-
@ Kevin's Bacon
2025-02-19 02:08:19
Well I would say that they cannot be denied, but rather than not being deduced from any other things, I would say there may be equivalent formulations that one person innately beholds that another person does not. A is A could be formulated as A->B; B->A; B
This B might correspond to a specific concept beheld explicitly by some but not others, while still never contradicting that A is A. Knowledge of B might be innate, or due to prior reasoning, or for whatever reason that you know something B is true if and only if A is true.
This is the fundamental reason for the rejection of God by many Objectivists, I think. They forget about logical equivalencies and then ignore the concepts in other people's minds that sound wrong to them that they don't personally KNOW about. Existence is assumed and logic is assumed, excellent starting points, except they start with a very specific definition of existence, and they refuse from that moment on to acknowledge that certain Bs could exist for all they know. No offense. I just think it is an actual fallacy at play wherein you ignore interpretations other than your own, via starting your entire philosophy from a convenient definition that hides the boogeyman, then using justifications for it when arguing about it that apply only to your particular definition of your axiomatic claim.
In other, less precise words, Objectivists simply have faith that there is no God and then tell themselves that it's because they believe in logic, as if it were deducible from pure logic alone in the mind of a theist or an agnostic, who may well have a valid claim of understanding or even, perhaps, one that is true.
Again, no disrespect. Just trying to pick and pry lol!