tygorton

In terms of Capitalism vs. Marxism, how does Marxism provide justice? Simply because an idealogy defines its own terms for justice and abides by its own rules, this does not make it "justice" in terms of reality. History provides ample, tangible evidence that Marxism cannot and does not protect individual rights. Instead, it demands individual sacrifice for the greater good of the whole, which can be seen as nothing but immoral and contrary to any concept of justice. Without individual rights, justice cannot exist.

Regarding the idea of the spillover of value generated by a successful business, I think you are overlooking the pyschological/social value gained by the businessman. Not all value is measured strictly in monetary terms. A prominent businessman within a community enjoys many benefits from that community which are not directly measurable in a material sense. One successful business can also be leveraged to gain support/investment for another, and so on. The sense of self-worth gained by providing employment and a means of survival to others alone is something that cannot be measured easily. An individual's self-image/self-worth is vital to every action that person takes. The respect and admiration of your peers is rather difficult to quantify in terms of value.

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.

If a person threatens to press the glowing red tip of an iron poker against your face, would you stop to consider that perhaps it is only your "perception" that makes the iron dangerously hot?

No. You would protect yourself as needed each and every time.

Perception exists first and foremost as a necessity of survival. The moment human beings mastered nature and rendered survival much less difficult and time consuming, the human mind had more time to turn its powers of perception toward intellectual study.

If A can at any time NOT be A, this means that there is a probability that the glowing red iron might actually be cool and therefor non-threatening. Except you KNOW that it is not cool. It will burn you severely every time it touches your skin. No amount of Quantuum mathematical voodoo is going to convince you that the glowing red iron is anything but a threat to you.

The moment you create this song-and-dance about perception vs. non-perception, you lose the ability to reason. In a world where A could potentially not be A, there would be no valid cause to take any action because the goal you strive for today could change or completely vanish tomorrow. This is the point. If you are unwilling to accept that sensory perception is the path to absolute truths, than you condemn yourself to an unknowable chaos in which nothing has any meaning and no action can be validated or invalidated.