HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbs9276@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Reply-To: sbs9276@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:15:33 GMT

In article <C0D92H.MtI@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>   I'm curious about the referecnce to Fundamentalists. Does this mean
>that you are opposed to Christainity, religion in general or just
>Fundamentalists? Does Objectivism require atheism or is this just your
>interpretation? Does Objectivism explain everything thereby replacing
>religion does it concern itself with more earthly matters?

      Objectivism definitely does not endorse atheism because
atheism is not a conclusion which can be reached through any
logical arguement. But Christianity's beliefs cannot be arrived
at through a logical progression either. Both arguements take
"faith", a belief in nothing tangible.

      Aristotle (and later Aquinus) gives the most logical
arguements for the existence of something which can be called
"the prime mover" or "the first efficient cause" (or god). Their
simplicity is just in the fact that everything that exists was
created (caused) by something else. If the Big Bang theory of
creation is to be accepted as the creator of the universe as we
know it, what caused it i.e. a Bigger Bang. And what caused it...
The arguement digresses to meaninglessness unless it can be said
that there was some "first efficient cause" which had no creator
but created everyhting else.

      Note however that that "cause" does not through any logical
progression come to the conclusions of any world religion. It is
a cause and nothing else.

      In answer to your question about Christianity, I will
answer a more general question about all religions. All religions
require "faith" in a lot of issues, which objectivism sees as a fault.
However that does not mean that a religious person cannot benefit
a lot from the philosophy of objectivism. It provides a basis for
a moral and economic code by which all peoples can deal with each
other fairly and equitably (regardless of their metaphysical
standing). So although I would argue (and please noone start a
religious war with me unless you're close enough to meet at a bar
and do it over a few beers) that religions (faith) are not
necessary or logical, I would say that a religious person
could benefit from objectivism. I would not say that religion and
objectivism are compatible however. They are metaphysically
oppposed-- and arguements of metaphysics are ridiculous.

                                        Stephen Schott
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Organization: SCTC
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:37:35 GMT

bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:

>   To attack Ms. Rand for her inability live up to her ideals is a
>variation of the argumentum ad hominum, a favorite tactic of those who
>have nothing worthwhile to contribute.    ...  The ad
>hominum fallicy will be hard to give up, let's see who's really
>interested in truth and fairness ...

Before we arbitrarily reject "ad hominum" agruments let us remember
what such an argument is. The classical argument goes like this:

  Joe has flaws; therefore Joe's work has flaws.

Such arguments are clearly nonsense when Joe's work concerns music or
electron spin or biology or celestial mechanics. But that's not what
we're discussing here. In this case the flaws are directly related to
the work being examined. In short:

  Ayn Rand's personal behavior was flawed, and
  Ayn Rand claimed her behavior reflected proper Objectivist ideals.

Now, I think we are doing a serious job of Faking Reality if we
pretend this is irrelevant to a discussion of Objectivism. How can we
discuss Truth in this context when we dismiss genuine, tangible
examples of the topic under discussion?
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:09:45 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:

>Replace the word "Objectivist" with the word "homosexual" and Mr. Torkel
>Franzen sounds like another Clayton Cramer, which is precisely what he is.
>The best thing to do with these people is just ignore them.

There are the minor differences that Torkel Franzen knows more about
formal logic than any objectivist on the net (at least from their
postings (unless Ian Sutherland is objectivist)), that he has been
rather muted in his disapproval of the overall philosophy, and that
his postings re the applicability of Godel's Theorems and the
definitions of axiom, theorem, etc. have been entirely accurate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:15:16 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan6154833@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu
 (Sean Merritt) writes:

     [quoting me:]
   ># As we have seen amply demonstrated in this group, the terms "axiom",
   >#"theorem", "logic" have a very different meaning in Objectivism than
   >#they do in logic.
   >There has been no such thing demonstrated.

  Sure it has. Consider "logic", where we got an authoritative explanation
of the Objectivist meaning of the term:

    Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification.
    Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various
    corollaries.

  Let us take a couple of central theorems of modern logic: the completeness
theorem for first order logic, the incompleteness theorem for second order
logic. There is nothing in the above that even begins to give an idea of
the meaning or importance of these theorems.

  Consider "axiom". As we have found out, an "axiom" to an Objectivist
is a formula such as "A is A", which is variously presented as a
"demand", a "concept", a "law", and given all sorts of
interpretations. This kind of gross sloppiness is alien to logic as
the subject is understood today. An axiom, as the term is understood
in logic, is a statement designated as such in a well-defined theory
with a well-defined language.

  Consider "theorem". In Objectivism, assuming theorems to be what is
yielded by Objectivist "logical deductions", a theorem is anything
held by Rand to follow from "A is A" and similar "axioms". In logic, a
theorem of a theory is a statement in the language of that theory
which is obtainable by applying formally specified rules of inference
to formally specified axioms. Of course no formal axioms or rules of
inference have ever been specified in Objectivism. And indeed, nobody
expects theorems in this sense from philosophy. The Randians, however,
for reasons of their own (partly sheer veneration for their founder),
feel compelled to speak of their various assertions as having been
arrived at by "logical reasoning" from "axioms".




Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:20:06 GMT

In article 93Jan7212647@bast.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.191653.26314@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
> (Robert Baruch) writes:
> 
>    >If you analyze the meaning of that sentence, it really is saying,
>    >"If I am not mistaken that Santa Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists."
> 
>   No, you've missed the logical point of the paradox. "If I am not mistaken"
> must refer to the whole sentence. That is
> 
>   (1)   If (1) is true, then Santa Clause exists.

Yes, I know that's what the _second_ "I am not mistaken" means, but within (1)
you have hidden the _first_ "I am not mistaken".  The second sentence is
clearly designed to trip up the non-analytic reader into thinking that the
second "I am not mistaken" is the same as the first "I am not mistaken".
There is not paradox, only falsehood.

> 
> The paradox follows because "A if and only if (if A then B)" does in fact
> imply B. There is nothing paradoxical about "If I am not mistaken that Santa
> Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists".

Agreed.  But that is not the point, as I point out (so to speak) above.

> 
>    >If Berkeley claims to stick strictly to the evidence, then he must admit
>    >that his sight of matter is true.  Are you saying that when he closes his
>    >eyes, he sees nothing, and hence nothing really is visible at that time?
> 
>   Not at all. This is not in the least part of Berkeley's argument. Why not
> read his own (very readable) exposition?

I wish I had time!  If I do, I'll go ahead and do it!

--Rob
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Why I am not a Big O Objectivist
Summary: Very good!
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:39:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan6.170234.833@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes...


>I consider myself to be a "small o" objectivist in the sense that some
>people who are libertarians but don't subscribe to the notion of a
>"Libertarian Party" call themselves "small l libertarians". I believe
>that Rand was correct in much of what she said. However, I refuse to
>worship her in the "All That Ayn Rand Said Was True" manner that some
>seem to follow. I deride these people as "High Church Objectivists".
>They operate as if there is a revealed truth, the corpus of her
>writings, and as if anything she said must of needs have been logical.

Beautiful post. I agree.  In some respects I consider myself a small 'l'
libertarian, a small 'a' anarchist, and maybe even a small 'o'
objectivist.  

Labels are dangerous.  They assigns beliefs a person may not have.  They
imply the originator (Rand, in this group) are all-defining.  Objectivism
can evolve.  Imagine if physics hadn't changed since Newton!

Think for yourself.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:41:59 GMT

In article 9xw@SSD.intel.com, pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
> In article <1992Dec31.191700.5233@shearson.com> jredford@shearson.com (John Redford) writes:
> >In article <jclarke.725767675@teal> jclarke@teal.csn.org (J Christopher Clarke) writes:
> >   >I think that another thing that would happen in a free market is that
> >   >there'd more more research into making medical care cheaper--my impression
> >   >is that the incentives for doing so aren't that strong now. (I mean
> >   >making care cheaper while maintaining quality.)
> >
> >Gee. More research! That'd be wonderful. That'd solve everything.
> >Spend money on research. Spend Spend Spend. That'll make it cheap.
> 
> I hope you're not being sarcastic.  Isn't it obvious from the history
> of the computer industry that research can find ways of producing
> innovative, high-quality products more cheaply.  Yes, research requires
> money, but a company takes a risk in assuming that the new products
> will yield enough profit to more than cover the research expenses.

Do you expect to seal yourself up in a room, think real hard, and come up
with all the answers?  Don't be absurd.  If you feel that you can gain
knowledge *without* research, then the next time you need to know something,
I suggest you close your eyes and try to reason it out.  Don't go to the
library, and don't ask anyone.  Don't do any research.

> 
> >In case you didnt know, all fair profits are based on exploiting
> >ignorance. One person values a thing more accurately than another and
> >can buy/sell at a profitable price.
> 
> Yes, profits can easily be made on ignorant people, AKA sheep.  Not
> all profits are made that way.  The value to the producer is based on
> the cost of researching, producing, and delivering the product.  The
> value to the consumer is also based on other subjective factors,
> including utility of the product, and emotional appeal.  Thus, the
> buyer can know the cost accurately, and still purchase the product.
> No exploitation of ignorance here.

Different people will place different values on the same thing.  This is 
a fact of reality.  To deny that people have different values is to
deny reality.  If an exchange takes place, then that exchange must have
been considered equitable between the ones involved in the exchange, otherwise
the exchange would not have taken place.

--Rob

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Atlas Drowning in the Fountainhead
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<C0r4nv.FK4@SSD.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:07:03 GMT

In article <C0r4nv.FK4@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
 writes:
   >You seem to have a habit of using the same types of arguments against
   >Objectivism that you claim make Objectivism a poor philosophy.  In
   >this case you are using 100% pure rhetoric to convince us that John
   >Galt's speech is 100% rhetoric.  You can't expect intelligent people
   >to take you seriously.

  But is Mark Hayes trying to convince you of anything in this passage? Not
that I can see. He is saying, rather, that he finds none of the alleged
logical reasoning in Galt's speech. Of course this will not convince anybody
of anything, but perhaps it might prompt Objectivists to exhibit some
of this supposed logical reasoning, if only to clarify what they mean by the
term?

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.93Jan7101537@isis.sics.se> <C0HvzD.IJH@SSD.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:22:35 GMT

In article <C0HvzD.IJH@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) 
writes:

   >Then what would make these "slogans" into "real axioms"?  Can you give
   >examples of "real axioms," so that Objectivists can adopt instances of
   >"real axioms" instead of "slogans"?

  In logic, an axiom can be any statement. This is because the role of
axioms is to serve as a basis for logical deductions, and in logic the
rules of inference by which logical deductions are made are
well-defined.  Thus we speak e.g. of "the axioms of set theory", and
even without introducing any interpretation of those axioms, we know
what is meant by a logical deduction from the axioms of set theory,
since we have a set of formally defined rules of inference. No axioms
in this formal sense are to be expected in any piece of philosophical
reasoning, simply because philosophy is not such a formal affair. "A
is A", however, is a mere slogan in the sense that it has no definite
content at all, but is invoked in justification of whatever
Objectivist doctrine is put forward at a given moment.  Somebody who
does not accept Objectivism is simply at a loss as to what "follows"
from "A is A", and by what principles. Thus, to make "A is A" into an
axiom in any reasonable sense, you need to explain the role or the
meaning of "A is A" in such a way as to allow anybody, Objectivist or
not, to draw conclusions from it. This isn't done by "explaining" that
"A is A" means "we must know what we are talking about before we make
assertions", since whether "we know what we are talking about" is very
much a matter that in turn must be decided by whatever principles we
accept as valid. Similarly for the other statements associated by
Objectivists with "A is A". In short: this supposed "axiom" simply has
no definite content, either in terms of meaning or in terms of
deducibility.

  >I was under the impression that Rand's reasoning in John Galt's speech
  >has the rigor of logical syllogisms, and that therefore, her
  >conclusions can be considered logical deductions.  I have asked
  >another person to please point out failures on this lengthy speech,
  >and I would ask you to do the same.

  This is an honest statement, but a misguided one. I reply - although it's
been a great many years since I read the speech of that insufferable bore
Galt - that nothing whatever in the Galt speech has the rigor of a logical
syllogism. So I suggest instead that you put forward some part of the
reasoning in that speech that you regard as having the rigor of a logical
syllogism.


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:35:35 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>[about whether 'tis nobler to believe in an objective reality]
>
>>Lets just say that regardless of whether an objective reality exists,
>>assuming the existance of such a reality in one's cognitive model of
>>the world seems necessary in order to survive.
>
>Now this is an interesting point.  I doubt that it is *necessary*,
>but it could well be an aid in guiding one's actions.  [There is
>an important difference between belief and making an assumption
>to make life easier, of course; this is the difference between
>religion and science.]  An analogy might be to include the infinity
>point in the complex plane; it makes integrals easier.  And if
>people want to argue it on that basis, and don't insist on some
>magical direct perception of objective reality, I have no quarrel.

Well, I wouldn't argue that there is an ability to magically directly
percieve objective reality. I'd argue that it *seems* simpler and much
safer to believe in it, and that I thus choose to believe in it, but
I'm a Popperian in my epistemology (not a Randian; I really don't like
what passes for Objectivist "epistemology"), so I'm likely aberant for
this group.

For reference, Popper basically argued that there are three kinds of
ideas -- the non-falsifiable ones ("there is an invisible undetectable
12 foot tall bunny rabbit following you at all times") which are not
worth pondering and can be ignored, the falsifiable ones that have
already been falsified (the caloric theory, for example), and the ones
that have yet to be falsified. As you test an idea more and more, you
gain additional confidence in it, but it can always be falsified. I
believe in objective reality, but if I got evidence against it I would
be willing to examine it. As I have yet to receive such evidence and
as I've tested reality a good deal and it *seems* to keep holding up,
I'll proceed, for the moment, on the assumption that it exists and is
objective. Now, I don't expect this hypothesis to be falsified, but
you never know. However, for the moment, I can safely ignore the
possibility.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:07:42 GMT
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu's message of 5 Jan 93 12:36:08 GMT


&In article <106150@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:



   In article <1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
   >I agree that the post you are responding to is not accurate. I disagree that
   >Godel's theorem is not relevant to Objectivism. Ayn Rand intended to provide
   >a sound and complete theory of reality. According to Godel's theorem it can
   >never be complete if it is formal and consistent as it was intended to be.
   >Is atheism claimed to be so, too ? 

 &  First of all, what on Earth is a "sound and complete theory of reality"???
 &  Second of all, whatever "Objectivism" may be, it is most certainly NOT
 &  a formal theory in the technical sense, and Godel's theory applies only
 &  to formal theories. I have a feeling that if people were a little more
 &  familiar with how the proof works, there would be less of this mystical
 &  conjecturing on the basis of it. Third of all, atheism is not a "theory"


For Goedel's theorem to apply you must have, or be capable of
representing the "natural numbers" (1,2,3...). Bertrand Russell
proved that although it is extermely difficult you can get a
representation of the natural numbers from Logic. Objectivism appeals
to Logic. Therefore it follows,that there exist conjetcures
which will not be provable (false or true) within the frame work
of objectivism. This does not defeat or invalidate objectivism
however. It does preclude the possiblity of removing all subjective 
elements from objectivism though.


-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:34:34 GMT

In article <1ichunINNd5f@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.) writes:
>In article <C0CB0D.8CI@SSD.intel.com>, pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>|> No.  It should be read:  I alone am responsible for myself, and am
>|> responsible for no one else.
>
>Do you know the extents of the object you call "myself"? It is possible
>that everything in the universe interact and cause their present behavior.

That may be true.  In any case, I am responsible for my body and its
actions, and the direct consequences of those actions.

>|> Under many circumstances, I would not want to see even a total
>|> stranger die or be hurt if I could help it.  Under many circumstances
>|> I would spend time and energy and money, and even risk my life to help
>|> a total stranger.  However, I believe it is reprehensible for others
>|> to choose for me the circumstances, the manner, and the extent to
>|> which I should help other people.
>
>It would be even more reprehensible if no one tried to make any decisions
>for you. You couldn't even begin to make all the decisions yourself. You
>would become a mental basket case in dire need. Of course you cannot
>accept everyone's decision; you do have responsibilities.

It would be unfortunate, but not reprehensible, if no one would make
decisions for me even if I asked them.  I know that my knowledge is
limited, and that others are more qualified to make certain decisions
for me.  And I choose, in some cases, to let others make decisions in
my life.  Unless I am a child or have some obvious mental handicap, it
is still wrong for others to decide I am too stupid to make my own
decisions and force their decisions on me.

>|> Not true.  Objectivism recognizes that we are all human beings with
>|> rights, and that we can achieve our goals and dreams easily and
>|> morally by respecting the rights of others and their responsibility
>|> for themselves.
>
>Please tell me how to achieve my dreams easily.

Under which circumstances is it easier to achieve your goals:

a)  You do not respect the rights of others.  You do not behave
    responsibly, but you take responsibility for others.

b)  You respect the rights of others.  You behave responsibly, and let
    others be responsible for themselves.

Try both ways and find out.

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism