HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Rand/Objectivism
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:22:00 +0000

I hate long subject libes...

jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes..

>Andy Fingerhut writes:

>>I would be interested to know if anyone reading this has studied
>>Objectivism as well as a sizable amount of other philosophy, and what
>>their views are on Objectivism.

>I have studied Objectivism as well as a sizable amount of other
>philosophy. My view on Objectivism is that it is stunningly clever,
>brilliantly argued, and revolutionary. My view, as you will see from
>the other replies your query is sure to generate, is in the minority.

>I think that your letter hit upon one of the main reasons why Rand
>has been so popular with non-Philosophers but has been treated with
>utter disdain by academic Philosophers. For Rand, philosophy is not a
>cute little game. Philosophy is the foundation of any effective
>approach to living a good life. For academic philosophers, philosophy
>is far too often a plaything disconnected from reality, with little
>or no implications for real-world living.

Whilst agreeing with that paragraph to a very large extent, I do
have to say that it doesn't enamour me of Rand either. I skimmed some
of her stuff in a bookstore once - and it all seemed a bit Nu Thot to
me. If you are going to take on the philosophical establishment, you
have to do it on their terms. If you just want to write about life
the Universe and everything, then don't try and gain spurious
credibility by hacking away at the establishment. From what I have
gleaned of Objectivism it seems a reasonable place to start ones
worldview - but then there are so many reasonable places to start.

I do endorse the need for people to develop their OWN personal
philosophies in these days of declining moral standards tho :=) It
just seems sad to me that they all want someone else to do their
thinking for them.

'Who? What? Me Too!'
'Give me a Guru - any Guru'll do!"


:-)


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Aquinas' Proof on the Existence of God
Keywords: Aquinas, Proof
Date: 5 Sep 92 17:05:48 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway NJ


In case anyone is interested:

I have received numerous responses, and I will try to summarize what I
have found out. If I leave something out, please forgive me, and just
add on another response to the end of this article.

St. Thomas Aquinas apparently wrote about 5 proofs of the existence of God (I
believe the proofs originated from someone else), in his works called 
Summa Theologica
The proofs can also be found in Summar Contra Gentiles Book I Chapter 13, which
is shorter and contains a clearer explanation.

Here are some more works which were recommended to be by various people which
contain summaries or clearer accounts of those proofs.

Books II and III from the series "A History of Western Philosophy" WT Jones
"History of Western Philosophy", Penguin Books, D.W. Hamlyn
"How to Think About God", Mortimer Adler

I have a short (about 3 pages) summary of the 5 main proofs provided to me
by a gentleman from the University of Toronto, whose name escapes me at the
moment, which I will be glad to furnish to anyone upon request.

Thanks again.

Srihari Gopal
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ
gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.181813.1690@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>In article <BuMG6E.80H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.171912.21763@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>>>In article <BuJyoq.75v@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep12.220522.17755@wuecl.wustl.edu> jaf@wucs1.wustl.edu (Andy Fingerhut) writes:
>[...]

>>Rand thought he was pretty bad too.  She (and other prominent objectivists)
>>are often asked about their relationship with Nietzsche, and the answer I have
>>always heard from them has been the same...he's a terrible mystic

I should have mentioned this in my critique of Objectivist rhetoric.
Objectivists should find out what the word "mystic" means, and use it
the way the rest of us do.  If they want to have a technical term with
Rand's meaning of "mystic", may I suggest "irrationalist"?

[...]
>>--Brian
>
>
>-- 
>The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
>above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
>opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
>or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:42:18 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University

From article <1992Sep4.124028.1383@bernina.ethz.ch>, by stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher):
> Hello world
> 
> Does anyone know about a thing, an event or anything else that 
> exists, happens or simply is with no cause.
> In other words: Can you tell me about an effect without cause?
> 
> 
> Thanks for all kind of ideas.
> juerg at ethz switzerland  

God.  So Saith Aristotle.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago

"n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:26:41 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <6654@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel
Kranowski) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep9.155906.27289@mips2.ma30.bull.com>
fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper) writes:
|>  
|> And I hold that 'mutuality' is, at best, a fantasy.  That's why I depict
|> love (and everything else) as selfish.  We can apprehend or recognize
|> other consciousnesses to the limited extent that "empathy" provides, but
|> we can never exit our own consciousness.
|> 

I would differ with this.  We must be careful about words here....
One can lose one's identity or sense of separation.  It can be worded 
differently.  That one has let go of one's sense of identity and "fallen"
into a "larger, more tranquil" consciousness, or that one has "stepped"
out of one's own consciousness.  It's the same kind of thing.

The act itself is called "surrender."  Surrender to what?  A good question
which has no cognitive answer since one has surrendered, among other
things, conscious cognition.  It doesn't mean that awareness was not
present, but that memory was not present.

 
|> >I'm not 
|> >debating the notion that selfishness is a perpectual possibility of the
|> >human makeup, but it is just wrong headed to make it fundamental
|> >to all our motivations and actions.
|> 
|> But that's how the self works.  What love does is make someone else "a
|> part of you," i.e., that person's well-being is essential to your own.
|> Love nourishes that part of yourself.  (It also nourishes the other
|> person, which is why I deem love Mutual Benefit.)

Notice that the wording "make someone a part of you" is almost a description
of 'consuming.'  I agree that this "desire" filled with "attachment" is
a real human state.  It is not the one I typically label "love."

|>  
|> I dealt with this in my last post on the topic.  The conventional view
|> of "selfishness" sees a person who has no powers of empathy and is only
|> interested in the surface pleasures of his own person.  However, I have
|> plugged "selfishness" into a light socket and juiced it up.  Since
|> "love" is an internal need and/or desire (which generally benefits another
|> person), it falls into the domain of the self; thus it is selfish.  Acts
|> of love always impact first upon the lover and second upon the loved.
|> 

Notice that this desire-based love continues the sense of identity.  Not
only is it self-ish it is self-full.  We can at least think of a self-less
state, even if we do or do not agree that we can be in such a state.

For me, "love" occurs within the framework of (relatively) self-less
states.  The other is a form of desire or attachment that seeks to consume
or possess.  Nothing wrong with it.  I do it all the time.  But they
are not the same states.

Paul Collacchi
From: ztsindi@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Independents - SUNY Buffalo)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: What Is Internet?
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:34:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Is it, as Bruce Sterling would have us believe, a living pre-
conscious mind? Or just a place for people to bullshit?
							- Joe
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cs911225@ariel.yorku.ca (KEN E WILLMOTT)
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:31:29 GMT

A cause for every effect? Is this strictly a one-one relationship,
or can multiple causes exist for each effect, and vice-versa?
If the number of causes can vary, it *might* be possible that
an effect has no cause, due to all the causes being used up
on other effects. :=>

	-Ken
From: kbrooks@ut-emx.uucp (kevin brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Summary: reversal of cause and effect
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:50:17 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <gate.w76NqB1w165w@lakes.trenton.sc.us>, kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki) writes:
> JS>Hello world
> 
> JS>Does anyone know about a thing, an event or anything else that
> JS>exists, happens or simply is with no cause.
> JS>In other words: Can you tell me about an effect without cause?
> 
> 
>  How is "a thing without cause" the same as "an effect without cause?"
>  We have never heard of "thing" and "effect" being synonomous terms.
>  There is God, Who is without cause, but we do not know of an effect
>  without cause.
> ---
>  * OLX 2.1 TD * Kalki's Infoline, 803-643-3172, Aiken, SC, USA
>                        


but you could have a "cause" that is an effect of an effect.  one often
notices an effect and then seeks to determine its cause.  in such a case
the cause is indeed the effect of the effect, give that we presuppose the
structure of causality.  nietzsche often discusses such logical reversals.

regards,

kevin brooks
kbrooks@emx.utexas.edu
dept. of art
university of texas at austin
austin, tx 78712

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:36:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>>Let me rephrase:  What, then, is a "faulty moral standard?"

>One that is internally inconsistent.

>Hypothetical example:  "Love means doing what your lover wants and
>love means being faithful to your lover."  This is inconsistent because
>a lover can ask (as in "O") that love be shared with another.

Depends on your definitions, doesn't it?

Certainly internal consistency is a requirement.  Since your example
is only hypothetical, I am led to next question:

In what way is the moral standard of _The_Story_of_O_ internally
inconsistent?
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Different moralities (Was 'Love')
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:01:17 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Sep12.202939.3812@abo.fi> CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi () writes:
>RE articles <1992Sep11.180011.17209@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com 
>(Peter Cash) and <vpvnc_c.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson 
>Kennedy):

>Anson Kennedy suggests that 'The Story of O' "demonstrates a different 
>morality". In the discussion that follows Peter Cash writes:

>> I doubt it, but I suppose you
>>might find some weird isolated tribe somewhere where people stand around
>>and cheer whenever a kid drowns. If I were to come across behavior like
>>that, I'd call it "callous and cruel". Would you say I was not entitled to
>>say this?

And Chris writes some truly and incredibly good stuff...

>Is it possible to imagine a people with a 'different morality'? I don't think 
>so. As a matter of fact, I'll even go as far as to say that I don't know what 
>all this talk of 'different moralities' means. You are on the right tracks, 
>Peter, but God is in the details. Or so I'm told.

You're right, of course--the "society" was a thoughtless joke; while trying
to make my point, I was mistakenly helping to reinforce the notion that if
one found a society like this, then it would indeed be a case of a
"different morality". 

As any student of ethics knows, it's easy to come up with stories about
societies with bizarre customs that cultural relativists use to buttress
their contention that "morality is relative". As you so ably pointed out,
if one looks at the context of these customs and makes an effort to
understand them, then it indeed becomes harder to see a "different
morality" in them.

Thank you.




-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Sep14101323@isis.sics.se> <BuKMJC.H02@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:01:52 GMT

In article <BuKMJC.H02@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
 (jimmy donal wales) writes:

   >I would like to thank you for your honesty.  Until you notify me
   >otherwise, I won't consider any of your comments as arguments.  I'll
   >just take them to be... what?  Babbling?  Strings of words with no
   >connection to reality?  Well, whatever... because if your words don't
   >constitute an _argument_, then there isn't much reason to listen to
   >you, is there?

  The babbling on usenet takes many forms. You must take my comments as you
find them. I don't know how to make people recognize an argument when
they see it, and I am not concerned with trying to make people read my
statements as this or that.

  However - and this is not an argument - the notion that "arguments"
are the only statements one has any reason to listen to is more than a
little silly. For example, I read your comments with a great deal of
interest, in spite of their containing nothing suggesting any
argument. Consider for a moment the fact that a randroid considers the
utterance of the words "existence exists" a profound and conclusive
argument in a great many situations. What you make of this is up to you.

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: cab6944@usl.edu (Brasseaux Carl A)
Subject: Seeking recommendations for MA program in Anthropology
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:50:51 GMT

I am posting this query for a friend.  He is seeking recommendations
regarding MA programs in Anthropology with a focus on ethnic studies.
He is particularly interested in working with Cajuns, Creoles and
other Francophone groups of North America.  Please e-mail replies
to cab6944@usl.edu.  Thanks in advance.
Carl Brasseaux


Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Pliestocene extinctions
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:25:50 GMT

In article <118792@muvms3.bitnet> rcbi27@muvms3.bitnet (DBRUM) writes:
>A couple of questions:
>
>1)  If Mastadon extinctions in North America were due to over-predation
>    by humans, how come their other, later sources of animal food were
>    not exhausted by them also (i.e., Buffalo, etc.)?

	There are at least two possibilities. The Natives could have modified
their hunting practices since then (It has been rather longer than the
span of recorded history since then, after all), or  the remaining animals
may have survived because they were better adapted to deal with human
predation.

>  						  The North American
>    natives of historic times had/have a very strong feeling for the 
>    land and the creatures upon it for which they depended/depend on their
>    livelyhood.

	Note that  you are ascribing the same worldview  to cultures as
diverse as the Inuit and the Olmec. Is this similarity real, or the artifact
of current Eurasian 'mythology' regarding Native Americans?

>		 In all the "Indian theory" I have ever heard, the wild
>    land itself was looked upon and looked after as a sort of vast and
>    all-encompassing farm which it was man's responsibility to husband
>    and cause to continually prosper. To kill off all of an obviously
>    very important staple species seems utterly anti-thematic and foolhardy.
>    If they were totally against such activity in historic times, why
>    would they have been any different in pre-historic times? 

	In a  word: time. History is not the monopoly of Eurasia and Africa.
Since the  extinctions, there have been climatic changes, the development of
new  technologies, many invasions and migrations and so on. Why should those
had had less effect in the Americas as elsewhere?

>								It just
>    doesn't add up. The North American natives of historic times realized
>    that when the Buffalo died off, so would they--wouldn't they have felt
>    the same about the Mastadon in pre-historic times? Only we Old World
>    newcomers were/are stupid enough to commit extinctions of valuable 
>    animals and plants.

	Nonsense. The Mayans apparently collapsed around AD 900 because of
problems connected with the ecological effects  of their lifestyle. There
was  a group of Northern natives (Copper Indians?Iniut?)  who briefly dropped
their nomadic lifestyle to exploit a source of metal (In the form of a wrecked
European ship) who did not change their hunting habits, causing a local
dieback of wildlife in the 18 or 19th  Century. Long term stupidity for
short term  gains is human, not Old World.

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.origins
From: tyre@beaufort.sfu.ca (Richard Tyre)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Evolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:03:58 GMT

trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) writes:



>I think common sense shows one possible biological "rationale" for the
>appearance of homosexual behavior among a species: overpopulation.

>In fact, didn't the recent experiment{ with the huge, purposefully overpopulated
>colony of lab mice tend to show an increase in same-sex behaviors as the
>population density went up? Seems like a fairly good scheme for reducing the
>population to me...

>Suze

Unfourtunately, this seems to me to be an example of "good for the species"
style thinking. If same sex behaviours do indeed increase at high population
densities, then I would expect that these behaviours either increase the
reproductive success of the individual performing them in some way, or increase
the reproductive success of related individuals (Kin Selection). Group selection
can occur, but only under extremely limiting assumptions. I would be interested
in seeing a reference to the above mentioned mouse experiment, if it is 
readily available.

Drew Tyre
tyre@sfu.ca

Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:861 talk.origins:11269
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Polyandry
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.origins
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:51:02 GMT

The ideas being advanced about polyandry are interesting, but I think
that we are a little shaky on what we CALL polyandry.  In matrilineal
cultures in the past and in the present, there is frequently not even
any marriage.  The woman will have many partners, but since the
paternity of the child is not important, the subsequent activities of
the men are not regulated.  This is fundamental in cultures that reckon
lineage through the mother; you prove it's your kid by giving birth to
it.  Assuring the father's fidelity is just not needed.  You find a guy
for whatever reason, have a blast with him, and the kid is then yours
and his cooperation is not needed.  (I know there are going to be
exceptions to this; there always are when you're talking about human
behavior.)  

However, in a patrilineal culture, the sexual freedoms of the mother
MUST be ABSOLUTELY restricted.  Were she to have sex with ONE other
man, that would throw the paternity of the child in doubt, and this is
catastrophic in any culture that reckons lineage and passes possessions
through the father's line.  Even in today's culture, a child without a
definite father is termed "illegitimate," despite having a definite
mother.  Hence we get things like stoning non-virgins, marrying women to
their rapists (it happened), and instituting a set period of mourning
for a widow, to insure that she does not carry the child of the dead man
before she marries anyone else.   

Since we live in what is for the most part a patrilineal culture, the  
restriction of sexual freedom for AT LEAST one side is basic to a
modern definition of marriage.  In some really old cultures, they called
it thigh-friendship, offerd by the woman to whomever she liked.  The
restriction of sexual liberties was not part of the deal.

Regards,
Janis C.  

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,talk.origins
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Polyandry
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<2AB3CF27.26305@news.service.uci.edu>
	<2AB3D3E6.26637@news.service.uci.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:16:17

The simple picture of the sexual freedom of a matrilineal society
has to be modified by the need to get some work out of males to
support the children.  There are apparently some societies in which
men do little but gossip and occasionally fight other tribes.
Under most conditions such a society wouldn't survive in competition
with those that get more work out of men.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.