Reddit reviews Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second/dp/0452010306

Dude, stop this. You shouldn't be defending Objectivism until you have read and understood Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and OPAR.

If you're trolling then... well fuck you.

As I understand, it was Aristotle who first argued that genuine, metaphysical/epistemic axioms were defended by showing a performative contradiction in anyone's act of denying them.

Since they are truly foundational, with respect to conceptual thought, they can't be argued for conceptually, but only seen as self-evident in perception. One can then show that anyone else must use them, even in the act of denying them.

This is also the tack that Objectivism takes in regard to its axioms. You may find this post of interest: The Axioms of Objectivism.

Also, have you ever read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Part of it deals with axiomatic concepts.

No, they are the examples. It's the fundamental wrongdoings of postmodernism. They literally disagree with the primary axiom of logic itself that A is A, B is B, that something can not be both A and B at the same time and that all things must act according to their nature; i.e. identity.

This can in its simplest form directly translate to "I feel like [wrong gender], so I must be a [wrong gender]."

The second simply means that they think you can never infer the morality of any action from the state of that which exists. E.g. the fact that you inherit X amount of money does not morally entail that you should use it to pay off debt.

In short if you subscribe to the is-ought dichotomy, it is impossible to logically justify any moral imperative whatsoever except nihilism. In this space principles are arbitrary, and there is no moral doctrine incabeable of morally justifying obvious Hitler-level evils.

With regards to "sometimes objective, sometimes subjective": Something is subjective XOR objective. This follows from the fact they are contradictory properties. Relevant to this topic is the problem of universals, in which postmodernists argue universals are created at will- and only exists in the minds of that which percieves them. See wikipedia. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology quite savagely destroys the postmodernist position and is probably an enjoyable read even if you're not an objectivist.

P.S. It's late and I don't want to run everything through spellcheck, so I might mistype some words etc., hope you don't mind.

I advise folks to skip all her fiction and read Intro to Objectivist Epistemology. Saves many hours and many misconceptions.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second/dp/0452010306