Leaderboard

When it comes to convincing people nothing talks louder than success, simply because demonstrating something explains it better than talking about it. So with a million dollars I’d: 1. Invest it/Start a business in something for which I’m passionate 2. Codify it’s rational principles in a value and mission statement 3. Hire the best minds as needed 4. Promote it internally and externally for it's ideas 5. Make no apologies for it’s virtues 6. Make money (ROI) 7. Let the example stand for those who see your success/happiness 8. Have an outreach program for those who want to learn more Incidentally - I’ve done steps two through seven on a department and division level and have had success. Naturally I couldn’t promote Objectivism since it was not my business but using the values to create leadership principles then working with people on those principles can be very rewarding and the results amazingly. Taking it to the corporate level then opening the discussion further would be tremendous.

Because Objectivism does not contain any principles that reject scholarly standards, this leads me to believe you are confusing standards of valid debate with something like "opinions held by cetain people." Objectivism cuts through "opinions held by certain people," but nothing in Objectivism seeks to avoid normative procedures of reasoned discussion, since these can be derived from the intellectual virtues and the laws of logic.

I do not believe Objectivist Epistemology deals in axioms, and I stated my reason in the above post via metaphor. At the most fundamental level, life has only one purpose: to survive. All absolutes within the universe are arranged to offer life that opportunity. Perception is every living oranism's means of survival. If any organism, whether it be an insect, lion, or human being, were unable to hold absolutes based upon their perception, survival would be impossible. A great example of a human being who was unable to use their sensory perception, as Ayn Rand points out in "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" was Hellen Keller. She was blind, deaf, and mute. She was reduced to an animalistic state completely incapable of survival and had no understanding of the world beyond chaotic anger and despair. Only when her teacher, by her endless efforts, was able to leverage one of her remaining sensory perceptions (touch) in order to sign letters of the alphabet into her hand, did Keller have a breakthrough. Once she grasped that W A T E R was connected to the wet liquid on her hands by way of constant repetition, reality sprang into focus. She not only learned how to communicate, she earned herself a college education. Now if you are suggesting that Hellen Keller could have come to any understanding about reality and the world around her WITHOUT her sensory perception of touch, I'd love to have you explain it. The truth is, if she had not had the ability to feel touch, in other words, if she had not been able to feel the signed letters into her palm, she would have forever been locked in total darkness. By what method, if not perception, could she have possibly "acquired" any absolute truths about her world?? Again, perception's primary function is to enable survival. Survival requires absolutes, i.e., this plant is toxic and this plant provides nourishment. If perception were unable to provide absolutes wiith absolute accuracy, survival would be rendered a "guessing game" and we would exist in chaos. From that concrete truth, perception is leveraged by the human mind to gain absolute truths that go beyond mere survival. Because we know our perception provides us with every absolute truth we require to survive, how would perception then become any less capable in providing us with absolutes about those things which do not directly pertain to survival? You are playing this absurd and pretentious game on this forum with the sole purpose of creating doubt in others. You claim that "I've got my own justified reasons for believing they are universally true" but you keep it in your pocket so you can continue this little charade. If you were after a valid debate you would offer your "reasons" and we could move on from there, but you would rather belittle Objectivism and reveal your own petty nature instead.

Concepts are formed in a context of differences. Example: We would never be able to form the concept of blue if everything was blue. The concept of contradiction presuppose a reality of noncontradictions as the contrast. You would, therefore, never be able to form the concept of contradiction by merely looking at reality. Because in reality there are no contradictions. (How do we know this? The same way we know the grass is green. Through direct observation: there are no things out there which are both red and blue, at the same time and in the same respect.) No, the concept of "contradiction" is and was, as matter of historical fact, formed by observing how ideas (concepts, propositions, arguments, etc.) clash with each other and/or clash with reality.

Yes, but you can't be your teacher's pet.

Well, instead of going to the school for skanks it seems a much better idea to go out and find a sweetheart to practice with.