Leaderboard

Then please make a contribution. SK literally asked and your response is to troll. Your response is trivial, "if you knew what we knew, you'd know". Well, that's the point of a forum, and you know that. To see what others know. Don't discourage questions.

(Definion 2)The concept of "anti-reference" refers to all pairs <C,r'> such that C is a concept with at least one non-referent, and r' is not a referent of C. The anti-referent(s) of the concept "anti-reference" are all concepts C with their referents r. Anti-reference applied to itself is a double negative, so non-non r is simply r. The anti-referent of the concept "anti-reference" is the concept "reference" by definition 1. "Reference" refers to itself without contradiction.

I would concur, a principle(s) precede ethics. I would not consider a principle a concept, rather I would consider a principle a proposition. I would apply 'valid' or 'invalid' to concepts. I would apply 'true' or 'false' to principles. The three Objectivist primary axioms are tautologies, converting them essentially into axiomatic principles. All truths depend on the validity/invalidity of the concepts involved which invoke said principle. As to fundamental, primary or general truths: I tend to hold that to the propositions as asserted; i.e.; are the propositions true based on the validity of the concepts invoked to assert them.

Louie, do you honestly think that anything in that quote supports the ridiculous notion that entities are epistemological? Everything I'm saying is about the claim that boundaries would disappear if all consciousness was gone being a failure to grasp what she meant by "objective rules and facts."