From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:58:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.052844.4774@athena.mit.edu> robscjr@athena.mit.edu (Robert S Cruikshank) writes:
>My views:
>A. Logic cannot bootstrap itself---there are ARGUMENTS for axioms,
>not PROOFS.

Absolutely, but Objectivism is the only philosophy that rests on
axioms which we must all accept.  For example, you cannot say, "I am a
Socialist because I reject Objectivism's axiom 'existence exists'."
If you reject this axiom, you must reject any kind of ordered view of
the universe and your place in it.  Objectivism is the only philosophy
that rests solely on a few such axioms and draws its conclusions
logically from them.

>B. After years of amateur reading of physics, math, philosophy and rhetoric
>and logic in a deep abiding passion for understanding fundamentals, I have
>decided that I personally wish to have no beliefs, no axioms at all.  By
>this I mean that I wish to use working hypotheses.  I would consider the
>definition:  a BELIEF is an axiom with strong emotional attachment.

The state you are striving for is impossible to attain.  At some
point, you must have axioms.  Objectivism's axioms are simply the most
basic and well-defined, as well as being just plain intuitive.  You
cannot build evidence against them, because you cannot say, "There
exists evidence against existence."

>E.  I take just about all of Rand's axioms as extremely useful hypotheses
>every day.  I refuse to BELIEVE them, however.  I have had quite enough
>of that, thank you.

Umm...I think you are confusing Ayn Rand's AXIOMS with the logical
CONCLUSIONS she draws from them.  I've stated that it is difficult not
to accept her axioms.  You only have to take her conclusions on faith
if you're not willing to derive them for yourself.

>J.  All of this---Objectivism, amorality, total doubt---requires strong
>desire, and to avert disaster, great intelligence.  I feel that morality
>was evolved to help control people in part because many people cannot
>reason out for themselves why killing some offensive SOB is not in their
>long term best interests.  Most moral rules got that way because they
>were useful in some fashion.  This is akin to Ben Franklin's comment in his
>autobiography," I came to the conclusion that these things were not bad
>because they were forbidden; rather they were forbidden because they were
>bad."  (apologies for any slight misquote.)  When considering violating
>one of society's sacred cows---which I do more frequently these days---it
>helps to stop and try to discern why that cow got put there first.  Many
>are the cows I have left alone after such contemplation.

Funny you should use the phrase "sacred cow," because most people
believe that the Hindu rule "a cow is sacred" saved early farmers from
having to derive the fact that a cow's long-term value as a producer
of milk and fertilizer and as an aid to food production far outweighs
its short-term value as food.  Furthermore, the emotional pressure of
this rule helped them overcome the emotional pressures of famine and
take what was really in most cases the rational course of action.

However, many religious rules have no such rational basis, or if they
do, it has been forgotten or become outdated.  On the other hand no
one can call himself a true Objectivist if he takes Objectivist
conclusions strictly on faith.

>In conclusion, Rand struck me as an individual who knew far more about logic
>than she did about human beings, and the irrational thought processes that
>drive them.

I disagree.  I think she realized that humans demean themselves and
others and cause suffering to the extent that they allow themselves to
be driven by irrational thought processes.

>  She advocated a black-and-white view of the world (see the
>Playboy Interview) and while any question of logic is best treated so, humans
>are painted in not only shades of gray but every color of the spectrum.

>In her novels I found two types of human beings only, Good and Evil.  Not

This is true.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to become 100%
good.  An ideal that accepts every one just as they are is an
oxymoron.  And she believes in Romantic literature:  literature that
presents man as he should be.

>To me the most telling point was when Toffler asked
>Rand whether following Objectivism would lead to a "juiceless, joyless
>existence."  I read on eagerly, this question burning in my mind at the time.
>Rand's reply began, "I really have no idea what you are talking about.  Let's
>define our terms..."  I wanted to scream in frustration.  I really think Rand
>didn't have a clue as to how someone couldn't make that conceptual leap, one
>that requires a VERY great deal of thought--or lucky axioms.  Face it, 
>almost nobody is raised an Objectivist.

Let me correct you.  In response to whether Objectivism would lead to
a juiceless, joyless existence, Rand showed how Objectivism promotes
self-esteem and acceptance of reality and puts emotions in their place,
which allows human beings to truly enjoy life.  It is only a
conceptual leap to the extent that thinking rationally is a leap for
people who have been raised to think irrationally a lot of the time.
Unfortunately, that includes most of us!

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