> .... what I meant by "circular and closed like mathematical axioms" was
> that in mathematics different sets of axioms can be valid, unlike in
> philosophy, where only the axioms of objectivism are valid.
(He held his breath, thinking that we could be on the brink of Satori, but
afraid to move lest it all crumbled. And then, without thinking, he
acted...)
Yes, David, philosophy *IS* like mathematics in this respect! Different
sets of axioms /can/ be valid. Not just objectivist's. That's been the
point of this whole debate!!!
(We're so very, very close to closure here...)
Now, David, why can't other axioms/philosophies have validity as well.
Validity isn't a limited resource. It doesn't decrease Objectivism for
other systems to be as valid, to other individuals with other axioms.
I think there's an analogy between this kind of closed thinking ("only the
axioms of objectivism are valid") and Christians that don't want other
religions taught side-by-side with Christianity. My personal view has
always been that any God (or philosophy) that is scared of a little
competition isn't worth my time.
-Prof. Tim