Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy.

1. Existence a. (1) Existence isn't a physical object; however, existence exists. I think I've more than clarified the fact that, if identity didn't exist as a FACT of nature, neither Pro nor I would be here. Objectivity is the description of the relation between consciousness and reality - that reality exists, and that the consciousness picks it up, identifies it, and integrates that experience. It's that simple. (2) A is A tells you that every entity has a specific nature, specific characteristics, and so forth. The truth of that axiom is the foundation of all human knowledge. A grasp on identity is a prerequisite to learning anything. To say that this axiom has begotten no further recognition of reality - no greater knowledge - is just... ignorant of the way the human mind works. b. I NEVER said that "Reality is human perception"; I said that our grasp of reality is based on human perception, but that reality exists regardless of our perception of it. i) False dichotomy. It's not a choice between sense and deduction. One doesn't function without the other. Sensory data without integration is as useless as a rational faculty without data to process. You don't sense OR deduct. You focus your senses (to perceive), and then you focus your mind (to integrate through reason). What you've ignored over the course of these 4 rounds - what I've repeatedly pointed out - is that these two faculties are two parts of the same whole. ii) We don't get knowledge from our senses. The data we get from our senses is integrated and comprehended by our faculty of reason, and the concepts we form from that data, collectively, comprise our total knowledge. Objectivism never says anything to the contrary. (1) Of course the concept of existence is limited to the mind. All concepts are. Now I understand what you're doing. You're equivocating the concept of "existence" with actual empirical "existence". That's a fallacy. (2) Concepts themselves aren't concrete. They're our integrated identifications of concretes. The concept of "existence" is our identification of the actual existence of identity. Those concepts are subjective in their formation (since the mind does that), but they're an identification and integration of objective reality; so, the subjective process (in the sense of individual action) of concept-formation is only possible through the existence of objective reality. That is to say: the "concept" of existence isn't present outside the mind. Actual EXISTENCE (which you've equivocated with the concept) exists objectively. The concept of existence is nothing more than our identification of the objective fact that existence exists. (3) Reality doesn't "shift" for "my logic". That just presupposes (again) that reality exists prior to logic. It doesn't. Reality doesn't adapt itself to the fact that A is A - the fact that A is A is what makes objective reality possible. In essence, you're defending against my argument that you're reversing causality by employing the presumption that causality is indeed reversed. That's circular logic. "However concepts of the mind things that our mind creates like life, liberty and existence are not Objective." <- Wrong. Life exists, or you wouldn't. Also, liberty exists. It's freedom from physical compulsion. Also, existence exists. Or you wouldn't. "Reality is not based on logic" <- Really? So, the objective logical axiom that A is A has nothing to do with reality? Here's the thing. Pro's assumption is that logic is a human creation, and that such rules wouldn't apply without our existence; however, our IDENTIFICATION of logical rules isn't the same thing as bringing those rules into existence. We identified that A is A - we didn't make it true. If Pro wants to argue that reality isn't based on logical truths (like the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction), he can try; honestly, he's just reversing causality. (4) Terms and definitions are general concepts tied down by specific, essential characteristics. You can't have any knowledge without the conceptual knowledge implied by definitions - knowledge that wouldn't exist except for experience. Kant takes this knowledge for granted, failing to realize that such concepts don't fly around, waiting for a mind to absorb them. I AGAIN refer you to the analogy of the race. You don't start halfway, run the rest, and legitimately claim to have won. That's what Kant is doing. He proclaims the dichotomy between a priori and a posteriori while blatantly ignoring the ENTIRETY of the process of knowledge-acquisition. 2. A Selfish Trick You're really going to sit there and tell me that we exist, and THEN tell me that identity, existence, and life don't? If the contradiction isn't glaringly obvious, I'll quit DDO. c. Now that you admit that irrationality is objective, your arguments in R3 fail, since that was your only objection. 3. Ding an Sich a./b. He asks you to refer to previous arguments. I urge you to do the same, since I've already dealt with them. 4. Selfishness Biological a. Rand never bases her conclusions off of Social Darwinism, nor makes any reference to "Survival of the fittest". Darwinist societies usually take positive action to rid themselves of "social pathogens". Example: Nazi Germany. Survival of the fittest was taken to mean that the less- or non-fit must be deliberately wiped out for the "fittest" to survive and thrive; in an Objectivist society, the ablest are able to reap the rewards of their efforts; however, just because reality doesn't guarantee success doesn't mean that the less able have no recourse to charity or to genuine human benevolence. Kant would call it a categorical imperative to help those in need. Rand would say that it's neither a moral obligation (from some incomprehensible plane of "existence"), nor is it a primary virtue. In an Objectivist society, it's simply a right. b. For the (3rd?) time, Objectivism is NOT hedonism. It doesn't say "do whatever gives you pleasure". Furthermore, Objectivism isn't a "civil war". The interests of rational men don't clash, because a rational man doesn't seek what he's not earned, nor does he seek to sacrifice the rights of others (nor does he seek to destroy himself). c. Objectivism is NOT Hedonism. Happiness is the purpose of ethics, not the standard. One's own life is the standard by which you judge your actions, and your actions (when known to be rational) are in pursuit of your happiness. Hedonism makes pleasure the standard of ethics, whereas Objectivism makes man's life the standard. There's a clear difference. d. I am telling you that. Rand specifically objected to the labeling of her characters as "superhuman". She didn't believe in the mystical or supernatural to ANY degree. What she saw in Dagny and Galt was the potential which all men possessed, rather than some unachievable superhuman ideal. 5. Selfishness? a. They share some similarities, and they share some differences. The fact remains that, despite your arguments, Objectivism is NOT EE. b. I would certainly agree that Hedonism is fallacious; however, since Objectivism and Hedonism aren't synonymous, this is irrelevant. Furthermore, the interests of rational men don't clash. They neither seek nor desire the unearned, and ban initiatory force from their relationships. c. First of all, collectives don't have goals. Only individuals have goals. Second of all, you can't accuse me of following an ideology of "civil war" when your ethical code necessarily makes things into a war of minority vs. majority. Third of all, a person isn't morally obligated to reproduce, nor does some "instinct" constitute an ethical value judgment. d. No initiation of force and no fraud (that means no manipulation for personal gain). Beyond that, all is legal in a rational society. Also, it says you can't rely on others primarily. Freedom of association still exists.