| | I always understood "objectivist" arguments as those with logic-based premises which can be understood by all, and which can not be contested by a relativist viewpoint. This is in contrast to subjectivist arguments, which are in the form of "for me, x is (or is not) true." I offered an article I wrote, which by any reasonable definition can be understood as an objective argument for the existence of a Prime Mover.
Did so-called "Objectivists" just arbitrarily pick that name to call themselves, or is it just that the "Objectivists" of today, much like the two major American political parties, have little, if anything, in common with their roots? My offering was very much within the realm of objectivist thought and it seems that it has been effectively dismissed because it doesn't "fit in" with the majority of "objectivist" positions.
I'll put my article on the discussion boards, and whether or not I make an objective argument can be determined by the masses. If I do not, I stand corrected. But it's certainly not an article of any other sort, as far as I can tell.
|
|
... I'll even provide graphics!
