Tomer Ravid

The "Randian cult" conspiracy is primarily a fallacy of conceptualization. It involves such epistemological errors as non-essential thinking (which leads to bad metaphors, e.g., "You believe that you are in the center of everything the same way people used to believe that Earth is the center of mass of the universe," etc.), invalid, out of context usage of concepts (the same causes Marxists to hold that liberty is the equivalent of so-called "oppression"), as well as the absence of an explicit stand of evaluation (e.g., atonal music is "sophisticated," anarchy is "freedom"---ask yourselves what's common about all of these instances).

Let me handle it briefly: in order to prove that Objectivism is irrational on the same grounds that cults are as such (which is what they attempt to do), one has to define a cult, explain what's wrong about it (and why), and find whether Objectivism does or does not share those characteristics. And if they followed these steps, they will have inquire the following:

(i) (Fundamentals) do Objectivists think that Ayn Rand has an authority over knowledge?---can she, according to them, comprehend things "ordinary" people are unable (as distinguished from unwilling) to, and the latter will be thus forced to take her on faith? is a statement true just because Ayn Rand said so?
(ii) (Ethics) morally speaking, do Objectivists place Rand above themselves? do Objectivists live for Ayn Rand?

Any true Objectivist's answer would be, of course: Not at all. Then, it begs the questions: Why do they keep calling you a 'cultist?' and, that being their intent, what use is the 'cult' metaphor of---can't they just show that Objectivism involves any form of faith or sacrifice? These two questions have a single answer: They always, regularly, systematically skip the above step, and not only in the sense that they often openly reject the whole concepts of 'proof' and 'rationale.' Instead, they choose to make a blind comparison between Objectivism and various cults, based on either some complete random non-essentials or actual shameless lies. (As an illustration of the last lies, consider the "Divine Miss Rand" case. Presumably, I am involved in Objectivism more than Mr. Shermer or any of his friends, and I know beyond any doubt that this idea has absolutely no basis in fact, whatsoever.) The term 'cult' (which is barely even properly defined by them) constitutes something of an intermediate station, that helps them transform the given facts (so long as what they give you is truly a fact) into a false conclusion. It makes it easier to confuse the unfocused reader.

So far we discussed the bad reasoning of the "cult" conspiracy. But, obviously, the 'cult' thing is but a rationalization. Their deepest motive has to do with the fact they do not accept at least one of the three axioms, and I think it is expressed eloquently in The Unlikeliest Cult in History by Michael Shermer, who is apparently upset since he would not have been accepted as an Objectivist due to the 'insignificant' disagreement on objective values:

"As long as it is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by human cultures, one can become more tolerant of other human belief systems, and thus other humans. But as soon as a group sets itself up to be the final moral arbiter of other people's actions, especially when its members believe they have discovered absolute standards of right and wrong [is this absolutely right? Is your object of criticism absolutely wrong?], it is the beginning of the end of tolerance and thus, reason and rationality. It is this characteristic more than any other that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any other group, dangerous to individual freedom. This was (and is) the biggest flaw in Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history."
(This is just one example, and do not presuppose that this conflict is merely ethical---he mentions the belief in an 'absolute truth' as another cultish attribute. Italics added.)

Because they do not accept the fact that reality exists or that it might be perceived by man, it makes no difference to them whether a knowledge is acquired by reason and perception or by faith and emotion. As far as they are concerned, its validity remains the same. When asked about the essence and the nature of religion, they reply: "Certainty and consistency," for this is what they never had and never shall have, and this is least primitive fact they can possibly identify with their method of thinking. And I suspect we are going to get a further analysis of that in the DIM Hypothesis.

Now, this topic has an ironic aspect, too. I have met numerous 'Randian cult' theorists. I have repeatedly asked them to tell me what makes Objectivism a cult, and even made similar arguments. But, no matter how I tried, and no matter how convincing my speeches were---they literally refused to understand, and kept obsessively calling me a 'cultist'---as the emotionalist ever will---implying that I am too dogmatic to judge their alleged proofs. So, in that sense, the 'Randian cult' conspiracy is a cult itself

Oh, and BTW, Ninth Doctor: since as far as I remember, there was a time when you addressed yourself as an Objectivist---and you know, at least to a certain degree, that you were not a "cult member"---I think you should not be accused of trusting propaganda, but of something far worse: accepting the basic premises on which the propaganda is founded.

From my Facebook inspirations: Aristotle, Newton, Thomas Jefferson, Ramanujan, Ayn Rand, Richard Feynman, Mike Mentzer (yes, I know he hasn't had a deep understanding of Objectivist epistemology, but I really tend to like the concept of a greatly educated bodybuilder; this combination of mind and body clearly does remind me of Radian heroes), Steve Jobs.
All these were innovative geniuses, and---to different extents and in different ways---had an impressive biography and held generally positive premises.

Yes, maybe I shouldn't have said "goddamn." That was not my original intention. I just wanted to emphasize it: A philosophy is compounded of highly abstract principles, not of detached concretes.
That is unto the individual to decide how to deal with concretes, unless it it really a matter of contradicting Oism or remaining consistent with it.
You can formulate your own reasoning on why to like or dislike Xmas
But one thing is for sure: Christmas is certainly not "immoral for an Objectivist," and such questions should be asked outside the context of Objectivism as a philosophy.

I am apparently gonna be pissing off by taking humor seriously, but the truth must be told:

It seems like he does not think, rather memorizes some slogans as a substitute to actual reasoning, while speaking.
They probably don't even have a good source \ indication on the nature of a rational argument, since I never respond automatically, I don't think of Ayn Rand either while discussing. I think and phrase my sentences in my head before slowly putting the argument.
As well, observe that the therapist simply reacts with "Aha . . . I see . . . you are an Objectivist" (mentioned as if it were some illness) without proving what's wrong with it.
And he is the one to be considered the "common sense" in the issue. In a recent context, it reminds me a fanatic mystic who confessed that he 'just knows' that god exists.

Where exactly can a young guy get Objectivism during his freshman year? LOL, they would wish he could have so they can regard themselves underground, but just go to Google and search for Objectivism; past month. You won't find a whole lot of percentage of positive ones.
Ojectivism is the exact opposite of existentialism, being founded on the principle 'Existence Exists.' As well, it holds that everything is itself.

An Objectivist does not have to define sky---it demonstrates some fundamental misunderstanding of the epistemology of definitions.
A definition is required so long as a concept is an abstraction from abstraction, which means: it requires complex conceptualization and is not an obvious sensory given.
In such a case, a definition is required so one can know what he's talking about. But according to Objectivism, conceptualization and perception are an axiomatically valid means of knowledge.

"Private corporations cannot be trusted with the means of production."
Let alone the fact I suppose he means the vice versa, because this sounds pretty Marxist---
this altruism is not even the sort of abstract circumstances of O`ism. Plus "means of production" is a floating abstraction and an invalid terminology since it assumes that the property (=values) just exists and the rest is a matter of who luckily picks it up.

"Libertarian, why?"

Omitting the fact that the (partial) similarity between O`ism qua philosophy and Libertarianism qua "philosophy" is exclusively technical, concrete; the libertarian party is not liberal (as a derivative of 'liberty,' the genetic roots of the concepts) even in accordance with libertarian standards.

"I'm afraid he has a severe case of logical contradiction."
A is A?

"Is he an idiot?---For the moment, yes."
Rationality as man's basic virtue?

"[A]nd I'm going to hire him. Son, I'm gonna pay you minimum wage for papers . . ."
Objectivism does find money a value, but not an ultimate value.
Personally, I cannot stand people who give up their greatest values and especially moral principles in order to get beloved by anyone and thus "earn" some bucks.
Personally, I would never agree to receive tax-paid money (unless I have already paid taxes throughout my previous life), no matter how great it is.
So, the contradiction does not exist.


Yet, I must admit that the Samus T-shirt made me laugh A LOT

I am apparently gonna be pissing off by taking humor seriously, but the truth must be told:

It seems like he does not think, rather memorizes some slogans as a substitute to actual reasoning, while speaking.
They probably don't even have a good source \ indication on the nature of a rational argument, since I never respond automatically, I don't think of Ayn Rand either while discussing. I think and phrase my sentences in my head before slowly putting the argument.
As well, observe that the therapist simply reacts with "Aha . . . I see . . . you are an Objectivist" (mentioned as if it were some illness) without proving what's wrong with it.
And he is the one to be considered the "common sense" in the issue. In a recent context, it reminds me a fanatic mystic who confessed that he 'just knows' that god exists.

Where exactly can a young guy get Objectivism during his freshman year? LOL, they would wish he could have so they can regard themselves underground, but just go to Google and search for Objectivism; past month. You won't find a whole lot of percentage of positive ones.
Ojectivism is the exact opposite of existentialism, being founded on the principle 'Existence Exists.' As well, it holds that everything is itself.

An Objectivist does not have to define sky---it demonstrates some fundamental misunderstanding of the epistemology of definitions.
A definition is required so long as a concept is an abstraction from abstraction, which means: it requires complex conceptualization and is not an obvious sensory given.
In such a case, a definition is required so one can know what he's talking about. But according to Objectivism, conceptualization and perception are an axiomatically valid means of knowledge.

"Private corporations cannot be trusted with the means of production."
Let alone the fact I suppose he means the vice versa, because this sounds pretty Marxist---
this altruism is not even the sort of abstract circumstances of O`ism. Plus "means of production" is a floating abstraction and an invalid terminology since it assumes that the property (=values) just exists and the rest is a matter of who luckily picks it up.

"Libertarian, why?"

Omitting the fact that the (partial) similarity between O`ism qua philosophy and Libertarianism qua "philosophy" is exclusively technical, concrete; the libertarian party is not liberal (as a derivative of 'liberty,' the genetic roots of the concepts) even in accordance with libertarian standards.

"I'm afraid he has a severe case of logical contradiction."
A is A?

"Is he an idiot?---For the moment, yes."
Rationality as man's basic virtue?

"[A]nd I'm going to hire him. Son, I'm gonna pay you minimum wage for papers . . ."
Objectivism does find money a value, but not an ultimate value.
Personally, I cannot stand people who give up their greatest values and especially moral principles in order to get beloved by anyone and thus "earn" some bucks.
Personally, I would never agree to receive tax-paid money (unless I have already paid taxes throughout my previous life), no matter how great it is.
So, the contradiction does not exist.


Yet, I must admit that the Samus T-shirt made me laugh A LOT

The solution is that they are not Objectivists.
You're giving them too much credit, as if they were brilliant logic-freak philosopher who found a contradiction in your beloved system of Objectivism.
They are simply open-minded children who can stand radicalism Ayn Rand's fiction (particularly The Fountainhead), sense the greatness of the philosophy but do not understand it explicitly nor change the way of their lives.
Since they are still in the context of the open-mind, they can appreciate anything without a clear-consistent standard, they believe that there are many opinions in the world and that you can justify any of them with the right rhetoric, and thus they do not make any explicit enough separation between writers such as Rand and Marx as two rationally-reasoned authors.
When they notice the first explicit argument against Objectivism with which they cannot deal, they "realize": "Oh, you're all right, I was wrong and childish and egoistic all that time," and the freed private was returned back to the realm of the enemy.

One cannot beat these leftists ever since they declare that your logic is a mere faith, that you live in a Platonic cave and that everything that seems reasonable in your mind is nothing but a cognitive haze.
Moreover, observe how they regard Objectivism "a religion" or "simplistic and populist" and by means of what arguments (more correctly: slogans, no self judgement) and the weapon conformity ("Oh, look at these, they claim that the individual is the means and the end, but it is opposed to my very opinion, so that I will invest in not loving that as well as sharing that in public") they do that: that is, no philosophical claims on the ideas as they are (or rather no philosophical claims in general.

Sorry, I would supposedly response to your well-phrased post assuming it were not to infer that in fact I am not. Translation: Have you just said `Difficulties`? I am talking to you via humane knowledge, and I have nothing to say to the one who denies its very basis (or at least even on the implicit stage of awareness). I suggest that you try to shoot yourself and on the negation simultaneously. I shall be groundbreaking assuming you would not die in factual reality.


Let us observe your post without your implicitly grasped axioms: (a) Without existence: your post does not exist, neither do you exist dor is the `that`.
( Without indentity: your post does not equal your post. It is true at all.

Well, do you say that it is merely `imaginary` that I prove that there are amazing fallacies in your post? Think again. Or as a matter of fact not. Thinking is a process of identification and integration. By `identification`, what do you identify---if not an existence and an identity? How do you grasp the meaning of `that`? Of `is`? What is your standard of `truth`, and by what means it is applicable to you and to the nature of existence? How do you occupy `at all`? Is there any non-contextual common nature of existence? If there isn`t, is there such thing as context? Does that mean there is a nature of a proposition? Can a proposition be true or arbitrary or wrong? ETC.

Now, I`m gonna make myself a scrumbled egg
Oops!
How can I know I am actually about to do that?? Hence I have neither volition nor ability to know that which I will do in future, since I am not conscious!
Perhaps the scrambled egg is toxic is well! Wait, how could I know whether it includes an onion? What in the world if an onion is not an onion.
And perhaps, as a matter of fact, the egg does not actually exist! Shit~!


This fact is not definitite or gauranteed.

A stone? And by what means can it be written? Assuming it were, it would not help as well---since one cannot identify the nature of certain existents in reality.

After proving that existence is identity is an axiom, it is absolutely a rationalistic argument to claim that its necessarity is thus about man`s organization. Then you have a denial and not a denial of it: you deny identity and do not deny identity and dare saying that you are acting accordingly to it, fantastic And if you cannot know that identity is not identity, how do you know this fact? Conclusion: the argument according to which axioms exist only in man`s consciousness is not valid to avoiding finding the masses of HORRENDOUS contradictions in your post.

You must understand: to say that `existence` and `exists` are noted in the same context is equovilent to saying that `cat` and `exists` are. Everything exists as much as existence does.
Certainly I have understood, in time, that what shall one do, anything he can ever say can never constitute a proof to the absolutism of the existence of axiomatic concepts since each such proof attempts to prove it through the eyes of the metaphysics-less: the system of whom really thinks that there is no exitence, consciousness or identity was screwed out long ago. He shall say: ``Then what if you clarified? Then what if in accordance with the non-existence of existence I do not exist to complain of it? Very true. It is merely to prove that existence does not exist [point symbolizing of a sentence`s end]. Such a person is blocked: talking to him is like talking to an automat, according to his own very premises. He has been living in a world of hallucinations, where no proof proves anything, since a long ago.

The point is that one cannot prove anything without the assumption of the axioms ahead: as a one with the lack of convinction of axioms, you can observe of no proof through your own eyes. Every proof is firstly based about the fact there is a reality which could be grasped by a human being: he who does not implicitly understand it himself is metaphysically dead---and will be dead in reality.
bobgo, You are meataphysically dead!

a STATEMENT




of the NATURE



of EXISTENECE


Note: This thread is based upon a critique letter about the Objectivist axioms of existence and identity. If you wonder according to which context do I rarely change my argument or what argument against which I claim, you should simply know the fact that it had all performed there. For the sake of the clarity, to be more organized; arguments included:

Do you guy think that existence exists is an infinite loop?
(1) Existence is not an attribute.
(2) A self-evident proposition is a proposition and not a wrong beginning for a closed system (both ``beginning`` and ``closed`` assume there is such, any other premise leads to a self-contradiction).
(3) Existence exist => there is something with a different context. Assuming this item I`m holding in my hand exists, something exists, and assuming something exists, this status of `exists` exists.
(4) In its syntax, this proposition does not refer to `exists` and say it contains of `existence,` but rather to `existence and say that it exists. Existence is the subject and exists is the object.

Or anyhow any corollary of identity?
(1) Every denial of any axiom involves a self contradiction, but it does not mean that the standard to an axiom is not `that which is assumed ahead` and certainly not `that which is the standard to each other axiom` (which is an actual infinite loop, attempted to be described at the above), but rather that which you cannot prove or deny. In fact, the process of validating axioms is somewhat circular: I am aware of the fact that a is a or assuming that a is a the proposition `I think but I am not` is contradictionary. It does not say anything about the nature of their being primacies, since each of these statements are necessary to each other, and certainly does not mean that identity (or its corollary of `non-contradiction`) is the axiom of all the other axioms.
(2) The axiom of existence does not equal the axiom of identity. The axiom of identity is in another phrase `existence is identity,` which assumes ahead existence.
(3) And if what you are gonna respond to this argument is that `Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse as well,` the identity is of the idea or of the fact that Mickey Mouse is presented as if he did not contradict reality.

Or, do you claim that the non-existence does exist?
(1) The assumption according to which a statement of the non-existence compared to existence is false is not based on the assumption that the non-existence does not exist, but in fact on the negation of it. It assumes that the money one doesn't have actually exists.
(2) If you get into another `infinite loop` by that, please notice: as noted above, this statement is not about the description of which does not exist, but rather about its behavior (or non-behavior) in reality: the nothing does not exist.

And eventually, above all, to prove that existence exists is axiom is the simplest thing is the world, beyond these rationalistic arguments, and any denial of the need to a primacy, to a first cause, to a beginning, shall be pointless, and will necessarily bring to a real ``infinite loop``. Every man with a proper mental status could implicitly recognize the nature of existence. So do the linguistic analytics and the post modernists. I am about to post this thread in order to those who actually get confuse from their rationalism.
(1) One can argue nothing assuming he and his arguments do not exist
(2) ==> Inferred from premise (1) there are two directions:
(2)a Any proof, the seek for something previous to or more primitive than existence, is false.
(2)b Any denial of existence, the seek for something that exists apart of existence, is false.



q.e.d



I am about to post this thread in order to disproving this torrent of nihilism which maintains that the most basic concept on which each of its claims and acts are based; is sort of an "infinite loop", a logical gibberish statement, which is so self-evident that it shouldn't be called a axiom but rather an unremarkable tautological trivia and thus a pure corollary of the axiom of identity. This argument is considered to be the "new wave equivalent and wise attack against O`ism from its very basis" among post-modern and analytic philosophers. To be noted, this consideration is not about whether "existence exists" (if one [a consideration] turned to be as such, I would stop participating in it): but, in essence, on its being an axiomatic concept. It's been pretty tough to selectively get all the whims out of my own head, though, assuming that the axiomatic concept of existence, does not actually exist.

Via abstraction (or classification) and equalization: Existence is an axiomatic concept. A concept equals a mental integration of two or more units with common characteristic(s) and with their particular measurements omitted. A unit equals a well-clarified identity. An identity is an entity. An entity equals an existence. The first idea a recently-born child observes is existence: There is something–––pointing of a bed, a tree on the street or his mother. Any of his latter claims, achieved by a process of introspection or extrospection, shall assume ahead the following: It exists. This is the full grasped meaning of the well called existence axiom.

The assumption: "The proposition 'existence exists' starts by existence and determines that, it exists. This statement is syntactically equivalent to the parallel X is Y; α belongs to p:pX, e.g., Henry is cute, the apple is red, women are unforeseeable etc. It considers a specific attribute of something which is, existence. As such, let us exam it as an axiom, according to its standard: Does existence exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask: Does the attribute of existence (from the above ``exists``) exist?–––etc."
(a) Consider the following: Does this assumption exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask, does the concept existence (from the above ``exists``) exist? That`s all.

There the linguistic analysis claims at that point that existence is an "attribute" (= a fact that differentiates a concept from another–––which leads to a contradiction of the above: There is no set called 'existence since there is nothing outside existence: From Russell's paradox, if a set is merely a great intersection it must not be called a set) since the following proposition is the simple "X is Y;" "α belongs to p:pX," in which statement they assume ahead their main future fallacy to find existence a 'meaningless' concept: that every proposition must never be any implicit self-evident. They assume that the claim 'existence exists' is supposed to consist of an axiomatic concept rather than 'existence'. They shall charter that "If something, anything [e.g., existence] exists, therefore certainly . . ." Yes, existence exists IS an axiom! There is no fundamental [or any] distinction between 'there is something' and 'there is existence'. Nevertheless, when saying 'there is' you assume ahead that 'there is' exists, so that the only reason for the rephrase is its context (the word "context" is used metaphorically over here).

The law of identity, therefore, may not replace it: and in its syntax, indeed, the subject is existence; the object: exists. The sentence does not refer to in given 'exists' (or i.e., something that exists), but simply to the fact of being existent as an existent. Every denial of any axiom leads to a self contradiction (existence exists is form as opposed to negative one: 'existence does not exist,' which is a deep and bad self contradiction but certainly not an 'infinite loop'): every axiom is a self evident that could be denied at any step of its evidence–––e.g., identity is not identity, we are not conscious of the fact we are conscious, I do not will to say I have a free will and as well, existence exists but not the 'exists'. Nevertheless, the axiom of identity which is contradicted in each of them cannot be the explanation of both of the couple of other axioms: Since the standard of axiom is not being an 'evidentless' but being in the basis of any human knowledge. Without existence, as well, no identity can exist. The standard of axiom, as noted above, is being in the basis of any human knowledge: the standard to a primacy axiom is not 'being not assumed ahead in others'–––if it were the primacy could be 'my whim is my whim'. It does nor, however, mean the Mickey Mouse has no identity: All it means is that nothing can exist without one. The facts of existence and identity, therefore, are not equivalent: they are fundamentally different axioms. Assuming that existence is a primacy over identity, the law of identity cannot be the proof to it.

Now read the fifth paragraph again.

a STATEMENT




of the NATURE



of EXISTENECE


Note: This thread is based upon a critique letter about the Objectivist axioms of existence and identity. If you wonder according to which context do I rarely change my argument or what argument against which I claim, you should simply know the fact that it had all performed there. For the sake of the clarity, to be more organized; arguments included:

Do you guy think that existence exists is an infinite loop?
(1) Existence is not an attribute.
(2) A self-evident proposition is a proposition and not a wrong beginning for a closed system (both ``beginning`` and ``closed`` assume there is such, any other premise leads to a self-contradiction).
(3) Existence exist => there is something with a different context. Assuming this item I`m holding in my hand exists, something exists, and assuming something exists, this status of `exists` exists.
(4) In its syntax, this proposition does not refer to `exists` and say it contains of `existence,` but rather to `existence and say that it exists. Existence is the subject and exists is the object.

Or anyhow any corollary of identity?
(1) Every denial of any axiom involves a self contradiction, but it does not mean that the standard to an axiom is not `that which is assumed ahead` and certainly not `that which is the standard to each other axiom` (which is an actual infinite loop, attempted to be described at the above), but rather that which you cannot prove or deny. In fact, the process of validating axioms is somewhat circular: I am aware of the fact that a is a or assuming that a is a the proposition `I think but I am not` is contradictionary. It does not say anything about the nature of their being primacies, since each of these statements are necessary to each other, and certainly does not mean that identity (or its corollary of `non-contradiction`) is the axiom of all the other axioms.
(2) The axiom of existence does not equal the axiom of identity. The axiom of identity is in another phrase `existence is identity,` which assumes ahead existence.
(3) And if what you are gonna respond to this argument is that `Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse as well,` the identity is of the idea or of the fact that Mickey Mouse is presented as if he did not contradict reality.

Or, do you claim that the non-existence does exist?
(1) The assumption according to which a statement of the non-existence compared to existence is false is not based on the assumption that the non-existence does not exist, but in fact on the negation of it. It assumes that the money one doesn't have actually exists.
(2) If you get into another `infinite loop` by that, please notice: as noted above, this statement is not about the description of which does not exist, but rather about its behavior (or non-behavior) in reality: the nothing does not exist.

And eventually, above all, to prove that existence exists is axiom is the simplest thing is the world, beyond these rationalistic arguments, and any denial of the need to a primacy, to a first cause, to a beginning, shall be pointless, and will necessarily bring to a real ``infinite loop``. Every man with a proper mental status could implicitly recognize the nature of existence. So do the linguistic analytics and the post modernists. I am about to post this thread in order to those who actually get confuse from their rationalism.
(1) One can argue nothing assuming he and his arguments do not exist
(2) ==> Inferred from premise (1) there are two directions:
(2)a Any proof, the seek for something previous to or more primitive than existence, is false.
(2)b Any denial of existence, the seek for something that exists apart of existence, is false.



q.e.d



I am about to post this thread in order to disproving this torrent of nihilism which maintains that the most basic concept on which each of its claims and acts are based; is sort of an "infinite loop", a logical gibberish statement, which is so self-evident that it shouldn't be called a axiom but rather an unremarkable tautological trivia and thus a pure corollary of the axiom of identity. This argument is considered to be the "new wave equivalent and wise attack against O`ism from its very basis" among post-modern and analytic philosophers. To be noted, this consideration is not about whether "existence exists" (if one [a consideration] turned to be as such, I would stop participating in it): but, in essence, on its being an axiomatic concept. It's been pretty tough to selectively get all the whims out of my own head, though, assuming that the axiomatic concept of existence, does not actually exist.

Via abstraction (or classification) and equalization: Existence is an axiomatic concept. A concept equals a mental integration of two or more units with common characteristic(s) and with their particular measurements omitted. A unit equals a well-clarified identity. An identity is an entity. An entity equals an existence. The first idea a recently-born child observes is existence: There is something–––pointing of a bed, a tree on the street or his mother. Any of his latter claims, achieved by a process of introspection or extrospection, shall assume ahead the following: It exists. This is the full grasped meaning of the well called existence axiom.

The assumption: "The proposition 'existence exists' starts by existence and determines that, it exists. This statement is syntactically equivalent to the parallel X is Y; α belongs to p:pX, e.g., Henry is cute, the apple is red, women are unforeseeable etc. It considers a specific attribute of something which is, existence. As such, let us exam it as an axiom, according to its standard: Does existence exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask: Does the attribute of existence (from the above ``exists``) exist?–––etc."
(a) Consider the following: Does this assumption exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask, does the concept existence (from the above ``exists``) exist? That`s all.

There the linguistic analysis claims at that point that existence is an "attribute" (= a fact that differentiates a concept from another–––which leads to a contradiction of the above: There is no set called 'existence since there is nothing outside existence: From Russell's paradox, if a set is merely a great intersection it must not be called a set) since the following proposition is the simple "X is Y;" "α belongs to p:pX," in which statement they assume ahead their main future fallacy to find existence a 'meaningless' concept: that every proposition must never be any implicit self-evident. They assume that the claim 'existence exists' is supposed to consist of an axiomatic concept rather than 'existence'. They shall charter that "If something, anything [e.g., existence] exists, therefore certainly . . ." Yes, existence exists IS an axiom! There is no fundamental [or any] distinction between 'there is something' and 'there is existence'. Nevertheless, when saying 'there is' you assume ahead that 'there is' exists, so that the only reason for the rephrase is its context (the word "context" is used metaphorically over here).

The law of identity, therefore, may not replace it: and in its syntax, indeed, the subject is existence; the object: exists. The sentence does not refer to in given 'exists' (or i.e., something that exists), but simply to the fact of being existent as an existent. Every denial of any axiom leads to a self contradiction (existence exists is form as opposed to negative one: 'existence does not exist,' which is a deep and bad self contradiction but certainly not an 'infinite loop'): every axiom is a self evident that could be denied at any step of its evidence–––e.g., identity is not identity, we are not conscious of the fact we are conscious, I do not will to say I have a free will and as well, existence exists but not the 'exists'. Nevertheless, the axiom of identity which is contradicted in each of them cannot be the explanation of both of the couple of other axioms: Since the standard of axiom is not being an 'evidentless' but being in the basis of any human knowledge. Without existence, as well, no identity can exist. The standard of axiom, as noted above, is being in the basis of any human knowledge: the standard to a primacy axiom is not 'being not assumed ahead in others'–––if it were the primacy could be 'my whim is my whim'. It does nor, however, mean the Mickey Mouse has no identity: All it means is that nothing can exist without one. The facts of existence and identity, therefore, are not equivalent: they are fundamentally different axioms. Assuming that existence is a primacy over identity, the law of identity cannot be the proof to it.

Now read the fifth paragraph again.

To challenge you, I shall say that no certain nation consists any common fundamental characteristics – nation (in the conservative – collectivist and standardless context you have mentioned it) is only a group of individuals that holds that has any rights such as stealing a territory or having an economical relief to realize their own wills only by the fact it exist – that there exists a genetic proximity as a result of a faith or an arbitrary faith as a genetic result – although in effect even while getting farther away of a certain place or (mystical) ideology you can reproduce. Although, to clarify the facts of the a-correction about this anti concept named 'nationality,' I am about to analyze every of the well-know "clear" characteristics of the nation:
1) Language: In effect, concept are extract formed by perception and sensation of common, fundamental characteristics – and is given to be humanely taught relatively easily after choosing to think. Nothing about faith. (Although if you believe that faith shall be a cause to grammatical succession you actually do not know what a concept formation is.) Most highest purposes of the language, i.e., the visual or audience symbols you use to describe those concepts, are about precisely, fluency and communication. English language, today, is not "built" on any nation and is the most logical, aesthetical and business language. More over, a legislation to the need of keeping a language used shall not occur in a free society – i.e., a one that has a justification to exist.

2) Culture: Culture is the sum of intellectual achievements at a society by individuals with full or non-full to its laws and way of living. It does not set the laws nor the way of living of a state in a free society – but is set by them. It is not created by a mystical belief and not necessarily by the fact of a nation ('a group of individuals with a related belief that is united while arguing to a its own right to get regions to realize their ideas accordingly to their beliefs' – this definition is the real one to character those who call themselves 'national'. Their term is an anti-concept.) People that've been forced to renounce their property or to stay in a country that will sacrifice other rights of them are not given to represents in the exhibition of 'culture'.

3) Genetics: It might be true that X ideology believers group or Y country livers have some common genetic related characteristics, but it is irrelevant since those are qualified to live whenever they want a country or an ideology and still bring children to the world. There are also certain people who live in a country although the are suffering by its moral goodness (which is by the way very sad as exists).

4) Policy and history: It is maybe the closest argument here to reality – but that is only since it is the most far away one of the mystical-collectivist belief of the nationality – for the same reason it is no proper to justify nationality in considerated context. Arguments such as "I love Hong Kong because there is a relative freedom of market there" or for the sake of an illustration "I love New York since skyscrapers give me an emotion of joy" are crossing the short borderline that differentiates between the national subjectivism, the ''love" of something only since it is consistent in the arbitrary emotion of nationality which simply exists for no reason, "I think that X nation has a right to exist because I am one of it," and basing on an objective standard and on you own love by your own ultimate value, "I am just since I think that justice is right. X country is also just". Ms. Rand used to belong to that sort of state-evaluators.


This post is based on a lecture I had en my public school. After having that, teacher distinguished as an example that 'make-up is a characteristic of females although a male can have it too'. Now, as most of you know the objectivist theory of concept formation, although it includes some sexual stuff that no philosophy should analyze, -- what is the problematicalness in this argument. Can a concept be formed and differentiated from others although it has no definition or fundamental characteristic?

In our days in Israel, some quite important objectivist have left to the conservative, the more popular side, probably because of their hate to the left-wing side. Though, it is important to remember that those who deny any right to live and think that faith is upper than rationality are no better, at all.


T.R.

For sure: a child is not his parents property. But since:
a. his parents have made him
b. he cannot get alone as he is a child. It is his metaphysical nature.
c. he has rights because his rational faculty exists - but can become a real rationality only after growing up a bip
d. death is not the negative of living, but the stop of living, bound in anti life thoughts. Death ahead is worse than unliving ahead.
=> Parents who do not care for their child to be alive as they are normally and metaphysically able to.


T.R.