HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: i/I and you/You
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 17:46:30 GMT

In article 93Jan28094600@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU, elias@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU (Doug Elias) goes on and on:
> Flying through the postings to this newsgroup a few days ago, i saw
> one that took an earlier poster to task for using an un-capitalized
> pronoun for personal reference to self: "i" rather than the more
> conventional "I" ... the comment by the later poster was something to
> the effect of "Go read 'Anthem'", the implication being that this
> person needed some help in the area of self-esteem.
> 
> i cannot respond for the earlier poster who uses this style of self-
> addressing, but i can for myself:
> * i -have- read 'Anthem' (and "Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged",
>   "Objectivist Ethics", etc., etc., etc.)
> * i'm a devote Rational Anarchist, as differentiated from a Randite or
>   Libertarian, so we hold not a few views in common;
> * i use the uncapitalized personal pronoun quite deliberately in
>   response to the fact that all non-self pronouns ("you", "they",
>   etc.) are not capitalized;
> * as highly as i regard myself (my own self-love being the basis for
>   my valuation of all else in my existence), i feel obliged to place
>   the same initial intrinsic value on other selfs -- the differentiation
>   between "I" and "you" or "they" strikes me as unconsciously leading
>   to the intrinsic glorification of (my)Self over (other)Selves, and
>   my use of "i" serves to constantly remind me that these other Selves
>   are no less highly valued (by themselves) than am i (to myself ...
>   this may not be true, in individual situations, but i must assume
>   so, regardless).
> 
> Bottom-line:
> The use of "i" constantly reminds me to treat others with as much
> consideration and respect as i would have them treat me....whether
> they do or not.

...stuff deleted.

It is interesting to note (correct me if I'm wrong) but the Germanic
languages from which English is derived capitalized not only all
pronouns, but also many (if not all) nouns.  I wonder if the capitalized
"I" is a left-over, and why.

My dictionary says that "I" comes from Old English "ic".  Then again, it also
goes on to say that there "is no entirely safe course for the speaker" to choose
between using "I" and using "me".  Go figure.

--Rob
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:08:11 GMT

svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:

>Actually, it has been shown, and is accepted (at least by my ECON 101 text,
>which on the whole is a balanced assessment of free-market behaviour), that
>there is a type of good called a "public good" which, if left to the market,
>would not be provided.

>The typical example is military defence.  I recognize that in an Objectivist
>world, the military would have little or no place.

Not true. Defense is one of the few "public goods" required from the
government by objectivism. It is a necessity, but is not provided by
a legitimate market because it is neither constructive nor based on
service to individuals.

Steve abell@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: Ignoring the  Unknown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:33:06 GMT

============================================
 bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
[deleting and rearranging the article]

>What I can't accept is any claim to certainty; there's just something
>so arrogant about it that it has the opposite of the intended affect;
>I refuse to even consider the point argued.

 Isn't that "I can't accept....." a certainty of its own? 
 How can you be _certain_ of _uncertainity_ ?  

>   Consider the etymology of the term, philosophy. In its most literal
>sense it means a love of wisdom, in its current usage, however, it means
>the appearence of wisdom, which is not the same thing.
>---delete----
>   Having found the Truth, their efforts are now focused on convincing
>everyone else. This cannot be philosophy then, but is rather ideology,
>something very different. Objectivists (or any other "ist" for that
>matter) have abandoned any -search- for Truth since they possess it
>already and cannot therefore call their calling, philosophy.

 Not quite true. First of, I don't think in terms of "THE Truth."
 Second, thought is a means to satisfy my fundamental need of curiosity.
 This need satisfaction is achieved in, let me be loose here, two ways:
 [1] Understanding and knowing the reality I sense
 [2] Understanding the means (my mind, my mind's working) to [1].
 
 Philosophies (the premises of objectivism in my case) assist me in [2].
 The truths about the process of discovery, and
 my means to comprehend, master and effectively apply the process of discovery
 come to me from truths already discovered.
 In other words, the answer to "how to live?" is as much the consequence of
 a philosophy, as the answer to "what is life?"
 And to that effect, I enjoy and admire Ayn Rand's efforts in being thorough
 and convincing. 

 I should add that no one (including AR) can answer the question
 "what is life/reality?" for me. These Truths are for me to discover
 and actualise by my own endeavor. An endeavor, which objectively
 requires me to respect the uniqueness of Ayn Rand, you, me and
 everyone else as distinct entities of universe.

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:38:59 GMT

Atlas Shrugged actors?

Galt-Melvin Gibson, Alec Baldwin, Don Johnson(!)
Dagney-Kathleen Turner, Faye Dunaway; actress in _Coma_, _Antigone_ 
Rearden-Robert Di Niro, Al Pacino, Clint Eastwood(?)
Wesley Mouch-John Cleese
Stadler-Jack Lemmon (still great after all these years)
James Taggert-Lemmon
Lillian Rearden-Liz, why, you were expecting somebody else?
the labor leader-James Garner

As long as i don't have to raise and competently spend tens of millions of 
dollars this is a hell of a lot of fun.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Faith 
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:59:28 GMT

In article <C14zCx.LIy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
> robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen) writes:
> 
> >This is an insidious put-down.  Like it or not, agree with them or not,
> >most libertarians, free-market economists, objectivists, etc. have a 
> >variety of reasons based on economic theory, ethical arguments, historical
> >and empirical evidence, political theory, etc. for preferring the market.
> >Maybe they are wrong, maybe those on the left disagree with them, but  they
> >are not taking a position on faith.  
> 
> I'm sorry, but I can't pass this opportunity up. I'm willing to bet that
> most Randites believe that there is no God and that any person who knows
> that God exists is living based on faith (ie outside reason). The person
> above said that the "faith" in the free market was based on 1) ethical
> arguments, historical and empirical evidence, political theory, etc. this
> leads to 2) a belief that is not based on faith. 

No this is not what I said.  What I said was the a reasoned belief in the
free market based on argumentes, evidence etc. is a reasoned belief.  I did
not say that a reasoned belief leads to faith.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blumen                          | robert@tcs.com
Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Conflicts of interest
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:50:38 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <1993Jan23.193925.7806@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, mjm5049@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
<stuff deleted>
|> A)  The applicant risks losing his job if the deception is found.
|> B)  The applicant may find the job to be very difficult because he falsified
|>     his qualifications.
|> C)  He could loss some self esteem because of the deception.
|> D)  Once the applicant has lied the first time, he is more likely to lie again.
|> 
|> All of the above considerations have a potential negative effect on our
|> applicant's happiness, but the net effect on happiness might nevertheless be
|> positive. 
<stuff deleted>
|> Am I understanding AR correctly?  Tell me what you think.
|> 
|>                         Michael J. McGranaghan
|> $

My understanding is that Objectivism is not concerned with those for whom the
effect is happiness despite "C)" and the claim is that the ideal men in an ideal
Objectivistic society would not and would not have to think about the particular
emotions this other type of people feel or the consequences their actions might
have. I understand "ideal" to mean "as things aught to be" in this real world.


Madhav Nerurkar            Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
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: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:19:37 GMT

gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>ked@2001.bgsu.edu (Burly) writes:
>>Thomas Aquinas, a most influential Roman Catholic theologian and
>>philosopher came up with the First Cause Argument also known as the
>>Cosmological Argument.  In it he stated several arguments that he believed
>>make it clear that God does exist.  Let's study his argument for a minute:
>>       1.  Everything that exists had a cause of its coming into existence
>>       2.  Nothing can be the cause of itself
>>       3.  There cannot be an infinite series of causal chains
>>       4.  Therefore, there must be a first cause
>>       5.  The First Cause must be God
>>-----------------------]
>>       6.  Therefore, God exists.

>Actually, Aquinas is correct on his first four counts.

No, he wasn't. The first three are flagrantly contradictory:

Assume God exists. I know, it's hard, but try.
By (1), God had a cause for coming into existence.
By (2), this cause was something other than God.
By (3), this causal chain must stop somewhere.

Fine. Rescale, and call the chain terminator God.
By (1), God had a cause for coming into existence.
By (2), this cause was something other than God.
SPROING!!!

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

Steve abell@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:49:02 GMT

In that last 50 years the bulk of Engineering has been electrical and
electronic engineering. Virtually all of this, especially the transistor
based technology is the offspring of Quantum ElectroDynamics. (a Science). 

Viturally all computer hardware engineering flows from the Tunelling
Effect, an phenomon that is known only through an understanding of QED.

Having said this, I readily agree that muuch of the mechanical technology,
and road construction rested more on empirical engineering than cutting
edge science. However new materials again requires X-ray diffraction
techniques and the quantum theory of the solid state for understanding and
progress. I maintain that JBuckminsterFullerine is as much a product of
science as technology.

The engineer of the 1990's is a different sort of worker than his
counterpart of a century ago.  The modern engineer must be trained in
mainline physics (at least its applicable parts) and fairly heavy
mathematics. This is not true of the engineer (or mechanics as they were
called then) of last century.  The engineers who assisted Charles Babbage
to put together Difference Engine 1 were relatively less educated
(although fully as talented and clever) than their modern counterparts.

Annent you evaluation of logic.: Without means of drawing inferences, your
head would be stuffed full of zillion of unrelated facts, and you still
wouldn't have a clue.  With logic, you need to remember just a few facts,
a few principles and some rules of inference and induction and away you go.

Conan the  Libertarian


-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:50:06 EST
From: <SXB134@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Does it really matter? (If God exists...)

Would someone out there (preferably a "believer") please explain
to me why it really MATTERS if God exists at all, given the fact
that he sure as HELL doesn't show any predilection for intervening
in every day life?  In other words, I haven't seen any unbelievers
struck down by lightning bolts lately, nor any dens of "iniquity"
razed to the ground.  Or is this just a test of faith?  Funny how
they didn't have those in the old days.

I think what's really necessary is a grip on reality; once you have
that you really don't need to believe in God.


                                               Steve.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Ignoring the  Unknown
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1993Jan25.162340.11111@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.162340.11111@fcom.cc.utah.edu> leon@cs.weber.edu 
(Leon D. Atkinson) writes:

 >In other words, since you tried to understand reality, failed and gave up,
 >you find it insulting that anyone else would be successful.  This is the same
 >thing as congressional 'Soak the Rich.'  Punish those that are successful
 >BECAUSE they are successful.

  I submit that the Scientologists are a lot more successful than the
Objectivists. Not only do they thoroughly understand reality, but they make
a lot of money out of it.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.philosophy.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Logical philosophy
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<C1Gto8.9JC@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:20:01 GMT

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

   >In a second order logic I don't believe that the formual 
   >(x)EP. P(x) 
   >is a semantic tautology.

  Sure it is. It's a consequence of that other great Objectivist principle,
"(x)(x=x)".
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: absinthe@viva.chem.washington.edu (Daniel Faken)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 01:36:15 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Reply-To: absinthe@u.washington.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: viva.chem.washington.edu

In article <C17y16.Jt6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey  
Richard Lamb) writes:
> 3) a) Proof that the Bible is absolutely true:
[...]
> 	Now look at the Bible again. It is a collection of related state-
> 	ments of fact. Many of the things it relates are true. Many of
> 	it's statements are uncertain. NONE of it has been proven false,
> 	or even approached the point of being legitimately attacked.

An absence of contrary evidence does not mean something is correct.

Besides, a god (like 'the ether') can easily be defined so that it's
  'existance' (or non-'existance') is not proveable.
--
      Daniel Faken          |    Name a poison,
absinthe@u.washington.edu   |    pick your flavour.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:09:32 GMT

jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>>If this reasoning can be applied to the Bible, why can it not be
>>applied to some other books as well, that contradict the Bible?  For
>>example, the Koran states, I believe, that Jesus was a prophet, but
>>not the son of God, which is in direct contradiction with the Bible.
>
>The Koran also states some things that have been contradicted by physical
>evidence.

The bible has also said many things contradicted by physical evidence.

Pardon, but I will flame now. This doesn't belong here. Take it to
alt.atheism where people who enjoy torturing people like you live.
This is an objectivism newsgroup. Take it to alt.atheism.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mcdermot@mdd.comm.mot.com (Steven McDermott)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Followup-To: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Organization: Motorola Mobile Data Division, Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:58:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.090624.27977@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smauguio.no (Svein
Olav G. Nyberg) wrote:
> 
> Steven McDermott on brains in bottles:
> |> Of course, if objective reality did exist, it might change and take our
> |> perceptions along with it. If everyone perceived the change would that
> |> count as evidence?
> 
> "Everybody"? If you're a brain in a bottle, you normally don't
> consider the existence of other brains in bottles.

The whole premise behind the brains in a bottle argument is that you don't
know you are one. You still "seem" to interact with others and "reality" as
if you were a person and not a bottle-brain.

Does anyone know of a logically consistent counter argument to the
brain-in-the-bottle argument?
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C1DG3r.E68@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes...
>Science and Religion are treated very differently in that respect.  Look
>at the THEORY of Evolution.  Yet many atheists out there cite it as 
>FACT. School board can teach the THEORY of Evolution, but not the THEORY
>of Creation.

	I'd prefer to call evolution a "model", but that is another matter.
Theories must be falsifiable.  Evolution is, but is has been supported by
an overwhelming amount of evidence.  "Scientific" Creationism is not
falsifiable, nor can it be.  Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.

	The school boards are correct.  If you want schools to teach the
"theory" of Creation, then support school choice.  Private schools can
choose to teach such things.


Mark Sulkowski
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: An Observation
Date: 24 Jan 1993 00:49:28 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: galois.math.ubc.ca
Keywords: Ethical Problems,Marginal Problems

In article <C10oz7.19G@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk
(Chris Holt) writes:
|     There is a clear implication that there would be less unemployment
|     less squalor, and less crime under a more laissez-faire government.

I would like very much to know for sure whether this is true.

In article <1993Jan22.121827.18170@genie.slhs.udel.edu> 
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
|[...]  I can think of two
|standards of proof for the implication in question: historical case studies,
|and deduction from the action axiom of Ludwig von Mises. 

Perhaps you could describe for us this deduction, and/or give
reference(s)?

Keith Ramsay            "Being a computer means not having 
ramsay@math.ubc.ca       to say you're sorry."
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: More Rand Movies
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:20:49 GMT

I think there was also a movie based on Rand's play THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 16.
She wrote the screenplay.

About WE THE LIVING. I thought this was closer to her novel than was the
movie version of THE FOUNTAINHEAD to the base novel.  The actress in WtL
who played Kira, was the very image of the character projected in the
novel. It is very rare that I find the movie so on point wrt to the
characters.

I was surprised that no one picked up on ANTHEM. I think it would be less
of a technical challange to make f movie for ANTHEM.  The technical
effects should be simple, and since the novel was thematic, it is easier
to produces than for a novel that is topical.  Writing psuedo topical
political novels is tricky. See for example ADIVISE & CONSENT or SEVEN
DAYS IN MAY.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:57:10 GMT

In article <C1AMsv.G6K@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
}Actually, it has been shown, and is accepted (at least by my ECON 101 text,
}which on the whole is a balanced assessment of free-market behaviour), that
}there is a type of good called a "public good" which, if left to the market,
}would not be provided.

Gwartney & Stroup's is the best one I know of.  I'd be willing
to bet that it's more "balanced" than yours if it differs.

The conventional characteristics of public goods are nonexcludability and
nonrivalrous consumption.  These are produced by the free market all the
time.  The real question is, should those public goods that aren't produced
by the free market be produced at all, and why?

}The typical example is military defence.  I recognize that in an Objectivist
}world, the military would have little or no place.

Actually, this is debatable.

In the ideal competition model,

For a critique of the "Perfect Competition, General Equilibrium" theory,
see "Welfare Economics and Externalities: A Modern Austrian Perspective,"
new from Kluwer Academic Publishers, by Roy Cordato.

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