So where's the solution to the 'Problem of Universals'?

[Marc K.]

It could even be argued that Euclidean geometry wasn't based on the senses, since the eyes give us two lines, like railroad tracks, meeting at a vanishing point in the distance and not remaining parallel according to the senses, so much for their validity.

[...]

However, I never said that 'existence exists' is false, or that the senses aren't valid

[emphasis added]

Now, I know you have trouble remembering what you have said so this one should be easy. You say one thing in one paragraph in the very next paragraph you contradict yourself. This is called intellectual dishonesty and is against the rules.

I was working on a nice long reply to you but I see that you have continued your personal attacks upon Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. This is against the rules. I hope you are banned.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Marc K.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

Now, I know you have trouble remembering what you have said so this one should be easy. You say one thing in one paragraph in the very next paragraph you contradict yourself. This is called intellectual dishonesty and is against the rules.

I was working on a nice long reply to you but I see that you have continued your personal attacks upon Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. This is against the rules. I hope you are banned.

You jumped too quickly, because that was pulled out of context. I have also compared them to the delimiting of Newtonian mechanics to its realm. I wrote that the senses are valid as far as they go, such as to reading this post. Another person claimed, in a post dated 2-17, that the ITOE was the answer to the problem of universals, and a few days later, in a post dated 2-24, claimed it wasn't even intended to be solved in the book. Was that an instance of the virtue of honesty, or evasion? But do you see me engaged in any finger-pointing accusations? Of course, there will be something in the exact wording of his posts that'll give him an out, as usual.

Well, nice try at fingering the non-Objectivist, Marc, but your favorite author isn't getting off that easy. You weren't being intellectually dishonest, were you? After all, everything I wrote about the senses is right there on page 10 for you to read, including the part about delimiting their validity as Newtonian mechanics was delimited by Einsteinian relativity. Delimited, Marc, not falsified.

The issue of percepts is just the tip of the iceberg. On the issue of percepts, ITOE should be banned for intellectual dishonesty, for Rand trying to have Direct Realism based on an Indirect Realist premise borrowed from science, not to mention the fact that the book assumes two premises by petitio, as I have proven, and she managed it in a single sentence.

I'm awaiting your long response. If we keep our responses impersonal things will go much more politely here. If I wanted to personally attack Rand, I would bring up her old-fashioned 1920s hairdo, or something like that. Addressing philosophical arguments is not a personal attack, and since they are not even your arguments, since you didn't write ITOE, that would be even less a personal attack.

[DavidOdden]

I don't see that anything productive or useful to Objectivists is happening in this thread at this point, so we're done for the time.