One of the commies on the board has linked http://philosophy7.blogspot.com/ . Some guy provides a theory that is the complete opposite of Objectivism. The core of his theory ("ecoism") seems to be this:

If you read any of my other writings on existence, you will see my position. "A is A" is a myth. Just like math, it is perceived and unprovable! There may or may not be A, but there is a perception that A is A. I may be looking at a blank piece of paper and perceive there to be an "A", or -for that matter- I could be looking at a "B" and see "A". And there is no proof to justify the existence of "A"!

And then the guy goes on to provide more "facts" of this. The first contradictions after the introducing paragraphs comes early in the text:

Oh, but the Objectivists retort that an objective reality is independent of mind. Once again, is this true? Can I prove it? Can you? Like Freud proved, no one can know everything that goes on in one's head.

Since nothing can be proved, he claims, HOW THE HELL DID FREUD PROVE ANYTHING???

I won't read a word more of that s(h)ite before this contradiction has been resolved. Anyone?

Is that all the opposition has to offer? Its hardly worth getting up for.

I'm afraid that the author of that blog, ComradeRed, is quite banned.

Now there's a website that wasn't worth the mouse-click I gave it.

Looks like the site-owner is replying to me. Here it is:

Once again, I feel obligated to pointout this is not a rational statement, such reckless belligerence and hate is quite irrational! But I will answer the question anways(!), this fellow is reffering to my previous statement (If you read any of my other writings on existence, you will see my position. "A is A" is a myth. Just like math, it is perceived and unprovable! There may or may not be A, but there is a perception that A is A. I may be looking at a blank piece of paper and perceive there to be an "A", or -for that matter- I could be looking at a "B" and see "A". And there is no proof to justify the existence of "A"!) and asserting that I said all proof is false.

However, I said that there is no proof to justify neither "A is A" nor an Objective reality. For example: one may or may not believe in the modern atomic theory, but there is proof of atoms and apparati which can demonstrate atoms are there(!). Irrelevant to whether one believes in the Bohr's model or the electron probability model, atoms are there.

Likewise, I do not outright deny any possiblity of an objecitive reality, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF to justify the claim. And how logical is it to blindly believe in a thing which cannot be proven?

Remember what I said: I believe in what can be proven. True, no one can prove Freud existed, but since the writings have been attributed to his name, I give credit to the good Doctor who may or may not have existed.

But "how did he prove anything?" Well, once again, it has to deal with perception. One perceives freud to have "proved" something or not. I am not an objective judge who can say "yep, he proved something all right", no one is! One can only perceive the idea that Freud "proved" something or didn't. I can't prove he AND NEITHER CAN YOU!


Comments?

Don't waste your breath on this guy. The thing he spends his time so viciously undermining is the very foundations of thought itself.

No, nobody can PROVE that reality exists. I told him this at least 4 times. But he wouldn't shut up.

"PROVE IT! PROVE IT! PROVE IT! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!"

Of course not, fool. But I can present a choice: either believe it, or collapse in a heap on the floor and never utter another word. Because if you don't believe it, then all thought and rationality are not possible.

I can and have PROVEN that.

Pardon my asking, but what do you gain by arguing with such a deranged lunatic. I can tell you right now that no matter how solid a response you pose, he won't accept it.

He sounds like a logical positivist. The most corrosive mind poision known to man.

I would suggest boning up on the analytic / synthetic dichotomy if you're going to grapple with him.

He's a complete solipsist however so it'll be a waste of your good time.

Exactly.

Besides, it wouldn't be very sightly when...

"I come to bring you present for warming of house; instead I find you grappling with local oaf."
:D