1. Man is born with a tabula rasa, aka, he is presumed to have no innate ideas, he has nothing at birth. Or in Rand's words:
2. There is no such thing as chance, because of the law of causality.
3. Knowledge is acquired through interaction with reality.
4. Contradictions do not exist.
1. Man starts out as an entity devoid of any knowledge whatsoever.
2. Man attains knowledge through interaction with reality (or if you prefer, by observing reality, and reasoning).
3. But since nothing happens by chance, man's nature causes everything to happen the way it does. (thanks bluecherry) ((to be honest, I think this where the logic falls apart though.))
4. However, man had no nature to start with, because man started out as an entity devoid of knowledge.
5. This is a contradiction. (At least, I think it is)
6. But contradictions do not exist.
I also feel like I've stated a logical fallacy somewhere (aside from argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal to authority). If so, please tell me. Also, is there anything that causes confusion? (ie, structure, definitions, logical process)
So. What do you think?