A = A

Absolute nonsense. You would not be here making such absurd statements if that were the case.

Ok, but how is that a contradiction, precisely?

Existence as the sum total of things that exist is an idea, it is not an object in the world. That's not to say it isn't a valid idea, or that objects are "not real" in the unqualified idealist sense. It just means that the idea that we use to distinguish particular objects from ideas (i.e. that they exist) can't be applied to itself.

Who needs to argue for THAT? Are you actually retarded?

underrated

The quality of existence can be said to exist. Without which nothing could exist. To exist is to have existence. Existence exists.

prove that A equals A and that A equaling A means existence exists

Ah. You are incapable of backing up your claims and expect them to be accepted on face value, I see.

They are necessarily true. If A was not A nothing would make sense, there would be no basis for understanding and everything you say would be gibberish. Although, despite A being A you still came dangerously close to that last part.

Listen. Anyone who has read any economics or political economy knows that Ayn Rand’s system is impracticable. The problem is that she asks for no taxation whatsoever. This cannot be accomplished in the real world, because the State has exigencies that need to be met, or investments that need to be made for the good of society. If everyone just did what was profitable, society would never progress.

Furthermore, her system is morally flawed. She thinks that selfishness is a virtue. This is what she says, and what she means, I didn’t take this out of context, it’s the title of one of her ‘’’’’’’’’’non-fiction’’’’’’’’’’’’ books. This is against almost every religion, which exhorts you to give.

Nothing against usury in her philosophy, which morally destroys a society, I would say it’s almost exhorted.

That things can't exist without existence is only a formal consideration. That is, the idea of a thing is not added to by the concept of existence. Existence merely denotes the certain state of a thing as a particular empirical object, which is why it is considered the "copula." It is a logical predicate. Do you believe that "necessity" exists by the very definition of its conception?

In other words, in order to say that something "exists," we have to come to the conclusion through experience that the thing can be said to have objective reality. In order to say "existence exists," we would have to experience this pure state of objective reality removed from any object, which is impossible.

>It's true because it's useful
t.
Also yes, moron, all arguments and communication are based on assumed mutual understanding of at least something.

Attached: 1507455206419.jpg (800x450, 15K)

This is a non-sequitur. I did not ask people to disprove her economics, or her morality; although I did enjoy your hamfisted appeal to religion in plural as though that would convince anyone of anything. I made a post asking people to disprove her metaphysics, and so far you have all failed, and that is when the rare few of you have managed to stay on topic.

It is true because it is true. It if it was not what it is it would not be what it is. You appear to having trouble with the single simplest foundational point of human thought. Maybe the MLP board would be more your speed.

The idea of existence and the quality of existing are not the same, so A = A does not imply that existence exists. We can certainly say that the idea of existence exists, obviously, but this in no way means that objects in the world exist outside of us or that we exist ourselves.

This does not follow actually. Based on our responses. In my first post I denounced the philosophy of Rand by showing how simplistic and airy that axiom is. No one is asserting A isn’t A. She’s not wrong.

It’s just inherently a silly argument.

>it's true because it is true
This was never established, can please prove that it's true?

Kantian nonsense. It boggles my mind the lengths people go to justify their subjective fancies when reality is right in front of their nose.

can you*

You showed nothing. You made a memepost, a bold assertion and expected people to just accept it religiously.

>and I need no strong man
She actually does both in the books and in her personal life

Because A = A. A thing can not be what it is not.

Why are Objectivists so unjustifiably supercilious?

Attached: dude.jpg (736x916, 260K)

Present a non-contradictory account of why A is not A and maybe I will take you seriously.