humanities.philosophy.objectivism

I also keep forgetting to point out that you make something of the
fact that Rand in her forward to ITOE did mention "concepts are
abstractions or universals" in relation to the so-called "problem of
the universals". However, never once did she use the word "universal"
again in the entire exposition of ITOE, for though she considered it a
valid question (or "problem") to answer what are concepts and what are
abstractions, it was to be done *without* "universals." "To what
precisely do concepts refer in reality?" she asks. Her answer, as I
have said, is to throw out what are known as "universals" the modern
version of Plato's Forms. She says things like: "A concept is a
mental integration of two or more units possessing the same
distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements
omitted." She never refers to concept-formation as involving *apriori*
concepts or anything that is not based in a reality which is not
ultimately knowable, as in beyond direct apprehension: identifying
relationships to *perceptual* data.

Your petitio principii is to identify conceptual relationships to
other *concepts* [apriori] not necessarily with any recourse at all to
perceptual data.
.