HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:18:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.171912.21763@guinness.idbsu.edu>
     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

| >"A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls - Judge for yourself whether Rand's 
| >critique was correct.  Typical modernist muddled thinking on social
| issues.
| I agree; loony.

While Rawls's work may contain serious flaws, I don't understand how it
is muddled or loony.  Aside from the redoubtable Ms Rand's, I wonder what
modern writing on ethical and political theory is *not* muddled or loony,
in these opinionated commentators' opinion?

| (the applications to daily life are not clear).  Quine never wrote
| about ethics, alas.  Read Karl Popper on philosophy of science.

Quine did not write much on ethics, but he did write some.  Perhaps the
most significant piece is the essay "On the nature of moral values",
which is reprinted in his collection "Theories and things". 

Karl Popper ain't so hot.  I would recommend also reading some criticism
of his work, such as the short paper "The 'Corroboration' of theories',
by Hilary Putnam.  On philosophy of science, I would recommend more modern
writing.  An overview that I particularly like, despite its highly 
opinionated nature, is Richard Boyd's "On the current status of scientific
realism"; it nicely situates scientific realism in opposition to modern
empiricist and contructivist views.  Both of these papers are reprinted in
the recently published collection edited by Boyd et al., "The Philosophy
of Science".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Ostrum                                            cbo@cs.toronto.edu  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, if all you want to do is to be able to predict your experiences, 
the rational strategy is clear: Dont revise your theories, just *arrange
to have fewer experiences*; close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears,
and dont move. Now, why didnt Newton think of that?
        -- Jerry Fodor, "The Dogma that Didnt Bark"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Split
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:30:32 GMT

Right now, I am listening to Gephardt condemn free trade with a split between
theory and reality. Metaphysics has an effect upon human life. Splits seem to
be connected to a lack of individual freedom. Comments?
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philoso
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:40:33 GMT

In article <P9s2qB4w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us> betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us
 (Betsy Speicher) writes:

   >Recently the Ayn Rand Institute did a mailing to college and university
   >professors of philosophy, describing ITOE and OPAR and offering them
   >copies.  Thus far SEVERAL HUNDRED professional philosophers have
   >expressed interest and ACTUALLY ORDERED these books.

  Yes, quite a few people will order free books. However, I would like to
add to my previous remarks that it isn't really relevant how well Rand is
or is not regarded among professional philosophers. Setting Rand aside,
there is a lot of stuff in academic philosophy that is quite as bad, and
there are also some very peculiar publications. No, Rand is bad, so to
speak, standing on on her own two feet. People whose interest in philosophy
is awakened through Rand - and there are such who don't turn into randroids -
will simply have to rely on their own ability to think, whether in reading
Rand or in reading any work by a classical or academic philosopher.
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: _The Story of O_
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:48:57 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 <memo.627378@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

||| I can only suggest you read
||| alt.sex.bondage for a few months, and then reread O.

|| You have an odd notion of moral education.

| No: I would disagree with you there. Unfortuantely alt.sex.bondage
| has dissappeared from my newsfeed, but we did get alt.tasteless for a
| while. VERY educational. It is instructive to find out what one
| revolts against and try and understand why, as well as amusing to
| discover what others find daring, and one finds faintly dull...

Since alt.sex.bondage is unavailable to you, I refer you to
alt.buggery.barnfowl for further moral edification. 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:23:49 GMT

From article <1992Sep10.152455.17473@guinness.idbsu.edu>, by holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes):
> In article <1992Sep10.023239.4899@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
> [...]
>>  I think you have a vauge understanding of the notion of a "loving 
>>God" from theological grounds.  In few instances would one find the
>>God of man to be "disinterestedly" loving regardless of what your 
>>personal conclusions on the matter may be.
> 
> God has no "personal" interests; He cannot gain or lose anything.
> This is the sense in which I originally said that God's love for the
> world is disinterested.  Any discussion of Christian theology is
> irrelevant to my original remarks; I am not speaking from a Christian
> perspective (I do note the presence of an intervening party in the
> discussion -- I do not think that I am being addressed directly!).  I
> regard the Incarnation as a logically incoherent notion; even from a
> Christian theological perspective, I find the idea that the "loving"
> nature of God starts temporally with the Incarnation to be _extremely_
> dubious.  Certainly the God of the Jews (as described in the Hebrew
> Bible) exhibits love (and other emotions); the God of the rabbis is
> definitely a loving God (among other things).  I would follow
> Maimonides, however, and say that the word "love" as used of God is a
> homonym of the word "love" as used of human beings; the identity of
> the words used at best reflects a figure of speech.

  Unless we can find something that remains consistant in terms of the
love purported towards and received from God.  In this sense, theologically
speaking, I still maintain that love carries the meaning, not just
figure of speech, of "forgivingness" and "acceptence."  In this way, 
the issue of love, under certain philosophical theologies, gains a
particular ontological status.
> 
> -- 
> 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

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: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: WHAT IS LOVE?
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:45:27 GMT

    RE: Onstott [onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu], Aug.31:

    "The good, say the mystics...is God, a being whose only definition is that
he is beyond man's power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man's cons-
ciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence....The purpose of a man's
life [for mystics]...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does
not know, for reasons he is not to question." [Rand]
    "A "selfless" love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is in-
different to that which one values." [Rand]
    "One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of
the person one loves. It is one's own personal, selfish happiness that one
seeks, earns, and derives from love." [Rand]
    
    Religion and faith are evil.

    Objectivity is not Kant's social consciousness but the connection of the
mind, via choice and logic, to reality.
        Onstott's claim that considerations of existence and context (or limit)
beg the question in discussing love is backwards. Only a specific context of
existence can allow one to consider love. Mystics and Objectivists have their
respective contexts. You can love when your mind is disconnected from reality
but its not a pretty sight. Mystics counsel irrationality and then claim Origi-
nal Sin  describes the result. It's an ancient fraud. It's evil.
    
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:07:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.183007.10985@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

>For an overview of the intellectual history leading up to the current
>state of things, read Allan Bloom's _The Closing of the American
>Mind_.  One may or may not agree with what he says, but he has read
>the philosophers involved, he is "on the side of reason", and he
>apportions the blame rather differently than Rand does.

That's a good recommendation.  Bloom was pretty important in my getting 
started studying philosophy, not so much because of what he had to say,
but because he provided a lot of good pointers.  I didn't particularly 
like where placed his "blame" for why things are so aweful, but his general
information was quite interesting.

--Brian
From: kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us (kalki)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Causality and exceptions 
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 03:48:07 EDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

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
                       
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: _The Story of O_
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:22:00 +0000

cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes..

>What does consent have to do with it? Some people are
>self-destructive, and consent in--or even initiate--all sorts of
>activities that damage them. Does that make it right for me to assist
>them in their own destruction? To take pleasure in doing the evil to
>them that they themselves may desire? Of course not.

Ah. But does it make it wrong Peter?

Are you sure that you are not drawing a grid of your own
(unquestioned) morality over the discussion and calling it
'self-evident'.

I always feel that one mans self-evident common sense is another's a
priori assumption :-)

>> I can only suggest you read
>>alt.sex.bondage for a few months, and then reread O.

>You have an odd notion of moral education.

No: I would disagree with you there. Unfortuantely alt.sex.bondage
has dissappeared from my newsfeed, but we did get alt.tasteless for a
while. VERY educational. It is instructive to find out what one
revolts against and try and understand why, as well as amusing to
discover what others find daring, and one finds faintly dull...


Anyway this is all pointless: To discuss morality we have to agree
what is good and what is bad - what is better and what is worse. And
if we start from different assumptions we will not reach agreement.


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:29:26 GMT

From article <1992Sep10.152857.18676@guinness.idbsu.edu>, by holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes):

> 
> I don't think that love exists without feelings _in practice, for us_.
> But I do not think that feelings are either a necessary or sufficient
> condition for love.  This could become significant if we were talking
> about nonhumans (alien intelligent beings, artifical intelligences, or
> God).

  Good idea.  Even a phenomenological account of love would need to
work through 'feelings' in a more concrete manner.  This adds another
dimension to this research than I had thought of before.

> 
> -- 
> 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

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"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:39:12 GMT
Originator: jrk@sperwer.cwi.nl

In <1992Sep11.040353.15399@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>In article <d!vnhpk.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>>So in what way is _The_Story_of_O_ extreme?

>If you're at all familiar with this story, and are still asking this
>question, then there's no point in answering you. This truly is a case of
>"if you have to ask, then don't bother". 

>Dialogue implies a certain degree of mutual understanding; if this
>understanding is not present, then dialogue is impossible.

The events in the story take place with the consent of all involved.
If you do not understand the meaning of consent, then indeed, dialogue
with you is likely to be impossible.  I can only suggest you read
alt.sex.bondage for a few months, and then reread O.

In <1992Sep10.153356.20177@guinness.idbsu.edu>, holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
> The _Story of O_ is a work of fiction.  It would be easier to accept
> it as evidence if it were a piece of biography.  From the synopsis, I
> would rule it out of court on the basis that it is not realistic
> (although it might represent actual consequences of the adoption of a
> false moral standard -- it could be rejected on these grounds even if
> it were biography).

and in <1992Sep10.202437.29116@guinness.idbsu.edu>, he writes:
>I do believe that there are
>moral (ethical?) truths; it is somewhat difficult to identify them
>precisely, but extreme cases are less difficult to sort out.

Extreme cases are less difficult to sort out only because they excite
one's prejudices more and make one less inclined to think about them.
And extreme cases are only extreme in comparison to one's personal
experience.  A subscription to alt.sex.bondage seems to be indicated
here as well.

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
From: kbrooks@ut-emx.uucp (kevin brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Summary: kant and causality
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:16:05 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <6498@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski) writes:
> In article <18dt94INNqsb@agate.berkeley.edu> epfaith@sunkist.berkeley.edu (Edward Paul Faith) writes:
[deleted stuff here] > 
> Another question for the well-read: I recall Kant said that it was a
> metaphysical law of nature that "Every event has a cause."  (Maybe
> that's not what he called it; my _Meta_of_G_of_Morals_ is at home.)  In
> his other many-paged tomes, does he reason this out somewhere?
> 
> Daniel Kranowski
> email: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (5 day terminus countdown)

i thought that this was outlined in _the critique of pure reason_.

regards,

kevin brooks
dept. of art
university of texas at austin
austin, tx 78712
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
	<BuJyuG.77v@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:13:23 GMT

In article <BuJyuG.77v@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
(Brian K. Yoder) writes:

   >Talk about poorly argued!  Content-free arguments of this kind are not
   >particularly effective.  I think her arguments are quite good, they just
   >are not written in the academic jargon philosophers use to write for each
   >other.  If anything, I think that makes her arguments BETTER, not worse.

  You make the common mistake among Rand sympathizers of assuming that
comments like mine are intended as arguments. I don't try to argue
Objectivism with Objectivists, any more than I try to argue with Jehovah's
Witnesses or the representatives of other sects. Nor do I make it my
business to try to turn people away from whatever garbage they may find
appealing. To each his own.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Grossman Satire (was Re: Causality and exceptions)
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:15:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.003641.26896@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Robert.Vienneau@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>In a previous post some time ago, Stephen Grossman had relations
>existing, just like anything else. So ...
>
>Existience exists, and things exist. They all exist and the set of all
>things exist. Sets exist, and so do their members. Some sets have
>members that are sets themselves, and some sets don't. Both kinds of
>sets exist. They exist equally. All sets exist. The set of all sets
>that can be defined in 100 words or less is a set. It exists, and it is
>defined in less than 100 words. It is a member of itself. The set of
>all sets that are members of themselves exists. So does the set of all
>sets that are not members of themselves. Limits only exist in epi, not
>obj.
    This is pretty good, altho limited to Bertrand Russell's Platonic chaos.
Limits exist in episte, meta, and obj. Limits even exist in the unlimited
since everything exists.


>Logic exists, and so does illogic. Shit exists, and Mr. Grossman's mind
>exists and so does the shit that is Grossman's mind.
    Within your limit, shit is my mind. But not within my limit. And, of course,
not objectively. Within some limit, shit is your mind. What is that limit?


I guess the concern with grammar that pervades the philosophy groups like a
burnt feather means that linguistic analysis continues malingering in the 
august halls of philosophy. And, of course, Kantian nihilism leaves so little
for the mind to grasp that...well, it's just sad, that all.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: causality and exceptio
Date: 13 Sep 92 12:31:13 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: ALMAC BBS Ltd

AM/*In article <1992Sep4.161504.19714@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
AM/*dall Holmes) writes:
AM/*>In article <1992Sep4.124028.1383@bernina.ethz.ch> stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg S
AM/*bacher) writes:
AM/*>>Does anyone know about a thing, an event or anything else that
AM/*>>exists, happens or simply is with no cause.

AM/*>What about the universe (the totality of _everything_ that exists)?

AM/*Nope. The universe _may_ be without cause, but to assert that it in fact
AM/*_is_ without cause requires a bit more work. One interesting point is that
AM/*you will probably need to restrict "cause" and "effect" to be linearly
AM/*ordered in time in order to make it stick - else the interpretation, suggest
AM/*by quantum theory, that the observer "causes" the events is in play.

That's a Humean restriction. Is Hume's definition of causality the
generally accepted one?

 ndy ~ london ~ uk                        andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk

---
 ~ SLMR 2.1a #112 ~ Roll another one.....
--
ALMAC BBS Ltd. 0324-665371
Dos based USENET access,  call for details!
From: amiga@phobos.unm.edu (carlos a.f  senaenterr)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Dualism
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:07:09 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


	This is the most ingenius
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: What is Love?  _The Story of O_
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:24:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.175315.29106@mips2.ma30.bull.com> fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.153356.20177@guinness.idbsu.edu>, holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>|> The _Story of O_ is a work of fiction.  It would be easier to accept
>|> it as evidence if it were a piece of biography.  From the synopsis, I
>|> would rule it out of court on the basis that it is not realistic
>|> (although it might represent actual consequences of the adoption of a
>|> false moral standard -- it could be rejected on these grounds even if
>|> it were biography).
>|> -- 
>|> 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
>
>"False moral standard?". Bad, maybe, but "false"? No such
>thing.  Morever, what "court" are you ruling fiction out of?
>Even if the story did not in fact happen as described can't it
>be said that it describes something we know "could" happen?
>Or perhaps we know of actual events that are similar or even
>worse in character. It tells us something about real possibilities
>in  the human circumstance, doesn't it? Are you rejecting this?
>Are you saying that the story doesn't illustrate something about
>what we know could occur, and thereby says nothing about
>something worth knowing about?
>
>fjc

I'm thinking of a moral (ethical?) standard as a collection of
propositions about what is good and evil (for some understood end --
in this case, living a human life).  Falsehood is an applicable
predicate.  Of course, it is unpopular to claim that there are true
propositions about good and evil (and I myself do believe that "Good
for what?" is a legitimate question).  I do believe that there are
moral (ethical?) truths; it is somewhat difficult to identify them
precisely, but extreme cases are less difficult to sort out.
-- 
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