The Instigator
Zetsubou
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,670 times Debate No: 12087
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (114)
Votes (11)

 

Zetsubou

Pro

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.
Cody_Franklin

Con

1. Existence Part I

a. "according to Leibniz, these "truths" tell you absolutely nothing about anything in existence." My question is, why not? Leibniz's saying it doesn't automatically make it true. The fact it, the law of identity and subsequent axioms tell you a great deal about existence. A is A. A thing is itself, has a specific nature and attributes (as distinguished from other entities with their own properties and natures), and cannot simultaneously have and not have a particular attribute at the same time and in the same respect. For example: A carrot is a carrot. My opponent is my opponent, and he cannot be not-my-opponent (in the same respect, and at the same time). Only given the law of identity can any other knowledge be possible. In fact, my opponent has to assume identity as the foundation of existence to refute the proposition that it is the foundation of existence. After all, the law of identity is the law of identity.

b. He says that the proposition that "existence exists" is incorrect based on the fact that (1) "existence" is not a thing, and that (2) "concepts" do not exist, even asserting that (3) existence is nonexistent, and dependent on human cognition. (1) Existence obviously isn't an object. The axiom that "existence exists" is contingent on the premise that existence = identity. My opponent fails to recognize that. So, the fact that identity exists – that A is A – disproves my opponent's assertion. (2) Concepts are integrations of multiple percepts bound by a specific definition. A concept doesn't exist as a tangible thing, certainly, given that they are a "reference point" if you will, so that man can interact with reality. Rather than simply perceiving two apples, he can identify, through the use of reference, the concepts both of "two" and of "apple". Concepts, to put it simply, are man's means of objectively identifying, defining, and judging reality for what it is. (3) To assert that existence doesn't exist is to say that identity doesn't exist – that A is not-A. Funny thing is, contradictions don't exist in reality. Carrots aren't non-carrots. My cell phone isn't a non-cell phone. My opponent isn't not-my-opponent. A is A. Existence exists. 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.

2. A Selfish Trick

a. I don't understand what he's trying to get at by quoting Peikoff. An axiom, by definition, is a self-evident proposition. A is A, for example. It's foolish to think that Rand would need to prove something that is self-evident.

b. Once again, my opponent seems to have misconstrued the notion of "Existence". Ayn Rand never argues that existence is a physical object; rather, existence is identity. A is A. I don't know how else to explain it, to be frank.

c. The question at the heart of the argument is, if reality exists independent of man's mind, how does it exist? Here's the thing: reality exists independent of human hopes, fears, desires, wishes, and whims. If I want $1 million to start existing in front of me, it changes nothing. Humans can perceive and (through use of reason) identify reality, but their perception doesn't change the state or nature of existence. A is A, regardless of how differently Donald Trump sees it. In layman's terms: man's mind doesn't shape reality – it identifies it.

3. "Ding an Sich" (this argument is mostly about the ana-syn dichotomy)

a. Kant's flaw in establishing this dichotomy is that he discounts the origin of referential concepts as irrelevant to acquiring knowledge; it's akin to starting a race at the halfway point while consciously ignoring that the actual starting point was a long distance back. At face value, it makes sense to say that one class of knowledge is based on experience, and one isn't; however, definitions and concepts aren't the same. A definition represents the essential characteristics of a concept which differentiate it from other concepts. Definitionally, a bachelor is unmarried; however, we don't know if the bachelor is happy. It's nonessential to the concept of a bachelor. A concept is, partially, the known, in terms of the essential characteristics, but also consists of all possible nonessentials – both known and unknown. For example, the concept of a fire truck isn't definitionally restricted to red, or yellow, or blue. Conceptually, we haven't a clue which it is. In this sense, Kant fundamentally misconstrues both the nature and the use of concepts. Concepts, being nothing more than integrated percepts, are a function of "experience". Sensory experience and rational abstraction are two parts of the same function of concept-formation and knowledge-acquisition. Neither gains knowledge on its own. Concepts cannot be formed without sensory input (consider the hollow "concept" of a "flipperdoo"), and perception alone is useless if not integrated into one's conceptual knowledge (consider an animal who perceives two trees, and the human who knows, conceptually, that he is perceiving two trees, understanding both the concept of numbers and of trees.). Simply put: all knowledge is a posteriori (by Kant's definition) because all knowledge is necessarily derived from and verified through [integrated] experience.

4. Selfishness biological?

a. His essential argument is that the goal of life is to reproduce, and that all "experts" agree. First of all, why must that necessarily be the objective goal of humanity? Because a biologist tells me that my life is good for nothing but producing another life who is good for nothing but reproduction? Ethics is a guide to action – a guide to living. Rational selfishness – concern with one's own interests – is the best way to maximize life and the enjoyment thereof. Reproduction can be a goal or pursuit, but it isn't some kind of inexorable ethical commandment (which in itself is a contradictory concept).

b. Also, to answer your question about the socialist – it's because he's an idiot who has no desire but to destroy himself, presuming that he is truly altruistic.

5. Selfishness?

a. Objectivism never claimed to be "ethical egoism". People attribute it to EE, but Rand never claims it to be EE in the sense that you're describing it.

b. In a society under the jurisdiction of a government controlling retaliatory force, it isn't in one's self-interest to violate another person's rights. Pursuing his own rational interests requires him to respect the pursuits of his neighbors. That's why the government is delegated a monopoly over retaliatory force: so that people couldn't jew each other out of their life, liberty, and/or property. Plus, it's completely impractical to deal with men by pointing a gun at them. It may work for the urges of the moment, but it can never end in the successful achievement of one's rational values. Look, historically, at individuals and states who have dealt with others solely by force, rather than by the principle of trading value for value. See the logical conclusion of that morality. Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and the like.

c. Objectivist Ethics tells you the best way to live. 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. Objectivist Ethics is a code, not a commandment.

d. Laissez faire capitalism bans the use of force from all human relations. There's no slavery.

6. The Sanction of the Victim

a. The concept of "the sanction of the victim" refers to the victim's willingness to take punishment/unearned guilt for no other reason than his virtue, and his accusers' lack of it. Objectivism specifically says not to accept anything that isn't earned, especially when it comes to unearned guilt. There's also, again, no slavery.
Debate Round No. 1
Zetsubou

Pro

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.
Cody_Franklin

Con

1. Existence

a. My opponent concedes that the law of identity does, in fact, give you information about existence. His initial argument is that, "according to Gottfried Leibniz, these "truths" tell you absolutely nothing about anything in existence." My opponent is contradicting his initial stance.

b.

(1) Our grasp on existence - on identity - is a human conception. The FACT that existence exists - that identity is a fundamental component of reality - is NOT. Man's ability to perceive and conceptualize reality (through the focus of his senses and of his mind, respectively) allow us to grasp reality - NOT shape it.

(2) My opponent is mistaking concepts as some kind of intermediary between reality and mankind; he's presuming that there's a "real" reality beyond our perception, our senses and faculty of reason, and then some kind of intermediary between the two - an amorphous distortion of the "real" created and delivered by our perceptual faculty. Reality exists as it exists. Man's senses and faculty are how he interacts with it. He's telling me, to paraphrase Rand, that I'm blind because I see, deaf because I hear, and deluded because I use my mind.

(3) Pro's entire argument is based on the presupposition that I believe existence to be a tangible object - some amorphous entity which humans identify as "existence"; as I've explained, existence is identity. Identity, as a fundamental "law" of reality, necessarily exists (otherwise, we wouldn't). Also, he argues that contradictions can occur in the mind; this isn't true. He assumes that what's logically possible isn't always empirically possible, and vice versa. This is another presumption that reality isn't based on logic (that A is A, A can't be non-A, etc.); the fact is, humans must necessarily possess (and operate) a logical faculty to comprehend a logical universe. To paraphrase Francisco d'Anconia in /Atlas Shrugged/: whenever you arrive at a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is bound to be incorrect. Whether in one's mind or in reality, A can never be non-A, since neither can operate in the absence of logic. In short, identity is independent of the human mind - not a product of it.

(4) According to Objectivism, one can only know something if one has, indeed, experienced it. While the statement that 2+2=4 is an objective truth, independent of man's mind, man does not know such things by default, given that concepts are products of experiences integrated by reason. The concepts of 2, 4, and addition don't just float around for any man to catch - they must be discovered by the mind, since they reflect an objective truth independent of that mind. We revisit the false dichotomy established by Kant (which Pro fails to address) between the rational and sensual faculties. Neither is an independent acquirer of knowledge. They work together. The focus of the senses - perception - results in specific sensory experiences, which are integrated, stored, and comprehended by the faculty of reason. To say that one can know something a priori is to say that concepts exist independent of any experience, and that reason alone is capable of deriving objective, conceptual knowledge in a void. Recall my analogy of starting halfway through a race, disregarding the distance up to that point. Kant is disregarding part of the knowledge-acquisition process, thereby establishing the aforementioned dichotomy.

2. A Selfish Trick

The first actual argument is his assertion that A is A, but that Existence doesn't Exist; recall, however, that existence is identity - being something with specific, limited, defined properties. Identity, as a fundamental fact of reality, exists. If that fact was absent - if it did not exist - then neither would reality, nor my opponent nor I. Your alternative is existence or nonexistence - merely because existence is irreducible does not make it nonexistent. By the way, as a quick note: Although Objectivism credits Aristotle as a man of great intellect and logic, not all Aristotelian propositions and conclusions coincide with Objectivist ones.

Pro already agreed that the law of identity does provide information about existence (see above).

c. He admits that my argument is true, and fails to attack it rather than asserting irrelevance. He asked how reality can exist independent of the mind, and I told him.

3. Ding an Sich

a. My opponent is fallaciously equating a priori knowledge with objective truth. A priori truth, according to Kant, is a truth that you can verify without having to experience it; *A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE RELIES ON A FORM OF VERIFICATION.* All known truths are reliant upon experience. Kant ignores the origin and formation of concepts as relevant to knowledge-acquisition, even though the acquisition of knowledge IS concept-formation. Objective truth is independent of man's mind, and requires no human verification. It simply IS. Both a priori and a posteriori knowledge, on the other hand, require some type of human verification for the truth to be recognized and understood by the human verifying it.

His examples prove my point that he is misusing the concepts of a priori knowledge and objective truth. That all bachelors are unmarried, that 7+5=12, and that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line are all objective truths. I agree to that. However, those aren't a priori knowledge, since one has to understand the concepts of numbers, addition, mathematical equations, the definition of a bachelor (recall that definitions aren't the same as concepts), and the definition of unmarried, ALL of which are based solely on experiential knowledge; I repeat: concepts don't just float around for any random person to absorb. All concepts, and their definitional limits, must be discovered by the human mind's integration of perceptual, experiential data.

The "insight" is just a personal attack on Rand.

4. Selfishness biological?

a. First of all, I would like to ask on what grounds Pro equates Objectivism to Social Darwinism.

b. Given that selfishness is concerned with one's own interests, and one's own life is the highest value (since other people have no ethical or metaphysical claim to a person's life, freedom, or the product of his mind), 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. If a man wants to live, Objectivism shows him how to make the most of it.

c. What do you mean by "Objectivism has no Objective right to be true"? Being consistent with the facts of reality isn't a right. You either are or aren't consistent with those facts.

d. Objectivism never states that you "must" do anything. It doesn't make commandments. It states that, since man needs ethics for his survival, his life must be his ultimate standard. From there, Objectivism shows you how to make the best of your life.

5. Selfishness?

a. So, Objectivism = EE because they're both on the same list of individualist philosophies according to Wikipedia?

b. "Assuming that the Objectivist principle of pursuing what makes man feel good is true..."

Objectivism isn't Hedonism [http://aynrandlexicon.com...]. You don't violate rights if you want yours respected. Period.

c. O'ism holds life as the highest value, and happiness as the highest purpose. It tells you to pursue only rational goals, and that rationality is the only way to interact with reality. Not sure what else to say. Also, the name "Objectivism" is based on the idea of objective reality.

d. Both the worker and the boss agree to a voluntary arrangement which is mutually-beneficial. They trade value for value. There's no "slavery", despite my opponent's rhetoric about some kind of vague "indirect" slavery. See: [http://aynrandlexicon.com...]

e. Yes. According to O'ist Ethics, you shouldn't accept the unearned. Ever.
Debate Round No. 2
Zetsubou

Pro

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...
Cody_Franklin

Con

1. Existence

a. The law of identity isn't meant to "teach" anything. It's an axiom. It codifies a self-evident truth. Leibniz argued that "A is A" tells you nothing of existence. He was wrong. I established this in Round 2, and Pro conceded it.

b. There is no "change in stance". My stance is still that existence exists. I extended in Round 2 that you're misconstruing what existence actually is. You're trying to make it out like some kind of physical object, which it isn't.

(1) Pro completely rips my statement out of context. I stated that our GRASP on reality is a product of the human mind. Obviously, our perceiving reality is contingent on a working mind; however, reality's actual EXISTENCE is objective. We perceive and conceptualize that objective reality. I repeat: Our minds GRASP reality, not SHAPE it. His entire argument is based on the premise that the human mind/senses distort reality, and that we cannot grasp das Ding an Sich; however, keeping in mind that Kant used this concept to justify the existence of God [http://socyberty.com...] (something "above comprehension), the whole argument is nothing but an anti-reason ruse. An intellectual cop-out.

(2) He absolutely admits the fallacy I've accused him off. He's trying to reify the terms "concept" and "existence" [http://en.wikipedia.org...], and attacks my argument on the presumption that I accept this reification. I don't. A concept isn't a concrete block. It's how we integrate, retain, and refer back to our different experiences concerning reality. Concepts are a product of our direct sensual experience (and rational processing) of objective reality. If his whole case is based on this fallacy, you know who to vote for.

(3) "What's logically possible isn't always empirically possible" <-- Remember this statement. Then, review this next statement: "*Logic is based on reality*, all existence cannot be empirically sensed, it exists only in "logic" or what we think is logical."

First of all, he has it backwards. Reality is based on logic. The fact that A is A isn't a project of objective existence. Objective existence is based on the fact that all entities have a specific identity.

Second of all, his assertion that existence isn't purely empirical is based solely on another assertion that there is some kind of higher, mystical, incomprehensible dimension of reality that no man can possibly access, where logic seems no longer to apply, even though men must still derive all sense of "duty" from such a realm.

Third of all, his statement eventually boils down to this: "Even though reality is based on logic, not everything that is logically possible is possible in reality." He's asking you to accept a contradiction, essentially. The only way he backs it up is by arguing about "what we think is logical" - i.e. the failure that is logical subjectivity in an objective reality. So, he wants you to accept a contradiction based on a premise that is itself a contradiction.

Finally, in response to his request for proof that existence exists in reality: without the existence of identity, neither of us would be here. It's not that existence exists WITHIN reality. Pro is reversing causality: he assumes that existence exists inside of reality, as a product thereof; however, only with the fact that existence exists - that A is A - is this reality possible.

(4) Why should the process of acquiring knowledge be acknowledged as part of the process of acquiring knowledge? I'd say it's self-evident. Kant says the origin of concepts doesn't matter in knowledge acquisition - that acquiring knowledge is irrelevant to the pursuit of knowledge. 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.

Pro, you're once again confusing a priori knowledge and objective truth. Objective truth is something that's true regardless of whether a person knows it. A priori knowledge is recognition of truth based on analysis of concepts (which Kant says requires no experiential validation, despite the fact that concept-formation is contingent on experience). Recall the unaddressed argument that sense and reason aren't independent acquirers/verifiers of knowledge. They're two parts of the same machine.

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.

The point is: when you accept Pro's argument that existence is only a property, you still vote Con.

c. Why is irrationality subjective? He asserts it, but doesn't prove it. If you don't use reason, you're irrational. Period.

3. Ding an Sich

a. The conclusion that "all bachelors are unmarried" might be independent of experience; however, both Pro and Kant ignore the means. You're taking just the conclusion, without regard as to the whole process required to draw it, and saying that it's a priori (non-evidential). Refer back to the analogy of starting a race at the halfway point.

b. Kant's dichotomy completely drops the context of the conclusions it draws, distinguishing them based on a distinction completely ignorant to the critical processes which would, in effect, destroy the dichotomy, should Kantians accept them. The "meanings" are meaningless if you rip them out context.

4. Selfishness biological

a. "Objectivism and Social Darwinism are Individualist theories."

Huge deduction fallacy. True premises, false conclusion. Suppose we have a dog and a cat.

Cats are mammals.
Dogs are mammals.
Therefore, dogs are cats.

We clearly see that this is untrue. Let's substitute my opponent's terms in.

Objectivism is an individualist philosophy.
Social Darwinism is an individualist philosophy.
Therefore, Objectivism is Social Darwinism.

The fallacy is clear.

b. Let me ask you something, Pro: what is the purpose of having a code of ethics? Why should man want or need to be moral? See (c).

c. Pro, look. In reality, you have one fundamental alternative. Existence or nonexistence. Life or death. If you choose death, fine. If you choose life, you need a way to live properly. For man, this requires a code of ethics suited to his nature as a rational being; ergo, a man's life is the highest value in a proper ethical system; his happiness is the ultimate purpose of his rational pursuits. Individual rights are a way of protecting a man from harm by others. Rights are a function of man's social nature. He needs the right to life, obviously. To liberty, so that he can pursue his interests, and live his life on his terms. To the product of his life, liberty, and reasoning mind: his property. Once you know the function of ethics, it's not difficult to derive a proper code.

d. It's very inaccurate to discuss Objectivism in Nietzschean terms.

5. Selfishness?

a. See 4a: why members of a certain group aren't exactly the same.

b. "My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values" [http://aynrandlexicon.com...].

c. What is the highest value?

d. Slavery requires the use of force to retain slaves. Workers are as free to quit as the employer is to fire them. Beyond your loaded language and negative stigmatization of employers, your argument holds no water. In a free society, there is no sweatshop slavery, no evil capitalist overlords, and no government action against laborers (like the minimum wage, which increases unemployment and brings opportunity costs to laborers who remain employed).
Debate Round No. 3
Zetsubou

Pro

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
Cody_Franklin

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 4
114 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AVD 3 years ago
AVD
A is A is a misrepresentation of Aristotelian logic: The law of identity consists out of two things essences and accidents. It is a very pedestrian interpretation of that law: taking the first part without acknowledging the rest of the implications.

A is A only when it has qualities of A. In other words complexes are constructed out of simples. It is one thing to say that a thing is what it is, it is another to say !what is it! This basic axiom where she goes array creates a multitude of problems with her conclusions and examples later on when discussing anything from economics to morals within her construct. The "unspoken" or "self-evident" truths become a white-wash or preconceived and undisprovable notions. I believe this is one of the major problems and why her positions are not considered as an actual philosophy but rather a pseudo-philosophy.
Posted by RobDeSenelstun 4 years ago
RobDeSenelstun
...also AR's existence is made up of existents. Existents are what have identity. Existence is a category here, like people...So, people exist "= many separate persons", exist. Just a thought...
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Yeah.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Skipped some school, then?
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
He's 17. A Junior (I think?) at California State University.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Isn't he like 18, when did he major let alone get a degree?

-

Thank you, Cody
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Like I said, if you think Kant is easy, you're doing something wrong. If you won't take my word for it, ask TheSkeptic, he's a philosophy major.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I guess we can do this debate again sometime.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
"In either case, it's clearly not true that Objectivists disregard analytic knowledge. They may disagree with Kant's synthetic/analytic distinction, but they still hold that both methods can yield truth."

This is true but in terms of the debate you have no reason to state this.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
i) riigiiiiiht, it's not Descartes himself I meant but it's also the opposition and the debate over Cartesian dualism and Cartesian metaphysics. I'd even go on to add that the works of Descartes himself, without critique, are more complex than Kants; It's subjective, but if you want I'll debate it with you. Also, if a professional philosopher has issues with Kant they have issues with philosophy, who do you speak of?

ii) I can't be asked to defend it. Cody is right, Objectivism holds a strong contempt of Kant if I didn't make that clear in the debate and his school of thought, Objectivism discounts a priori reasoning because It believes it to be achieved but by posteriori reasoning. See the debate - Cody sums up the Objectivist stance well.

What let me lose this debate at such a scale was my attack on RSI, DDO's libertarian sh1t storm followed.

Cody, if you're interested and available would you be interested in doing this in again in a year or so?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Esuric 6 years ago
Esuric
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mlorg 6 years ago
Mlorg
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by kevin1110 6 years ago
kevin1110
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by ProHobo 6 years ago
ProHobo
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Candunn 6 years ago
Candunn
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
ZetsubouCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00