Originally Posted by Ubereil
See the claim in the same light as "Hitler was ammoral" - it wasn't that she was void of morality, it was that the morality she beleived in was the opposite of what most pepole consider to be moral.
Well, if you start with her analysis of metaphysics: my brother refers to it as "naive objectivism", which I find to be an accurate term. It felt a lot like a rationalization for why what she said was to be taken as gospel - "You just have to look at the world and then think and you'll come to the right conclusiong. IE my conclusion - if you come to some other conclusion you haven't thought rationally enough". Here is an interesting article on the matter.
So, that's basically the foundation of her theory - a flawed basic premise and a following that doesn't follow from said premise. Which does come off as rather amateurish.
And yes, I'm aware that I never really argue against what she actually said. That's because what she said was really long, which means the answer would have to be really long to explain all the flaws with it. In short the problem with it is that she assumes humans have an accurate view of the world. Our view of the world really is what the world looks like. I always think of LSD when someone brings it up. LSD and disagreement between pepole about what the world is like.