Allow Me to Introduce Myself

[Objectivist]

I would like to point out that Stolen Concept was conceived of as Ayn Rand's contribution mainly by herself and her worshipful acolytes.   Quick search shows it is named as a philosophical principle mainly on Conservapedia.    These acolytes seem either unaware or don't care that it is largely a wordy and rather colloquial restatement of something Aristotle had set out as a principle 2000 years before.   And I am not certain even Aristotle was by any means the first to set out such a principle.

Back in 2005 a guy named Tom Robinson pointed out here:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index...a-fallacy/

The "stolen concept" fallacy is simply the application of Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction, which holds "the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect." (Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 3. Translation by W.D. Ross.) In his Jan. 1963 Objectivist Newsletter article, "The Stolen Concept," Nathaniel Branden refers to Proudhon's "All property is theft" as an example of this fallacy. Yet the internal inconsistency of Proudhon's statement can be refuted just as easily by reference to Aristotle: the subject "property" cannot at the same time and same respect be both "rightfully owned" and not "rightfully owned."

I tend to agree. There is nothing new under the sun.

It's really irrelevant who first identified it or whether it's something new.  The only things that matters is if it is an error in thought or not.  If knowledge is hierarchical then it most definitely is a problem.  The fallacy of the stolen concept does indeed identify a type of contradiction, just as all fallacies do.  It's a specific type of contradiction which occurs under certain specific circumstances.  And, it's pervasive.  It goes unnoticed because of a lack of understanding of concepts and their formation.  Now regardless of who first identified the fallacy, the only people I ever here use it are Objectivists.  It's a shame because it is a very powerful tool against all kinds of nonsense.  Right now, all manner of purveyors of falsehood are getting away with it because virtually no one is aware of this fallacy.  I'm trying to do my part to bring awareness of it.  

If I could change one thing about the world with a wave of my hand it would be a change of how we educate our children.  they should be taught to reason.  They should be thought to think in terms of essentials and then they would be armed against philosophical garbage because they would be able to see the contradictions and stolen concepts involved.  

Not all stolen concepts are as easily recognized as the example you give above.  Knowing precisely what a stolen concept is will help in identifying them.  Simple calling it a contradiction isn't specific enough.

---

Although I am an atheist, that's not my worldview.  I'm an Objectivist.  As such I reject the notion of the supernatural in all its variations.  I won't be debating the existence of gods because I don't consider the existence of gods to be debatable.  Debate presupposes the primacy of existence principle, the notion of gods denies it.  Therefore, debating the existence of gods commits the fallacy of the stolen concept and so it is irrational.  I won't be asking anyone for evidence for gods because the concept evidence presupposes the primacy of existence which the notion of a god rejects.  I won't ask anyone for proof for the same reason.  Proof presupposes metaphysical objectivism, the notion of god rests on metaphysical subjectivism. Reason and logic both assume the primacy of existence and I won't set reason aside for the sake of argument.  

I am not so up on objectiveism but from what you wrote here it seems like you are making a claim that a god does not exist.  If not, then you have no means to know if a god exists.  Is this close to being correct?

What I'm saying is that using logic to try and argue for a god such as the god of the Bible, is a contradiction.  In order to debate the existence of a god, one would have to ignore the glaring contradiction involved with making use of logic while denying the primacy of existence in the content of one's conclusion.  The same goes for any argument attempting to prove the existence of the "supernatural" since logic is the applications of the law of identity and its various corollaries to something which transcends the law of identity.  In order to argue for the existence of a god, one is, whether he knows it or not, setting reason and logic aside for the sake of argument.  And that's a contradiction that can't be ignored.

---

Thank you very much EgoDeath.  I understand that most atheists are coming from the left.  I kind of have an idea why that is.  I wouldn't say that I'm exactly from the right though, even though most here would probably see me as coming from the right.  I'm not a libertarian either.  A lot of people confuse Objectivists with Libertarians.  There is some superficial resemblance between L and O.  But the differences are pretty deep.

Yea, it's actually pretty funny. I've been called alt-right by people on the far left, even here on this forum, and have been called a regressive leftist libtard by people on the far right, on another board I frequent; people can be so off about your political views because they'll make a general judgment about you based on one opinion.

I've talked to other members here at length in private messages about how easily the term alt-right gets thrown around. It seems to be a placard given to anyone who doesn't check the correct boxes for whoever is making the accusation. You don't think trans women should be allowed to compete in a body building competition? You're an alt-right, nazi piece of shit! Although, it won't be said so explicitly, usually. It will be subtly, or not so subtly, implied, lest they be incorrect in their judgment, they can always backpedal on it later.

It is what it is.

Best I can say is be clear and concise in your speech. Glad to have you here, regardless.  I

It's a smear most of the time.  Of course, there are alt-right people out there but the way it's being used is as a bludgeon against anyone who disagrees.  It's meant to silence and discredit in many cases.  I'm sure that I would or have been labeled alt-right as well.  I've had the same experience as you have.  Leftists hate me and so do those on the right.  I've had some knock-down fights with conservatives and Tea Party people.  I told them their movement would fail and exactly why and I was right, it did.