Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy.

1. Existence a. I meant it was a Tautology. The Law of Identity teaches nothing that you don't already know, was goes in is at best synonymous with what comes out. b. I assume you accept my message that Existence cannot exist in "reality" because you're now disproving by theory of "reality". Why the sudden change in stance? ^^ (1) "Our grasp on existence - on identity - is a human conception." Yes, but it's made in the human mind and not in the real world. My reasoning for this is in (2) and (3). (2) I am not "mistaking concepts as some kind of intermediary between reality and mankind". I'm saying concepts don't exist – concept - an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct. Existence is a characteristic it itself doesn't exist it an property determanded by real things a construct from what accually exists. Rand herself admits in her writings, only concretes exist[Objective truths]. By existence I don't mean things that have the property of existence I mean existence as a solid like you, me, birds, hydrogen, black holes ect. A noun contary an abstract noun. (3)The Law of Identity is a Law but also a Tautology, so pretty much useless. What's logically possible isn't always empirically possible. Logic is based on reality, all existence cannot be empirically sensed, it exists only in "logic" or what we think is logical. Existence is a topic, what man created in his own cognitive processes. From what we know we can deduct, see patterns and correlations from what we see, then we create these concepts in the form of mind maps. What I'm saying is proven because either you must prove existence exists in this Objective realty void of human perception(impossible) or give me Empirical data that show existence sensed(also impossible). Do you really think no one thought this up before and went against it, even before Rand? (4) Con's argument is basically though there are Objective truths independent of human cognition you need to know the concept in which these truths are based on. This is interesting, why must the process of knowledge acquirement be acknowledged? I don't think any objectivism has thought of this argument though. Kant's Dichotomy applies to all thinks we think we know. Let's think of how the concepts of 2 and 4 were acquired, they where acquired from experience so posteriori. Does this make the 2+2=4 assertion any less true or any less not dependent on experience? No. I'm not saying posteriori existence doesn't exist I'm just saying it one of a distinction. Also you just said - "2" and "4" are concepts just like "existence". "2" isn't a real thing in reality nor is "experience" a real thing. 2. A Selfish Trick Existence is a concept that only exists in the mind because of things that share this "existence quality". It isn't an Identity as you describe identity. Existence is the property not the one with properties. A property being a characteristic, trait or peculiarity, especially one serving to define or describe its possessor. The possessing object must exist in reality and in human cognition to be real or "Objective" as Rand would say. On Rand and Aristotle - Rand accredits her Existence exists concept from Aristotle she has a thing for misunderstanding what other people actually say. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(Aristotle) "Pro already agreed that the law of identity does provide information about existence (see above)." See 1a. c. "It doesn't tell you that people will follow the rules. I'm sure that there are irrational people who would be more than happy to relieve innocents of their rights." This part was True but I does nothing for you arguments. Irrational is subjective. 3. Ding an Sich a. I don't think I described a priori truth incorrectly. When I used the examples I didn't mean the lack of prior knowledge means they're incorrect, I meant that they are independent of evidence achieved by experience. EG. "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. I am not reasoning that it is false or relative but that it doesn't require experience. For the Large part Con is correct, knowledge required definition and the process of learning that is an experience. However priori truths are existent our disagreement is that Con values concept-formation. The Analytic Synthetic distinction doesn't require the process knowledge acquisition because it is concerned with the meanings of every distinction. Also see part 1c. The "insight" is not a personal attack on Rand, I was just merely describing how Rand reasons, she failed to address it and relied on ad hominem arguments. She left people like you, Peikoff and Smith to try and fix her fallacious arguments. 4. Selfishness biological? a. Objectivism and Social Darwinism are Individualist theories. b. "pursuing one's own rational interests and values, as a means of maximizing his life and his enjoyment of it, is a man's highest ethical purpose." Why is longevity man's highest ethical purpose? It was Darwin's natural right that supposedly gave evidence for this but I proved that wrong, so what is it now? c. Everything that's Objective but can't be justifyed by empirical evidence must have a reason as to why it's Objective. Eg. Divine right, hedonistic right and in this case Natural right. All rights that don't include some omniscience process[eg common monotheist God] are fallacious. The issue with right is that one must be omniscience[hence divine] to give a Objectivism or any truths right. "all atheist should be moral nihilists" "God is dead" ect. Why is Longevity man's highest ethical purpose and Why is freedom mans ethical purpose? d. It's a guide on how to be an Objectivist Ubermensch. 5. Selfishness? a. Objectivism is so because they are both based on Individualism, the pursuit of one's own interests, a radical form of this is Social Darwinism and the Objectivism rational self interest is synonymous with Ethical Egoism. b. Like in Natural Selfishness, why am I to believe this? c. Life is not the highest value nor is hedonism a high purpose. Rationality is the only way to interact with reality but Objectivism relies on what it thinks is Rational . d. A True rhetoric too, your link says the same thing as you: It's not slavery because no force is exerted. Your shaping the environment in which the workers work in so he has to work for the wage or go stived. It's a Mutual relationship where one needs the other and vice versa however this is a mutual relationship where the boss can fire and manipulate people simply because they need him more than he need them. The Boss hold the means to sustain life. [EG, Sweat Shop Capitalism] Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org... or http://www.wisegeek.com...