tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2163404392522402567..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Petersen’s Failed Attempts to Refute Leonard Peikoff: Objection 3Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47591914744914809682014-10-20T16:04:45.541-04:002014-10-20T16:04:45.541-04:00Petersen // How is it, however, that the law of co...Petersen // How is it, however, that the law of contradiction can be derived from the external world without first assuming it? //<br /><br />A =\= ¬A is not derived or deduced. It is directly sensed and automatically differentiated and integrated by our brain's perceptual cortices. Petersen refuses to think outside his abstract rationalism paradigm. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-6368146760713429572014-10-15T13:40:18.068-04:002014-10-15T13:40:18.068-04:00Should have been "wait for it".
:)Should have been "wait for it".<br /><br />:)l_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84143480523045815822014-10-15T13:39:49.804-04:002014-10-15T13:39:49.804-04:00Well, Mr Petersen also stated that "existence...Well, Mr Petersen also stated that "existence exists" is irrelevant since it...(what for it!)...does not exist!l_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8827834099302375962014-10-15T11:43:13.875-04:002014-10-15T11:43:13.875-04:00Petersen asks: "How is it, however, that the ...Petersen asks: "How is it, however, that the law of contradiction can be derived from the external world without first assuming it?"<br /><br />Seriously, Petersen doesn't know the answer to this question? I'm sorry for him. His ignorance has really gotten the better of him. I guess the response to this question that Petersen expects must be something akin to "<a href="http://www.katholon.com/duh15.wav" rel="nofollow">Duh, I donno! Must be goddidit!</a>"<br /><br />Is that supposed to help Petersen's case for anything?<br /><br />I'm glad these aren't my problems.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47950388670548359082014-10-15T11:23:28.912-04:002014-10-15T11:23:28.912-04:00I have enjoyed watching as Dawson laid to rest Pet...I have enjoyed watching as Dawson laid to rest Petersen's so-called response to Peikoff's objections to the existence of God.<br /><br />However, I went back to have another squint at Jason's original response to Dawson's preamble. It's a real goldmine of plain old stupidity and a thorough misunderstanding or what Objectivism teaches.<br /><br />Take this for example:<br /><i>An objectivist such as Bethrick will argue that all proof presupposes existence. However, existence presupposes the law of contradiction. After all, when the objectivist says, “existence exists,” they are not saying “existence does not exist.” So then, what is presumed to demonstrate existence? The law of contradiction. How is it, however, that the law of contradiction can be derived from the external world without first assuming it? Objectivists unwittingly presuppose logic in order to defend objectivism.</i><br /><br />Oh dear...freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.com