As the above was written by Ayn Rand, well then, it must be true.
This is irony (or perhaps a poor attempt at). The comment was made in response to the way yourself and Plasmatic cite Rand as if she is some kind of authority on anything. I object to objectivism not Rand herself. My only problem with her is that she is the one who came up with the Ojectivism (and that she needs a lexicon
Her 'philosophy' is crap.
Furnish me with an example of something which is, or can be looked at, objectively.
True Philosophers such as Plato expect you to read their work and think for yourself.
There is thinking and there is thinking. The likes of Plato and Aristotle write in an entirely different way than do modern writers (not just Rand). If one studies Plato in the modern sense of the word then one will not hear what he is saying. One has to study Rand in the modern sense because it does not have the depth of Plato (or Aristotle). Rand is WYSIWYG, Plato is most certainly not.
If you wish to be objective consider this. Rand's work has been around for approximately half a century what impact has it made?
The true greatness of Objectivism is that it gives you the tool - the methodology: how to identify the non-contradictionary reality. The thinking is up to you.
Just what the world needs, yet another methodology. What non-contradictory reality? What contradictory reality?
Why was my list of others to be dismissed fallacious reasoning?
to which you replied
Your premise: that she says it.
That was not my premise. My premise was as you quoted directly below that:
They all essentially agree with Plato on there being a world of the senses and an underlying Reality beyond it, etc.
Is this a subjective (non-)reality (religion) or an objective reality? That's the issue.
What the hell does this mean? What is a 'subjective (non) reality (religion') or an 'objective reality'? And for that matter, why did you bring in religion? I am not, never have been nor ever will be a member of a religion. Nor is Plato's philosophy in any way religious.
It depends on the above mentioned distinction between a subjective approach (religious) or an objective approach (scientific).
This is a false dichotomy. Where is it written that things can only be viewed through the lens of religion or science. I do not think in terms of either. In fact, I tend to avoid both like the plague. I've never lived in a pigeon-hole in my life and I'm too old to climb into one now.
Have you read either Plato or Aristotle or is that the opinion of St. Ayn? Could you furnish any examples of where Aristotle refutes Plato?
To which you answered
A is A - Rand completes the law of identity: Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. Plato does not draw the line between reality and fantasy.
I'll take that as a 'no' then. The first sentence is just you parroting Rand and the second sentence is meaningless.
Rand misrepresents both Aristotle and Plato in order to boost her own case. For example, that definition of Platonic Realism from her lexicon is at best a gross-oversimplication and at worse...
to which you replied
...an undeniable fact. All one has to do is read through the endless religious kumbayah presented by platonist on this very forum to understand that she's right.
I know it's a fact. I cannot recall ever seeing anyone pushing any religious doctrine on the forum. If I'd have seen it I would probably have attacked it.
For the record the definition of religion I am using here is the common one of 'a set of organised beliefs and practices', not my own definition, which is 'state-controlled spirituality'.
I notice that you did not address the Aristotle quotes. I was wondering how you or Rand explain away Aristotle's use of the dreaded 'g' word. I posted the quotes in response to your statenment
Another thing: To claim that Aristotle in essence agrees with Plato is...how should I put it...somewhat amazing.
Incidentally, those quotes (well, most of them) are taken from the part of Aristotle's Metaphysics dealing with motion so I wasn't, technically, too far off-topic. He also mentions time in that part too.