Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy.

Objectivism is... My first more intellectual "real" debate. A bit late but I hope to do more soon. Kantism and "methodological antipositivism" are open [Int=Pro]. >>Intro<< It has arised to me Cody that you are a very smart person, you where right about Objectivism you "couldn't honestly challenge the logic he was setting in front of me[Cody]", why? Because it's infallible with it's supposed axioms. You have also fallen into what is the Objectivist way of thinking, rationization and implied intolerance, but that is another matter(Comments?). The thing about Objectivism is that it's very tricky on how it sets itself across, with it's select axioms it's infallible but approximately 3200 years before it's was disproved by basic epidemiology. Rand's primary axiom was disproved. What Immanuel Kant[!], Gotfried Leibniz[!], Plotinus, Augustine of Hippo, Rene Descartes[!], David Hume, Georg Hegel, Auguste Comte[!], Karl Marx[!], Jeremy Bentham, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Nietzsche[!], Aristotle, Adam Smith and the all reasonable philosophers would agree on. The Avatar is for you and Rand xxx. ==Definitions== Objectivism -- The specific objectivist philosophy created by novelist Ayn Rand, endorsing productive achievement and logical reasoning. [http://en.wiktionary.org...] I choose a small definition, so Cody could expand if he wished. Kantianism -- The philosophy of Emmanuel Kant, asserting that the nature of the mind renders it unable to know reality immediately, that the mind interprets data presented to it as phenomena in space and time, and that the reason, in order to find a meaningful basis for experience or in order for ethical conduct to exist, may postulate things unknowable to it, as the existence of a soul. [http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...+(Ayn+Rand)] ==Arguments== >> Existence Part I: "Goodbye Mr A, did you know the answers?" Rand accredits her divine knowledge from Aristotle, these are the Objective truths of reason, according to Gottfried Leibniz, these "truths" tell you absolutely nothing about anything in existence. That's sounds loony but think of it this way, Rand says existence exists, WRONG, things exist but not concepts, existence doesn't exist it's nonexistent and dependent on human cognition. No other philosopher has been this foolish; this assertion is not only meaningless but false. We can make this assertion because existence has no properties attributed to it. A Selfish Trick? This is how they beat you Cody: As Leonard Peikoff[Objectivist] noted, Rand's argument "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable.[Peikoff, Leonard (1991) Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand]. Existence doesn't not exist. The law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects. Funny thing is existence isn't an Object! As rand said "consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." So if Rand's "Theory of primacy of existence" says Objectivism maintains that what exists as simply existance, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or opinion, how does existence exist? To Rand all truths must be posteriori(below). >>Existence Part II: "Ding an Sich" Ding an Such, thing in itself, unknown unknown. What you and Rand hate so much. Her Objectivist epistemology says things really are as we perceive them, WRONG. Sure, it's reasonable to assume that there are things in this world that exist independently of human cognition the noumenal world, the Ding an sich, the "thing in itself". Funny thing is Rand herself used Kant's theory, but there's differences. Kant lists two different two things in his analytic-synthetic dichotomy, priori and posteriori. A Proposition whose justification relies upon experience and another a proposition whose justification does not rely upon experience. The issue with Rand is that her theories all require posteriori experience, hence "Objective". Objectivist epistemology rejects the possibility of a priori knowledge. What she is essentially saying is prove 2+2=4 do you have experience that that true? Without experience it's nothing. Imagine that their was no way to count, would 2+2=/=4. Course not! >>Selfishness Biological? Apart from the above, there's the question of Rand understanding of Humanity. The near social Darwinist beliefs of Objectivism come from her understanding of Darwinism, her hatred of Socialism and intuitional collectivization. She fails to understand what is the goal of life is. Not Survival or selfishness as it's called but reproduction. Her supposed goal is the ability to control ones Longevity, WRONG again. We live to reproduce, Darwin , the Gene-centered view of evolution, E.O Wilson - The Ants and almost all parts sociobiology agree with this. Are goal in life is to reproduce to continue our races not to be "rationally selfish" as Rand says but for the racial cause. Why would we be after only our own neck if we will ultimately die, why does a mother look after her young? Why does a male spider die for it's young to eat? Why does the socialist give his labour for others? >>Selfishness? Or rational self interest is another fallacy within Objectivism. Before Objectivism the theory was called Ethical Egoism. Ethical Egoism as fallacious in the sense that by being so self interested you have no right to be imposing on the self interest of others. What if someone was doing something detrimental to you in their self interest? Your rational divine selfishness will fail; you see this concept depends on ones ability to survive, hence no better than social Darwinism. The more you're above the average by wealth the easier it is for you to overrule another's "rational self interest". If the poor objectivist tries to defend himself he is imposing on another's selfishness hence he's irrational. This argument applies to all laissez faire individual economic systems, Master-Slave, Rich-Poor. Rand admits this Social Darwinist belief, she entitles in Atlas Shrugged as the "sanction of the victim" which is the very thing she's doing. Those who are familiar with philosophy will know that this is much like Nietzsche's slave-master morality [On the Genealogy of Morality]. Make the slaves believe in a morality that inhabits them, a morality created by the masters of the slaves to maintain power. The individual worker needs the job a lot more than the boss. Brother, I reached and had the capacity to adhere to Objectivist principles, for 5 days. I also had to Capacity to Learn and see beyond delusions.