From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Keywords: It seems to me that there are a bunch of people
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:19:12 GMT

leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
>participating in this news group who are not objectivists and
>show no indications of having in any desire to do anything but
>cause trouble.

Well, I've posted a few articles today that I suspect will cause
trouble. I consider myself to be an objectivist, but I doubt that most
"high church" objectivists would agree with me.

>Hiding behind supposed interest in the subject,
>they seem only to want to quarrel.  Why do they do this?

I can't speak to other people's motives. My own motive is partially my
own amusement (and what higher value can I strive for than that which
pleases me) and partially because I find that arguing my closely held
beliefs with other intelligent people often produces enlightening
insights. I formed much of my own personal world view as a result of
such discussions, and find them of value to me.

>I think it's perhaps
>because objectivism exposes in some the bare fact that they are
>being irrational and therefore self-destructive.  Smokers don't
>enjoy being told that what they are doing causes cancer for the
>same reason.  It hurts to be shown your unattended weaknesses.

What an amusing example you are using. I'll remind you that Ayn Rand
killed herself with her cigarette smoking, and during her life
virtually fettishized smoking in objectivist groups.

>	I can sympathize; however, no one is forced to subscribe to
>this group.  If you don't agree with objectivism, then this isn't
>the place you ought to be.  It is pointless to argue with those
>who won't even agree to the Law of Identity, since the concept of
>logic is derived from this law.

Actually, it isn't, and I am rather annoyed at the objectivists who
constantly claim this and never seem to have even looked at a book on
formal logic. There are several basic axioms in the formal systems we
usually refer to as "logic" (such as predicate calculus), and by
definition all axioms are more or less equally important. You can't
derive formal reasoning methods from a single axiom at all. There are
also, by the way, several widely accepted reasoning methods out there.
You can choose, as an example, whether or not you believe in inductive
methods.

>	Lastly, for those who honestly wish to learn more about
>objectivism, then I suggest that individual study is the best
>choice.  The works of Rand, Peikoff, and others are eloquently
>written and probably more precise than we can offer over the net. 
>This group is more appropriate for the discussion of
>higher-order objectivist issues such as ethical conduct regarding
>government educational grants or the political worthiness of the
>Libertarian party.

I was under the impression that, Rand having pronounced the party
evil, there was no further discussion necessary among the Big O
Objectivists who consider Rand having said something to be identical
to a perfect and indisputable derivation of the concept from first
principles. 

Sorry about saying that, but I've often found the adherents of "High
Church" objectivism (i.e. the sort of folks who will mention Rand and
Peikoff, but not the apostate David Kelly, who is, after all, a minion
of irrationality and evil since he had the audacity to ask questions)
to lack much of the logic that they constantly tout. I'm a big fan of
logic myself, but to me that implies actually being able to reason out
my personal positions for myself, and rejecting what I find to be
irrational even if it was stated by a cherished teacher like Ayn Rand.
Although I'd say that what I consider to be the core of Rand's
teachings was essentially correct (i.e. the notion that selfishness is
o.k., that one should live for ones self, that capitalism is a good
thing), there are parts of Rand's writings that are either very weakly
founded or downright wrong.

Here is an example that I haven't used thus far. Rand was very big on
the notion that the evidence of one's senses is reliable, and rather
hated philosophers that asked the question that Descartes first posed
in terms of a deceiver: could the reality I perceive be something that
some deceiver is feeding to my senses but which has no correspondance
with reality? Rand dismissed this as a stupid question. However,
virtual reality technology is now getting better and better, to the
point that, sometime in the next fifty or hundred years, we will be
able to completely simulate a sensorium that does not exist, and in
the middle of the night someone very well *could* anesthetize you and
hook you in to a completely synthetic sensorium that reflects a world
that has no objective reality whatsoever. Now, this doesn't mean that
one should give up -- if you are interested in survival, you have to
operate on the assumption that your sensorium accurately reflects the
real world, and on that point I have to completely agree with Rand and
all her strict followers. However, it does sort of cast shadow on the
rather naively constructed arguments that would like to say that the
reality reflected by our senses must necessarily have some objective
connection to the real world -- because soon we will be able to
demonstrate even to a skeptic that it is possible to eliminate a
person's capacity to determine if he is indeed viewing the real world.

Anyway, I've gone on long enough for now.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism