HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: what i think of ayn rand
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:16:58 GMT

Robert B. MacMillan <RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>after having read the fountainhead, i can honestly say that i think she
>is one of the most talented writers in the western world.
>that was my first opinion.  my second is that she has the shittiest most
>reprehensible, pseudo-fascist philosophy i have ever had the misfortune to
>read.  i am glad she's dead.

Well, I really enjoy "The Fountainhead" whenever I read it, but mainly
because I agree with the philosophy expressed.  When I first read the 
book, I couldn't believe that someone had written the way _I_ felt.
The same is true with "Atlas Shrugged"; I agree with the actions of the
"heroes".

My father, however, did not like the book, because he didn't agree with
her philosophy. (He calls her the "selfish philosopher"; how appropriate!)
My friend's dad said that Ayn Rand's writing style was "a little dry".(?!?)


>help, someone, please recommend me something that will make me feel different
>about this cold-hearted bitch who can write like no one i've ever seen...

Well, first of all, start capitalizing your "I"s! Maybe you should
read "Anthem"!

Second, I think it would be inappropriate to "convince" someone to
"like" Ayn Rand's philosophy - esp after the person has read "TF". 
Maybe you can try reading "Atlas Shrugged"?

Third, reading one of the many biographies of Ayn Rand will NOT make
you feel different.  She kind of WAS a cold-hearted bitch in her
personal life.  But, that's Ayn Rand.  If she was any different, she
probably never would have finished "Atlas Shrugged".

Peter J Nelson

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:09:16 GMT
Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

In article <TORKEL.93Jan21194341@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.144005.26462@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
|> (Robert Baruch) writes:
|> 
|>>If you tell me that A is a collection of symbols without meaning (which
|>>happen to spell "A is false"), then I will agree to your definition, and
|>>state that it is a meaningful definition now that you declare A to be 
|>>without meaning.
|> 
|>   Actually "declaring A to be without meaning" does not enter into it.
|> But the essential point is indeed that A is defined as a sentence,
|> that is, syntactically, independent of questions of meaning. Suppose
|> we define four sentences A, B, C, D by
|> 
|>      A = "The sentence A is false"
|>      B = "The sentence D is false"
|>      C = "The sentence D is true and false"
|>      D = "1+1=2

Whether A has meaning or not enter into it when you demand that
meaning be conceived constructively, i.e. from the bottom up.
If the parts of the sentence A have not _already_ been equipped
with meaning, then A cannot have meaning.

What you do, is that you start out by assuming the sentence A has
meaning [!], and firstly after that set out to find what that
meaning should happen to be. And since you approach those self-
referencing sentences from the top and down, there's no wonder
you mess yourself into problems.

|>   Now a possible way out is to suggest that the sentence A is not in
|> fact a meaningful English sentence, unlike B,C,D. Here is where your
|> comments are inadequate. For what you say boils down to only this,
|> that A is meaningless because it is paradoxical. This is not very
illuminating,
|> for it does not give us any insight at all into what uses of the predicate
|> "x is a true sentence" are meaningful, and how such meaningful uses
|> can be understood. In short, philosophers have wanted to do better.


The sentence is not meaningless because it is paradoxical, but because
it is not constructive, i.e. built from elements already possessing
meaning. Paradoxical sentences just happen to be non-constructive, and
therefore meaningless. It is because they are meaningless that they
can appear to be paradoxical. If I recognize your name right, you are
a mathematician (from Sweden), so you should know this.


Solan
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Private Roads in an Objectivist Society
Keywords: Private Roads
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:06:45 GMT

In article <C10Fo2.M5A@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>frankp@galena.bellcore.com (Frank Perez) writes:
}
}>}This might sound a little ridiculous, but what if I own a house and the local
}>}road is owned by someone else and that person does not let me use his road.
}>}I now have a house but I cannot enter it because all the local streets
}>}surrounding the house are owned by this person who will not let me use his
}>}road. Do you see a possible problem ?
}
}>First, this market failure would be rare.  Second, few juries would convict
}>you of tresspassing unless you did much damage as a result.
}
}The question is how rare it would be, and what level of failure
}would be tolerable in such a society.  People do get into feuds,
}and bear grudges.  As far as damage goes, the road owner could
}do something like put a streetlight right in front of the driveway
}of the houseowner, so getting a car in and out would knock it down.

The rarity would be great that any homeowner would sell away their property
right in the road leading away from their driveway.

}If this ever gets to the jury stage, does it not seem like a
}ridiculous waste of resources?

Yep.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown)
Subject: Re: Active vs. Passive Injury of Others
Keywords: Ayn_Rand,Abortion,Georges_Sorel
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:05:16 GMT

In article <C1895I.D38@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.192730.7421@mks.com>, hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown) writes...
>>The Objectivist position (elaborated only by Peikoff in lecture as far
>>as I know) is that abortion even up to birth is legitimate but
>>indicates a certain immorality (for lack of a better word) because the
>>woman could easily have decided much earlier than that late date.
>>As such, it is indicative of a failure to think or decide.
>
>	Okay.  Makes sense.
>
>
>>Clarification on entity in this context:  entity refers to the
>>separateness and independence.  (please do not misconstrue me
>>to mean that 3-year-olds are not independent thus abortable.)
>>The fetus is attached to the mother and cannot live without her.
>
>	Wait a minute.  You just said that abortion "even up to birth"
>involved immorality because it could have been done earlier.  But
>then you seek to justify abortion by bringing up the notion of
>entity.  Is a late abortion a little immoral or not immoral at all?
>If it is not immoral, why should a late abortion even have a tiny
>hint of immorality?

Admittedly, I did not present the argument clearly.
Let me restate the argument (with clarification).  The Objectivist position
is that abortion even up to birth is legitimate.  If a woman 
conceives inadvertently, and decides she will not have the resulting child,
she may choose to abort.  It is a recognition of an error and an action
taken to correct the first act.  (This is my own elaboration and not
related to Peikoff's explanation.)  Deciding to abort in the first trimester
seems to me a clear statement of that intent.  An abortion in the third
trimester seems to me to reflect irresolution:  Do I want it or not?
What do other people think? What should I do?

Insofar as it indicates a failure to think, such indecisiveness is
wrong.  You will note in the first formulation I said,  
	"indicates a certain immorality (for lack of a better word)"
It was this idea of disapproval for the failure to decide that I was
referring to as "immoral."  

Is this clearer? There are two ideas here:
what makes abortion moral and what makes indecision on this matter
wrong.

>
>	Do you see my point?  Explanation?
>
>Mark Sulkowski
-- 
hugh@mks.com

Mortice Kern Systems
35 King Street North
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: Actors as Rand Characters (Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture)
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:31:58 GMT

20 years ago, Faye Dunaway (sp) would have made a terrific Dagny.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:17:38 CST
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
 <C0nJw2.FEx@newcastle.ac.uk> <1993Jan13.023535.13045@shearson.com>
 <C0wpF7.8EB@newcastle.ac.uk> <mcdermot-200193081625@138.242.64.152>
 <1993Jan21.090624.27977@ulrik.uio.no> <mcdermot-210193065943@138.242.64.152>

There is no logical argument against the brain-in-a-bottle
hypothesis.  It is, however, irrelevant unless additional
evidence shows up.
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu (Brian E Watkins)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: what i think of ayn rand
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:10:33 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <93025.135012RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu>, Robert B. MacMillan <RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu> writes:
|> after having read the fountainhead, i can honestly say that i think she
|> is one of the most talented writers in the western world.
|> that was my first opinion.  my second is that she has the shittiest most
|> reprehensible, pseudo-fascist philosophy i have ever had the misfortune to
|> read.  i am glad she's dead.
|> help, someone, please recommend me something that will make me feel different
|> about this cold-hearted bitch who can write like no one i've ever seen...

Regardless of your language I believe you are asking a serious question. This is
not an answer but a possible approach. If you were to introspect on why you like
her writings you aught to resolve this one way or other.


Madhav Nerurkar           Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: 33045_211@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: Where is David Kelley?
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:09:56 GMT

Does any one know how to get in touch with Dr. David Kelley? He is an
objectivist philosopher who is on the outs with Piekoff's tribe (One indication
that he is a little more in touch with objective reality.) 
He published "Evidence of the Senses" through Loisianna State U. several years
ago but I have not
been able to locate him.


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:46:19 GMT

jardar@swix.nvg.unit.no (Jardar Eggesboe Abrahamsen) writes:

>Let us not forget the second half of the subject line, especially the last
>word: "Proof _within_".

>Maybe "Internal proof" would be better? Having the fundament "Bible" or
>"Christian belief" the "proof" is a very good one, and not at least if one
>doubts. But having another fundament for ones "philosophy of life" (it be
>religious or non-religious) it just illustrates that one cannot prove
>God's nonexistence... 

Wiether you currently take the Bible as your foundation for living or not
is irrelivant. As any statement of fact. It has to be true or not. My
article was in support of the side that the statements in the Bible are
true. The fact that God exists comes from this is just a little bonus.
You're welcome. :-) (Buy one get one free!)
If you want me to go into more depth then just ask. I hope you can see from
this short statement, but if not then make sure you ask. I'll be happy to go
into more depth. Don't go away without understanding.


-- 
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?" 			| Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"	   -Ayn Rand 	| (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)
From: cs122057@sol.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Logical philosophy
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:48:00 GMT
Organization: York University

In article <C1Gto8.9JC@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

> Suppose you encountered a phenomena that was totally alien to anything you
> had ever experienced, and suppose further more, that said phenomena
> ocurred only once (to you). How could you get a genre (genus) in which to
> fit this strange thing. If I understand Rand's epistomology every existant
> can be placed in a genus determined by its central characteristic, and
> then further differentiated from the genus and placed in a species
> (differentia). This would be the case if you had enough instances to
> compare and to contrast. But what do you do with once onlies? (sui generus).
> 
Rand does not say EVERY existant can be placed in a genus.  Ayn Rand defines a
concept as:  "a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same
distinguishing charateristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted."
(ITOE).  If there was only one phenomena or existant, it could not be
integrated to form a concept.  You could try to relate this phenomena to
another concept that is similar(e.g. it was like a ...) or you could just give
it a (proper) name to identify the phenomena.
-- 

Randy Levy               "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"    
Geophysics                                          
York U.                                             Isaac Asimov             
                     


                                                        
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Ignoring the Unknown
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:27:31 GMT

In article <108205@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:

|> This is just pathetic, not only in its laughable irrelevance regarding
|> the "soak the rich" business, but in its sad failure to understand
|> what the original poster is saying.

It is completely relevant.  If one understands something, then one can
be certain of the behavior of that object.  Gee, that wasn't too hard
to understand.  I guess there is a relationship between certainty and
understanding afterall.

|> Such arrogance is bad enough when restricted to a relatively limited
|> subject like economics or government. But it becomes positively comical
|> when it takes the form of proclamations that one "understands reality"
|> (whatever *that* is supposed to mean).

This statement seems to suggest that YOU don't understand.
And, given the fact you've been polluting the newgroup with trite, selfless
statist philosopy for so many weeks, I must conclude one of three things:
1) You never actually read anything; you are just posting.
2) You lack enough brain power to comprehend most abstractions.
or, most likely...
3) You simply refuse to accept anything that is contrary to your arbitrary
beliefs because it threatens some irrational teddy bear you've got hidden
in your subconscious.

"It ain't bragging if it's true." --Dizzy Dean
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.philosophy.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:43:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.144005.26462@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
(Robert Baruch) writes:

   >If you tell me that A is a collection of symbols without meaning (which
   >happen to spell "A is false"), then I will agree to your definition, and
   >state that it is a meaningful definition now that you declare A to be 
   >without meaning.

  Actually "declaring A to be without meaning" does not enter into it.
But the essential point is indeed that A is defined as a sentence,
that is, syntactically, independent of questions of meaning. Suppose
we define four sentences A, B, C, D by

     A = "The sentence A is false"
     B = "The sentence D is false"
     C = "The sentence D is true and false"
     D = "1+1=2

The definitions of A,B,C,D are equally unproblematic. Now if we go on
to consider which of the sentences A,B,C,D are *true* as sentences in
ordinary English, interpreting the letters "A", "B", "C", "D" in those
sentences as referring to the sentences just defined, we find that D
is true, C is false, B is false, and A paradoxical, i.e. apparently
true if and only if it is false.

  Now a possible way out is to suggest that the sentence A is not in
fact a meaningful English sentence, unlike B,C,D. Here is where your
comments are inadequate. For what you say boils down to only this,
that A is meaningless because it is paradoxical. This is not very illuminating,
for it does not give us any insight at all into what uses of the predicate
"x is a true sentence" are meaningful, and how such meaningful uses
can be understood. In short, philosophers have wanted to do better.

  To give you some feeling for this, when people speak about looking for
"solutions" to the paradox of the Liar, they want some theory or insight
that applies equally to such variants of the Liar sentence as


   T = "T is a true sentence"

   M = "M is either a false sentence or a meaningless string of characters"

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Fermat's Last Theorem Proved -- send me my Ph.D.!
Keywords: Lord of the Rings
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:54:20 GMT

apologies in advance to Jeffrey Lamb -- not intended to be insulting.

In article <C1911D.E0L@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>Gandalph the Grey exists. How do I know.
>
>1. Every word of Lord of the Rings is True.
>2. Lord of the Rings says Gandalph the Grey Exists.
>3. Therfore Gandalph the Grey Exists.
>
>How do I know LOTR is true. I have not found a single counter example to
>anything said in LOTR. (Of course that could be because I am in the wrong
>Universe). The rest follows by logic commonly used in the Shire.

a better example is Fermat's Last Theorem.
mathematicians have been spending years trying to find counter-examples
to this theorem, without success. every effort has failed to turn up
one. there is every reason to believe that one does not exist, using
the same arguments made by Jeffrey about "nothing being false
in the Bible". so why do people keep working on the theorem?
because lack of a counter-example does not constitute proof.

--
charles
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Atlas Shrugged casting
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:26:55 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: rat@StarConn.com's message of 27 Jan 93 04:45:26 GMT



But they already made this movie. It was called Wall Street.

Atlas dropped the ball alright, but because both hands were
full lining his pockets with all the cash he good grap.

The virtue of selfishness?

"Greed is good, greed works."

Gordon Gecco (Michael Douglas)


-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         |"Road-kill has it's seasons just like     
Dept of Physics Boston University|anything, there's possums in the autumn  
merritt@macro.bu.edu             |and farm cats in the spring." T. Waits
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: An Observation
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:34:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.194209.23083@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
}His wife would likely die in childbirth. In winter, he froze. In
}summer, he sweated. His children would likely die before the age of
}five. He'd spend dawn to dusk all summer long in back-breaking labor,
}and his children would have to pitch in, too. The food wouldn't always
}show up -- some years, bad weather or insects or other causes would
}make all his crops fail.  Starvation would often occur (or have you
}forgotten horrors like the Irish potato famine).
}
}His average lifespan was under 40 years.
}
}Yup. Sounds groovy to me.
}
}Thanks, but I'll take my comfortable heated home, my high-tech
}healthcare, my supermarkets, and my electricity. I can do without the
}church, which preaches things I don't believe in, and I've got all the
}pubs I need.

I concur with Perry, but the Irish potato famine is a bad example: it was
the result of statist policy which made Irish agriculture a monoculture in
this crop.  Replacing the natural diversity of the free market this way
reduces the stability which would enable people to better survive failures
of a single product.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 08:52:38 GMT

pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:

>abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell) writes:

>>Sorry folks, but words either have meanings or they don't.
>>The word "God" doesn't.

>SG      Everything exists. Everything exists within some limit. God exists 
>within some limit: imagination, emotion, error, faith, fear, angst, a word,
>foolishness, nonsense, etc., etc.
>	You may have confused reality with existence. God exists but not
>within the limit of reality.             

And any statement is only true within some limit. The limit of your statement
is microscopic. In normal parlance, reality and existence are identical. When
somebody says "God exists", they're saying that God is not a fantasy. They're
not saying "God exists in that it is a fantasy that is indeed present in my
mind."

One of the nice things about Rand is that she doesn't abuse context to sell
points. Since you quote her in your sig, you might take a hint.

Steve abell@netcom.com
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Atlas Shrugged casting
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:36:00 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1993Jan27.044526.12746@StarConn.com>, rat@StarConn.com ((The Rat)) writes:
|> All this talking about AS casting got my husband
|> and I to doing the casting thing again, so here
|> are our choices:
|> 
|> Rearden:  Harrison Ford (no offense, but everyone keeps
|> 	  coming up with sort of chubby Italians (Pacino,
|> 	   DeNiro--I don't get it! :-)) or Clint Eastwood
|> 	   about 10-15 years ago

This one I definitely agree with.

|> Francisco: I know this is kinda off the wall, but I think
|> 	   Tom Cruise might make a stab at it. He's got
|> 	   the intensity, and he can certainly play a 
|> 	   playboy...

Tom Cruise as an old blood Spanish Aristocrat's decendant??  I think not.
But then, how about Ricardo Montalban??  Of course , if they use him, I
guess they have to find a part for Tattoo as well.  :-)

bill

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.atheism