Paul,
I didn't want to hijack your thread but in it you state:
"Also, objectivists tell us that if one denies an axiom he even has to presuppose it to deny it. So, if I deny "existence exists" they say that I have to exist to utter the sentence. I'll let 'em have that. But this doesn't get you to "all that exists is matter." Show me the self-referential fallacy there?"
I guess you are referring to their so called 'fallacy of stolen concept' here?
When they claim that someone has committed this fallacy and proves them correct, would that not just be question begging?
I was think that unless they are able to show that a concept everywhere and always genetically depends on another concept, they are not justified in saying that someone using or affirming the first concept while denying the second concept is guilty of self-contradiction (let alone a fallacy).
Your thoughts? Do you think it's an actual fallacy?
Don
I didn't want to hijack your thread but in it you state:
"Also, objectivists tell us that if one denies an axiom he even has to presuppose it to deny it. So, if I deny "existence exists" they say that I have to exist to utter the sentence. I'll let 'em have that. But this doesn't get you to "all that exists is matter." Show me the self-referential fallacy there?"
I guess you are referring to their so called 'fallacy of stolen concept' here?
When they claim that someone has committed this fallacy and proves them correct, would that not just be question begging?
I was think that unless they are able to show that a concept everywhere and always genetically depends on another concept, they are not justified in saying that someone using or affirming the first concept while denying the second concept is guilty of self-contradiction (let alone a fallacy).
Your thoughts? Do you think it's an actual fallacy?
Don
