[Would this be a contradiction of man's nature?]

@Lazarium:

Man's cognitive faculty is the way he processes knowledge. The only problem is that you need knowledge to process it first. A computer program doesn't run without parameters. Assuming man's cognitive faculty runs like a computer. :T

Also, if man's nature is dependent on biology, genetics, then man's nature is unchangeable from the get go. And since his nature is unchangeable from the beginning, the knowledge he attains and actions he performs and all of existence is predetermined. Thus he has no free will?

@bluecherry:

Hahaha. Yeah. You're right. I had trouble wording that one. I'll change it (and attribute it to you). Thanks.

Also, for number four... actually, I don't really get what you're saying. But if I'm to understand, he already has a nature, therefore there is no contradiction. However, then the problem of: where does that nature come from? If it's already built in, then it's unchangeable, therefore... he has no free will? Hmm...

[Would this be a contradiction of man's nature?]

The Premises:

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:

Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

At birth, a child’s mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness—the mechanism of a human consciousness—but no content. Speaking metaphorically, he has a camera with an extremely sensitive, unexposed film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious). Both are blank.

From: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tabula_rasa.html

2. There is no such thing as chance, because of the law of causality.

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . .

Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance.

From: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/causality.html

3. Knowledge is acquired through interaction with reality.

“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.

From: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/knowledge.html

4. Contradictions do not exist.

A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole.

Objectivism agrees with Aristotle’s formulation of the Law of Non-Contradiction

From: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contradictions.html

Thought Process:

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.

7. HUHHH???

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?