humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:13:12 -0800, Charles Bell
wrote:

>On Mar 8, 1:53 pm, Malrassic Park wrote:
.
>> To bring man's intellect into the picture is to reverse the process of
>> reducing philosophy to psychology,
>
>No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Rand produced little if any philosophy in ITOE, merely
passing from neurology to psychology.

>> which is ITOE in a nutshell.
>
>No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

>Aren't you getting tired of making ridiculous unsupported claims?

That is an example of the fallacy of the complex question.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

>You say white is black, and everyone is supposed to hang on your very
>word.

You appear to be doing so, at least.

>You have not even got passed the nonsense of claiming that Rand really
>meant to use "universals" when she rejected them outright.

Yes, I have. She "rejected" them by asserting a new formula: concepts
are abstractions or universals. That is an example of the fallacy of
the petitio principii.

>> Therefore there is no schizophrenia or any other mention of psychology
>> in my theory.
.
>You don't have a clue. Schizophrenia is a mental condition where the
>"concept" drives the "perception" He "sees"or "hears" what is already
>contained in the mind. Your voo-doo philosophy is the same -- getting
>the cart before the horse.

No, it isn't.
--
We usually go over the top w/ our new found freedoms.
Unfortunately, her 'followers' are as radical as Pat
Robertson's. Discernment goes out the window.
- A youtube poster