RoR: Forum

Post 40

Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 2:48pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Bill,

Taking just one of your examples, it looks to me like the validity of absolutes *is* being denied but depended upon in the claim, "there are no absolutes," which would fit the criterion for the stolen concept fallacy in addition to the self-exclusion fallacy. The latter fallacy still seems like a subset of the former.

Jordan

Post 41

Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 8:09am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Jordan,

Look once again at the definition of the stolen concept: It "consists of the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends." I wouldn't say that the concept "absolute" depends on the concept "absolute." Generally, we say that one thing "depends on" another; we don't say that it depends on itself.

- Bill

Post 42

Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 9:40am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

I see. I was thinking it's could be a stolen concept if the whole *premise*, as opposed to just a concept contained in the premise, denies a concept upon which the premise depends. The premise ignores but depends on the existence of absolutes

Jordan

What is original to Objectivism