All philosophies like Objectivism that spread are virus-like movements.
The followers have various
symptoms in common which don't generally differ, from virus to virus. The
Objectivism
virus exemplified by David's posts has something in common with viruses
that
have been around longer such as Hegelian Dialecticism and Socialism. One
of those symptoms is
holding inflexible, circular axiom systems. Such acceptance of immutable
rules makes people
controllable by mental reflexes. People become incapable of questioning
their assumptions and
have no way to detect errors, even if they are wrong. When they find
exceptions or uncovered territory, they then turn to the mental reflexes
derived from the axioms. Examples of axiomatic notions are
shown by the following questions and statements that come from old
viruses that
have originated outside of CoV.
[End paragraph and demonstration of projection by respondent]
I (asserter) received this answer to my question:
>This is a question about whether a point of view does not need to
include the
>Objectivist axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity. Obviously,
a point
>of view must include a viewer (consciousness) and a view (existence).
It's like
>asking if there are points of view that are not points of view. Such a
question
>does not deserve an answer.
Faced with a question that points out a glaring deficiency in an
axiomatic system, the respondent reflexes back to the axioms, cannot
reconcile the deficiency, and winds up concluding that the question is
nonsensical, and therefore does not deserve an answer, which relieves the
deficiency - but only for the holder of the circular axiomatic system.
Here's another circularly axiomatic response to an assertion questioning
a circularly axiomatic system: