Why Atlas Shrugged Changes Lives

http://www.aynrandcenter.org/

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Atlas
• Shrugged
• Objectivist
• Center
• for
• Individual
• Rights
• Institute
• Objectivism
• Debi
• Ghate

[britishbrainz]

@KellyAnnOR 1.There IS proof. I didn't say the concept of proof does not exist. 2. Validation is a concept wider than proof: because proof requires antecedent evidence, and there is naturally none for the first principle: existence exists. 3. All other philosophy is flawed in some way. Name a philosophy, give me its branches and I will show you how it is flawed and in error. Rand identified and completed philosophy as far and as wide as the subject "philosophy' goes.

[KellyAnnOR]

@britishbrainz Now what do you mean by "validation"? Do you mean "we can show it is consistent"? If that is the case, I have no doubt that Objectivism may be validated.

However, you're making a very bold statement by saying it is "the only correct, complete philosophy".

What makes it "correct" when we've discarded the concept of philosophical proof? And when we've accepted it as a system of belief? And as a second part, how can you know it is the only "correct" belief?

[KellyAnnOR]

@britishbrainz So you claim there is no such thing as a philosophical proof. Don't take my word for it. Google "philosophical proof" and see what you find =).

Godel's assertion was that a system for providing complete proofs for all axioms, relations, etc are impossible. Not that mathematical truth was impossible.

Why is truth possible? Because math is a system we define. We can "prove" 1+1 = 2 because that we establish the meaning of addition and equality first

[britishbrainz]

@KellyAnnOR All other philosophy except Ayn Rand's Objectivism is flawed and wrong. Not because I say so (whom am I to say so) but because it can be proved to be so.

[britishbrainz]

@KellyAnnOR Incorrect "Philosophical proofs exist just as mathematical proofs do." [1] Math and Science comes after, not before philosophy. [2] All math axioms are not be proved (Godel's theorem); whereas Ayn Rand's philosophy - the only correct, complete philosophy - can be validated [huge distinction].

[KellyAnnOR]

@KellyAnnOR Oh and for a good example, have a look at logical positivism or a similar philosophy based entirely on logical proof.

[KellyAnnOR]

@britishbrainz I disagree that all philosophy is "nothing but beliefs". Strong philosophical arguments are always grounded in logic. This is why I initially became interested in your comments. Because they appeared to follow a logical pattern of assertive statements and conclusions.

Philosophical proofs exist just as mathematical proofs do. They simply must be constructed with much more care, as language does not have the same.. discipline as math.

[britishbrainz]

@KellyAnnOR [..continuing]. 3/ Objectivism is not 'religion'. A religion is mysticism, belief in something that can not be proven nor validated. Objectivism can be validated by..... YOU ! In point '2': I showed that you can't even deny it (circular logic). 4/ So you are left with "Existence exists". But how do you know? Consciousness validated. But is this the truth? Law of identity (Aristotle) validated. That's the whole of metaphysics! Ayn Rand has the only correct, complete philosophy.

[britishbrainz]

@KellyAnnOR 1/ I have never read her fictions (yet). I have only read her works on philosophy (facts). 2/ All philosophy is nothing but 'beliefs'. However there is a difference between believing what is Objective so, and what is merely subjective. For example: I showed you how to validate 'existence'. I also showed you that if you "deny" existence (i.e. wrong belief) then you run into the circular logic of "denying that which does Not exist in the first place, from your point of view' (circular)

[KellyAnnOR]

@britishbrainz The most fun thing of all is that you haven't answered any real arguments against Objectivism. Because you HAVE nothing except belief. Belief in a book that you most likely read as a teenager and became entirely fixated upon to the exclusion of all else. You even lurk the web in an attempt to convert others to your system of belief.

Now I'm fine with this. But call it what it is; your religion. Or prove centuries of better thinkers wrong. On YouTube. LOL