception is limited to posteriori experience, posteriori isn't full Objective knowledge. Again, 2 x 2 would still be 4 regardless if you have "Objectively" experienced it. Kant's theory has been proved by the previous sentence and the philosophy of mathematics. 2. A Selfish Trick a. Sure, an axiom, by definition, is a self-evident proposition. A is A, is true for things that are real. b. I am going to give this my all because if I don't get it you'll go back to Objectivism. A is A, Existence doesn't Exist. Existence is what Aristotle called a non topus or topic. Topics are "living" things, things that exist; nonexistent things don't exist. The example he gave was life, there are things we attribute life to, ourselves for example, however life itself isn't living. Same goes for existence, "things" exist, we can use adjectives to describe them, but life itself doesn't live or exist. We cannot do the same with existence because existence has no properties. With that truth we can say that existence most definitely does not exist. Every other philosopher understood this, even her "three As" excluding herself [Ayn is a forname so it's Rand, AAR?] Aristotle, Aquinas saw this, Kant too. With this proven Objectivism falls to bits, but I'm going to dig in abit more. Again but Clearer, A is A is also a tautology as Leibniz discovered, Rose is a rose as a rose is a rose(Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose), It means nothing. A apple is a apple. c. True, True, but how does this apply to what I said? 3. "Ding an Sich" "All knowledge is a posteriori (by Kant's definition) because all knowledge is necessarily derived from and verified through [integrated] experience." I would like to highlight the word "VERIFIED". Verification does not mean the assertion wasn't true before verification. Priori is from prior, as in a truth PRIOR to Verification. Priori doesn't require human cognition and experience for it to be true, nor does it need human approval, they exist. I can't make this any simpler, I can best express this with examples. Four of them. i) "All bachelors are unmarried." You do not need experience via a survey or ability to meet a bachelor in order to determine whether all bachelors are unmarried. Semantics verifies this truth. ii)"7 + 5 = 12." The properties of 7 and 5 are unique to them, together 7 and 5 have a property with to the laws of mathematics can only result in 12. We don't need to observe 7 apples with 5 apples are 12 apples. iii) "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" This is a Physical Law. In the properties of two points, the shortest distance between them would be a straight line, you do not need to measure this to prove it(verification) it is what it is, true within it self, Ding an Sich . ---------------- Insight on Rands epistemology After Rand makes this fallacious conclusion she then goes on to insult Kant without reasoning, "evil", "monster" a "an enemy of man's mind" are just afew of his names. [http://www.ditext.com...] [http://www.iep.utm.edu...] The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 4. Selfishness biological? Objectivism reasons it's "Rational self interest" with Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution, spacifically with the law -survival of the fittest. If "Ethics is a guide to action a guide to living" as you put it, then why Selfish interest? Why must we be concerned with only one's own interests and what Objective truth justifies this? Objectivism has no Objective right to be true. The Only one that Rand had was Darwin, natural right[natural right is illogical anyway], but you dismissed it. Other objectivists have noticed this fallacy. A more intelligent Objectivist, Tara Smith [Viable values], states you have to consciously choose life as your primary value by choice. This is simply begging the question: 1. You must value life and Selfishness 2. Why? 1. Because you have to consciously choose life as your primary value. 2. Oh... Objectivist morals are not Objective because they're just another unjustified attack on moral relativism. If you can answer what make Objectivism Objective enlighten me. On the Socialist... Objectivist name calling, inability to see the other side, as well as it's false rationalizations are what makes it not only a pseudo philosophy but a sophism with a disregard to debate courtesy. However this is going fairly offtopic I will continue our PM conversations after to elaborate. 5. Selfishness? a."Objectivism never claimed to be "ethical egoism", true but it is. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] b. Retaliatory force A person's self-interest depends on others, for example wealth. To be wealthy you must have money relative by being above the average of other people. Assuming that the Objectivist principle of pursuing what makes man feel good is true, it would be necessary for him to infringe on the ability of another achieving wealth. Within the confines of law an efficient way of maintaining wealth is the slave master relationship of the bourgeoisie and the worker. I'm not saying put a gun to their heads, I just don't won't a indirect plutocracy or corporatist federation as government. c. Which returns us to the questions: Why is Objectivism the best way to live? Why is Objectivism Objective? It isn't. d. Not Slavery, the reverse Slave-Master Morality, the Boss needs the worker less than the worker needs the boss. One can use value to manipulate relationships its indirect slavery. This is what minimum wage is for to stop the "slavery" from getting too bad. e. The Sanction of the Victim I am John Galt, used to be a very motivational speech for me when I first heard it, it's on my PC still today. Johan Galt's "sanction of the victim" can only apply assuming when it is undeserved guilt and that's subjective to this Objectivist morality. It depends whether or not guilt you had earn't or whether there's any guilt at all. - I hope you see what's wrong with Objectivism now.