Yes, but then as now, I was using my own wording. Here argument means exactly the same as mine, but is much longer, so mine is meant to give only the essential meaning. I do believe any died-in-the-wool objectivist would disagree with my explication.
Let us first establish that we are discussing moral principles ...
We can certainly get back to that subject if you like, but my post was specifically to your post (that's where it started) 801, where you said, "Judging from the AR quote you posted on axioms, Ayn Rand's definition of axiom is no different than the definition of absolute - are these synonyms? The dictionary defines axiom ...."
I was explaining what objectivists mean by axioms which is quite different from what you and others have implied.
The problem is with all this discussion, no one bothers with fundamental principles. For example, what do you think a value is? What is good? What is bad?
I think we have gone as far as we can with this. Some agreement in the philosophy of ethics, and before that, epistemology is required, I think. We are not going to agree on these, I believe, because you are a mystic and I reject all mysticism.
Hank
Still waiting for you to tell us....
We are not going to agree on these, I believe, because you are a mystic and I reject all mysticism.
.... chortle ....