Jose

From the link “Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. “ If I’m reading this correctly the fact that you like mushrooms is not an Objective fact.

No why? I think my problem is that my understanding of what “objective” means diferente than her. Can you please define “Objectivity”

My question is no about mushrooms. I’m talking a fully sensation using this persons filling. The scenario will not change if the menu of both places are the same. But, my problem is that you finding mushrooms delicious is a subjective evaluation.

I really have problems with what you said. Your example of the blood transfusion I fail to see the relationship with my example the blood transfusion example is objective but the food is subjective. In the first one there are biochemical reasons on the second one just my filling is involved, even if I go the food will be as nutricios than my preferred place. What you said is called being rational that is not the same as being objective.

Spiritual value of my enjoyment is a subjective value in the way I understand it. If is Objective should be the same conclusion for everyone so the quoted phrase is having your cake and eat it. My problem is that I do not understand what she mean by Objectivity

Hi all, I have the following scenario. Someone is deciding where to go for lunch, two places have the same objective pros and cons. But, one of the places really do not like one of the places. If we use just Objective there is no way to make a decision. But once we introduce fillings (an subjective criteria) the decision is trivial. What is the Objectivists way to see this scenario?

Wow I admire your evasion tactics... I mean your habilita to write so much without touching the question. I ask what the concept mean and you explained the words. There is no point on keep engaged in this discussion if you are just Trolling, I thought that this place was about intelectual discussion but SL have prove me wrong. Enjoy

Welcome, so happy on teaching you something ... anything

Yes! Rand's philosophy is very good at finding an excuse to made the world fit in hers. In other words if reality does not fit your world view change reality.

Please explane all of it. I just want to avoid misunderstandings

One of the premesis of Ojectivism is the Law of Identity? That based on what you said is subjective. Also can you explain why statement 2 is temporal and not 1

If evasion were a olímpico sport you will be gold. Can you explain what it means?

This is what people have said about the relationship between contradictions and identity.

You said that if someone sees a contradiction or not change your premises. Very subjective to me It can be one depends of the other or the other way around but missing one, means missing the other.

This will put a level of subjectivism on your philosophy ... Also if the impossibility of contradictions depends of the law of identity, allowing temporarily contradictions means suspending the law of identity.

No. There is no rational of making 2 temporary and no 1, nor they are any ceriteria to start or stop using it.

I am waiting for you to explain what you mean ... This is what I mean when I said that my questions are ignored.

Here is the post

No, StrictlyLogic said that the two statements where done by Rand, I just could not find a post.

Here you are a textual quote. Can you explain what you mean? Now an example of a contradiction, even if members of an online former antre strictly logical they find all types of excuses to do not explain their positions.

And the answer is ....

After you explain the "Rand said that contradictions are impossible but contradictions are possible is not a contradiction" preposition ...

What for ... Point to any point that I made related to her