HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@sgml.com (Brian E. Travis)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Thoughts on the group
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:39:02 GMT
Reply-To: brian@sgmlinc.com
Organization: SGML Associates, Inc.

In article <1993Jan6.181000.2522@fcom.cc.utah.edu> leon@cs.weber.edu 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.  Hiding behind supposed interest in the subject,
 > they seem only to want to quarrel.  Why do they do this?  How
 > many people crowd the other groups, stirring trouble in this
 > manner? 

Frequently, in alt.atheism, someone will slip by security and 
write somehing like:
    JESUS SAVES! REPENT AND CHOOSE JESUS AS YOUR SAVIOR!!!!!
or
    IF YOU AIN'T WITH JESUS, YOU AIN'T SHIT!!!
always capitalized and with lots of exclamation marks.

There was even a post that generated a lot of useless heat and 
wasted bandwidth on rec.climbing a couple weeks back. The poster 
derided the readers for trying to get closer to god by climing 
mountains, and the only way to reach god was THROUGH JESUS!!!!! 
and that we should all fall off the mountain next time if we 
don't.

I think you are right in your assessment of why people do this; 
it tends to expose irrational thought and make the readers 
uncomforable with their own basic philosophy, so they make up for 
it by immediately going offensive.

 >         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.  

I'm not sure I agree with this. It smacks of "this is your 
country...love it or leave it, buster". I find that the best way 
to build my own opinions of the world is to enter into a debate 
where I am constantly being forced to justify my position. For 
this reason, I appreciate the new posters who are trying to 
understand the philosophy, but am irritated by the zealots who 
just enter to argue.

Fortunatly and unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about 
this in an open newsgroup. We can, however, excercise our 
individual right to add these frequent boorish posters to the 
kill file.

I would like to see in an FAQ a list of suggested reading so 
readers can understand the basics before posting questions like 
"so, what's this objectivism about, anyway". It would save us all 
time and bandwidth, and leave us free to discuss the finer points 
of the philosophy and how it fits with the current world order.

Is anyone planning an FAQ?

 >         I'm really excited about this group and hope to contribute
 > often, but I refused to cater to a Kantian mob who's only real
 > purpose is to shut us down.


Brian Travis

Rush Limbaugh is Ellsworth M. Toohey with a bad haircut.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Why the hostility?
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 07:34:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan04.192637.28405@microsoft.com>, johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
|> In article sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> | For example, I don't see anything at all wrong with an individual or a
|> | voluntarily-formed group practicing altruism -- that is, giving unearned goods to
|> | those who need them.  My problem is with government forcing people to be
|> | altruistic.  My problem is not with altruism, but with the improper use of force.
|> |  However, that attitude wouldn't have been very well accepted by Rand, and a guy
|> 
|> I think she would conclude that giving goods to those you judged
|> needed them, because you *wanted to*, is perfectly fine and doesn't
|> deserve the label altruism.  You are getting something in return --
|> genuine gratification -- that you judged was a fair exchange.  (Not
|> that she might not think you were being silly, but to each their own.)
|> 
|> In the words of another author:
|> 
|> "Generosity is inborn,
|>  Alturism is a learned perversity.
|>  No resemblence." R. A. Heinlein.

	Beautiful!

Steve

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley)
Subject: Re: The Beef Before Me
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:16:59 GMT

In response to Mark Hayes' criticisms of my article, first a few comments 
(followed by an amended statement 5)

First, no need to be sarcastic or condescending.  I (as hopefully a significant
share of others) am here to further my understandings of philosophy, O (or "o")
-bjectivism, and life in general.  As such I am trying to overcome my natural 
desire to be right at all times and am attempting to have the attitude of 
"willing to be wrong."  I freely admit that I might make mistakes that will 
have both sides (and all other perspectives) on the objectivist position howl 
with anger, contempt, and/or laughter.  I would prefer to stay on a level of
communication that allows for as much openness, tolerance, learning,
discussion, and even belief-changing as possible.  That way I might become a
better person.  (End of sermon)

Now, as far as the argument, perhaps we could reformulate 5) as

5) A living being's primary value should be (must be, is?) to follow the course
   of action required to maintain its life.

(or)

5) A person's primary value should be to preserve his life.

This follows better, I think.  And, as Mark pointed out, we should talk about 
primary value for a bit. I am taking this from an individual's point of view, 
so read it as "the most important goal *to that person*.

More later (time constraints)...
-- 
Dan  ***  dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
*******************************************
Disclaimer: Due to budget constraints, The Ohio State University cannot afford 
to express official university opinions on Usenet.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:37:30 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <1993Jan12.183432.14924@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan07.025827.22542@news.mentorg.com>
|> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
|> 
|> >I have bought a copy of Coppleston's "History of Philosophy" and plan
|> >to read about Kant and perhaps get references to any works of his that
|> >are suitable for layman reading. Whether Kant deserves Rand's
|> >criticism or not I don't yet know. My own experience of people who
|> >claim consciousness to be supreme has been that they wanted me to
|> >accept THEIR consciousness as supreme.
|> 
|> This is silly.  If you want to find out about Kant you need to read
|> Kant.  I suggest the 'Critique of Pure Reason' at least.
|> 
|> -- 
|>      Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
|>                gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Thanks for the pointer. However, I do not think it is "silly" to read the
context before reading the material nor to get the overview of one's works 
before selecting one. 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 21:44:29 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <TORKEL.93Jan4145221@isis.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.050437.29781@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.
|> umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
|> 
|>    >Godel's theorem states, in a nutshell, "Any algebraic system strong enough
|>    >to include arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete." Note the
|>    >"either-or". Either inconsistent or incomplete; not both. Most are
|>    >incomplete."Incomplete" means that there are some statements which are 
|>    >true but cannot be proven... not that there are statements which are
|>    >undecidable.
|> 
|>   Just a pro forma comment: the above is not at all accurate. But Godel's
|> theorem is no more relevant to Objectivism than to atheism (it has
|> figured frequently in alt.atheism), so there is no reason to go into
|> any detail.


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 ? 

Whether this is important or not will not be obvious unless statements other
than "This statement is not provable" which we can directly apply to our
life are esablished as true but unprovable somehow.

Perhaps her "validity of concepts" argument can be used in conjuction with
Type thoery to question Godel's theorem itself, I haven't thought through.
In the meanwhile I remain thankful for the soundness of her theory.


Madhav Nerurkar


Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: Funding govt.........(Was: A Warning to the Uninformed
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:44:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.194457.5018@athena.mit.edu>, tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:
> ==================================================
>  greg@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Greg James) writes:
> >Is there any guarantee that the resulting billing bureaucracy for an
> >Objectivist socity will not be larger than a government one?
> 
>  Back to the subject of funding govt.
>  The real question is "is billing the best way to fund govt?"
>  I am still brooding on this. May be, the answer is a flat estate or
>  property charge with the option that every individual has the constitutional
>  right to _not pay_ - and non-payment implies the indidvidual does not get
>  govt services (like court or police etc.). Late payments would carry hefty
>  penalties - like our favorite credit card company's lending rules.
> 

If those who opt out of the "government" charges can contract for these
services from other agencies in the market, then this is really verging
on libertarian anarcho-capitalism.  
 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blumen                          | robert@tcs.com
Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:04:05 GMT
	<MERRITT.93Jan7100008@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan7180729@lludd.sics.se>
	<MERRITT.93Jan7142129@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan7211409@bast.sics.se>
	<MERRITT.93Jan8103208@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan8173600@bugs.sics.se>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: torkel@sics.se's message of 8 Jan 93 16:36:00 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan8173600@bugs.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:


   In article <MERRITT.93Jan8103208@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu 
   (Sean Merritt) writes:

      >I don't have any hope of convincing you that Ayn Rand offered
      >Objectivisim first as a Science.

#     We seem to be talking at cross purposes here. What I said in my
#   original article was only this, that "logic", "axiom", "theorem", as
#   these terms are used in and of Objectivism do not have the meaning
#   that they have in modern logic (or mathematics or mainstream
#   philosophy). What Rand offered Objectivism as is not at issue.
#
#     What you need to do to judge the validity of my comments is simply to
#   look at what "logic", "axiom", "theorem" mean in modern logic and
#   make a comparison with the Objectivist usage.

To expidite matters:

Please provide the meanings of "logic" , "axiom" and "theorem" in the
context of maodern logic for comparison.


-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
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:00:44 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <C0EL60.6E3@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:

>Objectivism is the only philosophy that rests on
>axioms which we must all accept...
>and draws its conclusions logically from them.

God, sometimes I forget why Randroids piss me off so much,
and then I read something like this and remember.

If I'm not mistaken, this person is claiming that "objectivism"
follows LOGICALLY from a small set of indisputable logical axioms,
implying, reasonably enough (*if* it were true) that disputing
"objectivism" would be as stupid and/or insane as disputing
the principle of self-identity.

What excrement!  Do you *really* believe this???

At least have the intellectual integrity to admit that you're
endorsing an ethical theory (of sorts) that clearly is based
on considerations and attitudes going far beyond stuff like "A=A".
The claim that "objectivism" "follows logically" from logic
is pure rhetoric, and come on, we all know that, don't we?
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:50:48 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan9.201046.21236@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
->In article <106616@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
->> as I recall from my last night's viewing of the movie "The Fountainhead",
->> slavery includes any instance of work without pay, including work
->> done for charitable causes.
->
->The difference between charity and slavery is quite simple: the former is
->voluntary, the latter is coerced... Love (charity, benevolence, kindness)
->is one of the best reflections of an objectivist's values -- when given
->voluntarily.

Not according to Howard Roark, whose spoken words come straight from
the pen of Ayn Rand. His statement that "work without pay is slavery"
is made in response to a colleague's trying to give him a reason why
he should *voluntarily* design a low-cost housing project.
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:03:35 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan04.225005.7515@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
>If you have any respect for what 
>you are doing, don't call it altruistic.

Nonsense. This reminds me of the old argument that "people always do
what they want to" because, e.g., if I torture you into giving me
information, you wind up giving it to me because you WANT me to stop
torturing you. This "argument" against altruism merely defines
"altruism" in such an absurd way that it becomes not merely
undesirable but impossible.

I don't know exactly how to define it, myself, but a first pass
might be, "acting for the good of others, with the desire to achieve
that good as one's primary motive". Just from a common-sense point
of view, I see no reason why we have to assume that the performer
of an altruistic act doesn't "feel good" about doing it.

I'm reminded of Kant's wretched theory of moral value, in which
one's actions have moral worth ONLY if one specifically wants NOT
to perform them - a tragic situation in which the person who works
all his life to develop a disposition toward morality winds up
being morally worthless because he likes being moral.

By the way, a wonderful antidote to Toxic Randroid Syndrome is
a book called "The Nature of Altruism" (or something very close
to that) by the philosopher Thomas Nagel. It gives a clear,
rational definition of altruism and offers a defense of it
by analogizing groups of people with different moments in a
single person's life, and suggesting that altruism is merely
the social analog of the rational desire to look out for the
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Re: Unbreached Rationality
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:15:44 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726620257@therien>, lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
> svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
> >That would seem to be a desirable 'personality trait' for anyone, regardless
> >of what philosophy they subscribe to.   Anything else would seem to be self
> >destructive.  There should always be an answer to the question, "Why did
> >I do that?".   If not, our actions and reactions would have no central theme;
> >it would be like living life with emotions running amok.
> 
> I disagree.  Emotions do "run amok" of their own nature: they are illogical
> and entirely subjective.
> 
> Why am I posting this?  Because I wanted to.  It is not necessary that I
> have a central theme.  I am not a novel; I do not have to have a theme, moral,
> plot, or background pages.

Partially true.  Many emotions are irrational (they tend to get us into 
situations we would normally enjoy being in), and they often have perfectly
logical causes (unless that cause is another emotion).  What I'm getting at is 
that one should avoid allowing emotions to manipulate their every choice, every
thought.   To "run amok", for me, is to allow complete manipulation of one's
existence by said emotions.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tthiel@cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel)
Subject: Re: Rich getting richer? The facts....
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:50:34 GMT

What a bunch of crap.  Like the treasury Dpet. is some kind of unbiased source?
Get real.  Any moron can look at the state of the american economy including
unemployment, taxation, and the low gross national income and see that the
disinformation is coming from the welthy corporate assholes who support
right-wing newspaper columnists and provide personnel as political appointees
to the Treasury Dept.  it's absolutely idiotic and flies in the face of all
common snese to suggest otherwise.
-Terry
-- 
-Terry
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Date: 8 Jan 93 10:55:03 GMT
	<TORKEL.93Jan7202235@bast.sics.se> <C0ICo0.7Iz@SSD.intel.com>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <C0ICo0.7Iz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) 
writes:

   >Have you never heard anyone
   >explain the role of "A is A" in such a way that conclusions can be
   >drawn?  It has been stated that the phrase "A is A" denotes Identity.
   >Does the acceptance of Identity, along with other axioms, not allow
   >conclusions to be drawn?

  From an ordinary logical point of view, your remarks are incoherent,
since identity is a relation, not a statement, and "accepting
identity" has no obvious meaning. Of course for somebody who takes
Rand to be the chief authority on logic, there is nothing
unsatisfactory about variously explaining "A is A" as expressing "a
thing is itself" or "existence exists" or a demand of some kind, or as
denoting identity or existence, and presenting various assertions as
"consequences" of this formula. Instead this kind of intellectual sloppiness
is regarded as - by definition - the epitome of logical thinking. I have
no objection to this as long as it is understood that what Rand means by
"logic" and "logical reasoning" has little to do with what is usually
understood by those terms in philosophy.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: markb@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Mark Bower)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism
Organization: Martin Marietta
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:03:00 GMT

>> Objectivism is a philosophy built on moral principles, but those moral
>> principles themselves have no foundation.  Religions can build their
>> morality on divine inspiration, science builds precepts on what is
>> proven to work;

Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Science and mathematics are both
based upon hypothesis that _correlate_ well with repeated observations.
There is no TRUTH in science. Occam's Razor simply requests we choose the
simplest answer out of many possible answers.

>> but philosophies such as Objectivism stand on nothing
>> other than the very shaky grounds that "it sounds right to me".

A better basis for showing the merits of Objectivism would be the success
free markets have experienced through history up to and including the more
recent "turn-arounds" in nations such as Chile or Poland. Also, the
ubiquitous black market can be seen as trade w/o regulation and would simply
not exist if it could not provide otherwise unavailable services and goods.

>> People join religions on the basis of such inner resonance, and
>> rightly so.  National policy should be based on something a little
>> more solid.

National policy will only represent the attitudes and values of the majority
and the powerful. Elegant solutions may remain forever within the confines of
linear algebra! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:25:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.172400.1060@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

|> Objectivism is NOT a formal system like mathematics -- 

OBJECTIVISM is not comparible to mathmatics because the former is a philosophy
which is an application of a formal system called logic.  Logic is a formal
system and here's why I think so:  mathematics is a system derived from the
Law of Identity and other natural laws such as ones involving the natural
numbers.  Logic is derived from the Law of Identity as well and it procedes
with other laws that are relevant to logic.  Boolean math is a symbolic 
representation of logic.  ex: TRUE and FALSE is FALSE.... If A then B, A therefore B.  etc....   
A course in discrete math really helps to clear this up.  It's too bad that
Rand wasn't able to explain this well enough, but then again I have trouble
myself.  Individuals are not infinite...there's only so much we can accomplish.
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 21:51:59 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <TORKEL.93Jan4145221@isis.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan4.050437.29781@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.
|> umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
|> 
|>    >Godel's theorem states, in a nutshell, "Any algebraic system strong enough
|>    >to include arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete." Note the
|>    >"either-or". Either inconsistent or incomplete; not both. Most are
|>    >incomplete."Incomplete" means that there are some statements which are 
|>    >true but cannot be proven... not that there are statements which are
|>    >undecidable.
|> 
|>   Just a pro forma comment: the above is not at all accurate. But Godel's
|> theorem is no more relevant to Objectivism than to atheism (it has
|> figured frequently in alt.atheism), so there is no reason to go into
|> any detail.

	Except, perhaps, to enlighten the rest of us about Godel's theorem and
exactly WHY it is not applicable.  No math teacher answers, either ("the proof is
over your head").

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism