HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:46:50 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <C0pA0x.I3K@SSD.intel.com>, pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
|> In article <106687@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
|> 
|> >Scenario: While contemplating his own glory aboard his private yacht,
|> >Howard Roark sees someone drowning, going help-help-help and all that
|> >(perhaps the drowner doesn't realize what kind of world he lives in).
|> >All Roark has to do to save the person is walk across the deck, grab
|> >a life preserver, and toss it in. But he doesn't bother - why should he?
|> >He's too busy contemplating his own glory, and no-one else has a
|> >claim on his actions. So the guy in the water drowns.
|> >
|> >Has he behaved in a reprehensible way, Objectivists? As far as I can
|> >gather, your answer must be "no".
|> 
|> If the contemplation of his own glory is truly more valuable to him
|> than the possible consequences of expending a little effort that means
|> saving some one's life, then, IMO, he has acted in accordance with
|> Objectivist principles.
|> 
|> However, I would seriously question his prioritization of his values.
|> Most people, I daresay even the staunchest Objectivists, do not have
|> such priorities.  Furthermore, I would point out to him that he might
|> get a tremendous return for a bit of effort if the drowning person is
|> wealthy.  Heck, he might even get another yacht.  Given how these two
|> considerations reflect on his general competence, I would be careful
|> never to hire him as an architect, and I would recommend that my
|> friends also not hire him.
|> 

Actually, Ayn Rand distinguishes between emergency ethics and normal ethics.
Perhaps someone on net can comment on it, else I can dig up the reference.

Given the value placed on individuals and minds capable of rationality, to
save a drowning person would be an act of high virtue for an Objectivism provided
it is an emrgency situation. If a person tries to blackmail another with a
suicide threat and then jumps in water after the bluff is called, I do not think
would be worth saving at risk to one's life according to Objectivism.

Personally, I would consider myself lucky if I was drowning and Mr. Roark was
around rather than, say, a person who considers world as unreal.


Madhav Nerurkar                Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
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
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:24:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.
com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:

  >Why should I care how the proof works or
  >what class of formal theories was used to demonstrate it ( As Torkel Franzen
  >would want me to) ? 

  On the contrary, I have emphasized that there is no reason at all why
Objectivists should concern themselves with Godel's theorem. On the
other hand, if you make nonsensical invocations of Godel's theorem,
it is in order to point out that they are nonsensical. So let me repeat
a simple basic point: Godel's theorem applies to formal systems. "Objectivism"
is not a formal system.
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:20:12 GMT
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University

In article <lewchuk.726348211@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>If it has axioms, and uses logic to turn axioms into theorems, it's a formal
>system.

This may be true by your definition, but I don't think by Godel's.  To
be a formal system, it must have a formal language (natural languages
didn't qualify last time I checked), and the rules for deriving
consequences must be purely mechanical.  Objectivism does not meet
these criteria for a formal system.

>Mathematical definition of the set of "theorems of Objectivism" is not
>required.

It is if you wish to discuss the relevance of Godel's theorem.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Unbreached Rationality
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:25:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.205923.29755@sctc.com> smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) writes:
}In Rand's writings, both fiction and nonfiction, she said that one's
}every act should be consistent with their philosophy. If one claims to
}be a rational person, then their every act should be justifiable
}through an appropriate process of reason following from their personal
}premises.  She claimed that no excuses should be made for "human
}weakness" or weariness or anything else. This style of "unbreached
}rationality" was the ideal to which all rational people should aspire.
}Anything less was a moral lapse.
}
}Is there a consensus on whether this is a key part of objectivism, or
}simply a peculiarity of Rand's personality?

I think the operable phrase comes from your next to the last sentence in
your opening paragraph, "the ideal to which all rational people should
aspire."  With that in mind, aspiring to an ideal, it is a key to the
philosophy and possibly to her personality.  Remember, the character of
John Galt represents her vision of the ideal man, totally rational, willing
to live or die on the efficacy of his own intellect and the courage of his
own integrity.  Every action he took was consistant with his philosophy of
life.

Does this mean every rational person should aspire to be a John Galt or
Howard Roark?  No.  But I do think each person should develop his or her
own sense of life into a philosophy of life to the extent that he or she
can, then live it as honestly and consistantly as possible, being aware of
new information that will either validate or refute that philosophy.


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:18:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan5.221730.12807@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes...
>Rand never said humans didn't make mistakes.  She never claimed to be perfect.
>She was prone to hyperbole when speaking in public, but I think that the great
>majority of her work stands as logically valid.

	Logically valid, maybe.  But the philosophy still needs to stand the
test of time in actual practice.  There should be an objective difference in
life of a person (in terms of happiness) after the philosophy is employed.
If people are no happier using Objectivism compared to used other brands of
morality, then why bother?

	A logically valid moral philosophy is not of much use if it doesn't
provide a benefit.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Date: 04 Jan 93 23:26:32 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan3.232711.19654@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
| A reading of history indicates that when people are allowed to
| accumulate wealth without any regard for their fellows, the result is
| tyranny.  

No, tyrannies allowed the rulers to accumulate wealth without
any reagard for their fellows.

| Laissez-faire economics is not exactly a new concept.  It
| has been abandoned every time it has been tried, not because of any
| idealism but because it just doesn't work.  It would seem no matter
| how often or how thoroughly an idea is discredited, there is always
| someone willing to resurrect it.

Amazing.  Not a single accurate or supportable sentence.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:29:08 GMT

Charles M Kozierok (cmk@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
: In article <C0D6Eq.MHD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
: >   Is altruism the act or the motive behind the act? Can you condemn
: >it or those who believe they practice it without knowing the soul of
: >the Altruist? Maybe this is something to accpet at face value ...
: 
: *i* can't condemn any altruist.
: i can only condemn his attempt to force his altruism
: upon me. and i can pity his decision to voluntarily enslave himself
: to those who care not for him.
: 
: --
: charles

Charles,

   I think you are at least confused on this point, possibly entirely
wrong. How can an altruist force is altruism on someone; doesn't that
contradict the meaning of altruism? What you must really mean is that
you don't want those claiming to be altruists, the insinere, the fake,
the manipulative hypocrites, using you to enhance their illusion.

   On the other hand, who is the more contemptable, the one who genuinely
wants to do good but bungles his attempts, or the one who accepts the
mercy and compassion of others even though he despise them. Would you
really prefer a world where there were no altruists, where no one even
attempted to help others? 

Bill



Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:50:50 GMT

In article 1if7b7INNo8g@mirror.digex.com, dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
> In article <1993Jan6.151533.21967@ultb.isc.rit.edu> sbs9276@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
> >
> >      Objectivism definitely does not endorse atheism because
> >atheism is not a conclusion which can be reached through any
> >logical arguement.
> 
> I've got bad news for you.  The validity of logic is not a conclusion 
> which can be reached through any logical argument.  That is one of the
> implications of Goedel's incompleteness theorem: the validity of any
> logical system cannot be proven within the framework of that system.
> 
> Objectivism is based on the faith that Logic is valid.  There
> is no more a definite logical proof of the validity of logic than there
> is a definite logical proof of the validity of Christianity.

I think that the basis of Objectivism is that the human mind is built to
perceive and act upon logic, and nothing else.  Or, if you prefer, the human
mind adapted to the logic of its surroundings (the rest of the universe).  So,
it is pointless to talk about the invalidity of logic, because as far as 
humans are concerned, logic *is* the universe.

--Rob
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:50:32 CST
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
 <C0GM89.Cr3@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> <1993Jan11.183735.4477@sctc.com>
 <1993Jan12.000422.16785@athena.mit.edu>

two possibilities were proposed recently to explain the possible
meaning of an inperfect lifestyle on the part of the 20th
century's premier moral philospher:

1.  Ayn Rand's actions were inaccurate and reflected objectivism,
    thus objectivism is inaccurate.

two objections here:  inaccurate by whose judgement?  Not that of
objectivism apparently.  What other moral code is there to judge
objectivism by if not the objectivist ethics?

second objection:  If the actions were inaccurate by objectivist
standards and necessitated by objectivism, then there are two
possibilities:
      1-Objectivist ethics are inconsistant.  This would have nothing to
        do with the acts of one particular objectivist, but be intrinsic in
        the system.
      2-The objectivism in question did not know the actions were inaccurate.
        An error based on ignorance which was  not deliberate is explicitly
        forgiven by objectivist ethics.

2- Ayn Rand's actions were inaccurate and did not reflect objectivism
   thus, nothing.

This possibility is irrelevant.  I'd still like to know what Ayn Rand might
have done wrong.  I find the whole proposition highly doubtfull.
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu (Brian E Watkins)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:14:50 GMT
	<106229@bu.edu> <C0GnBF.1y7@SSD.intel.com>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <C0GnBF.1y7@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) 
writes:

   >I base my claim
   >on the reasoning presented in "Atlas Shrugged."  If you wish to refute
   >my claim, refute this reasoning.

   Surely it's a bit odd to refer to a monstrously fat novel for
"logical conclusions from axioms which we must all accept". Also, refuting
novels is not a normal activity in philosophy. We are interested
rather in the supposed logical derivations.

  Now, you may of course take the view that the logical derivations that lead
from "A is A" to interesting conclusions about men and society are
very long if written out in full, much like the proof of "1+1=2" in
Principia Mathematica, and that it is therefore unreasonable to ask
you to reproduce the full argument here. Fine. But what is to stop you
from presenting at least one of these Objectivist deductions, leading
from axioms to a conclusion by logical reasoning? An interesting lemma,
say.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Organization: SCTC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:21:02 GMT

leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:

>If something is right, it's right.  If you agree with Rand's arguments, then
>that is all you should need.  The fact that an individual failed to execercise
>logical behavior does not bear upon the validity of Objectivism.  

I don't question the use of logic and reason as a method of searching
for truth.

The problem is that Rand used her style of logical argument both to
justify Objectivist philosophy and to justify her own actions as
appropriate embodiments of that philosophy. This casts doubt on _HOW_
she applied reason and logic to things. Being convincing isn't the same
as being flawlessly logical.

> You might as well come right out and say, "Well, it looks
>good on paper, but it just doesn't work in reality."  Nothing makes me more
>disgusted.

This sounds like the socialist/communist apologist arguments of our
closing century: "Don't pay attention to how bad things are in
(Russia|Cuba|China) since socialism will lead to utopia Real Soon Now.
Just ignore reality and pay attention to our Philosophical
Conclusions."

Every philosophy looks good on paper, given enough paper of the
appropriate color when evaluated in the appropriate "context".

You can point to free societies or capitalist economies and show that
they "work" in a real sense. The open issue is whether Objectivism can
"work" as a guide of personal actions. Rand's example isn't a very
promising one.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(2)
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:39:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.010435.12578@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
>Objectivism springs from works of fiction about people who were, to
>say the least, not fully fleshed out.  

Nope, Objectivism springs from rational thought based on axioms that
all sane human beings must accept.

>John Galt was not an idealist,
>he was an idealization.  John Galt was clearly who Ayn Rand wanted to
>be, rather than a portrayal of any real person.  Real people are just
>not like that, or at least I have neither met nor heard of anyone like
>him.  

Yup.  Ayn Rand believed in Romantic literature:  literature that
presents man as he should be, not necessarily as he is.

>If Objectivism were put forth as something people could live by
>if people were ideal entities, it might have some validity.  But as a
>philosophy for real people in the real world, it falls short.

An ideal is something non-ideal people (like most of us) must strive,
sometimes very hard, to attain.  What you are asking for is the
non-philosophy that says everything and everyone is always just
hunky-dory.  For the shiftless leech with no potential, this is the
easiest "philosophy" to live by.  For the productive worker with some
self-esteem, this is a nightmare.

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Date: 9 Jan 93 12:06:12 GMT
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia

In article <Jan09.073020.24200@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>	The fundamental question, which all political philosophies ultimately
>must answer, is this: when, if ever, is it permissable to enslave other human
>beings?  Objectivism is the philosophy which answers: never!

Who gave YOU the keys to the Pholosopher's Cabinet?  This is what I love
about Objectivists:  The imposition of absolutes.

Face it, folks, Objectivism is no more "fundamental" than any other
philosophy.

>
>Steve

	-Phil
-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: End of Iceland's Anarchy
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:37:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <lewchuk.726638394@therien>, lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes...
>Particularly when large governmental nations can form large bureaucratic
>armies.  It is difficult for even an incredibly large individualistic force
>to have anything but man-portable weapons, whereas large standing armies
>have tanks, planes, ships, etc.

	Even if "national defense" was a public good, an anarchy
could still have all (some?) of those tanks, planes, etc.  Perhaps they
could get them through charitable donations.  (From a bake sale? ;)  Or an
air force could hold air shows in peace time to raise funds, for example.
They could ask people to "sponsor" a new fighter plane, perhaps giving them
public recognition for the fact.  There are possibilities.  Though charity
is no guarantee that enough military equipment will be produced.


>However in an anarchy, which obviously teaches anarchy, it is hard for people
>to follow leaders.  One would think that they would only do so through
>respect -- "won" and "proven" by the leaders.

	Absolutely.  You've hit the nail right on the head.  There are two
different kinds of leaders -- coercive and respected.  I am convinced that
anarchists would follow the respected kind quite readily.

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Subject: Judgement Day
Keywords: Objectivism,Nathaniel_Branden
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:54:33 GMT

To whomever it may concern, THANK YOU very much for recommending Nathaniel
Branden's book _Judgment Day_, regarding his years with Ayn Rand and 'the
Collective'.  Luckily for me, I found it in a used bookstore on Friday, 
next to Barbara Branden's _Passion of Ayn Rand_, which I left on the shelf.

Pretty harsh stuff, for sure, unflattering for most of the characters
involved, and especially harsh on Leonard Peikoff, who, for Branden, is the 
paragon of the lock-step Objectivist, even though he wanders all over the 
philosophical map trying to maintain his own point of view.  Nathaniel 
Branden comes away from the whole ordeal, the 'break-up' etc., as a 'small-o' 
objectivist, a fellow who really seems to have his thoughts in order.

A case in point, my favorite passage in the book:

"Neither would our students have learned anything about kindness or compassion;
they learned only an intellectualized kind of 'benevolence,' which had little
to do with real encounters between real human beings.  Yet if 'Man's Life' is
the standard of value, then in a world in which accidents, misfortunes, and
disasters are real and continuing possibilities, kindness and compassion have
survival value.  Granted it is an error to treat them as the most important
virtues, above rationality or integrity (which would make suffering the most
important part of life); but they _are_ virtues nonetheless.  I am not speaking
of self-sacrifice or "compassion" coercively engineered by a government, but
of private, mutual aid, and generosity, and good will.  These traits and pract-
ices are life-supporting.  A society whose members value them is more adapt-
ive biologically than one whose members do not.  If life is the standard of
the good, then kindness, compassion, and a spirit of mutual aid are virutes
to be cultivated.  This was a logical implication of our own ethics that we
did not grasp.  Some of us were kinder and more compassionate than others,
but that was, in effect, a psychological matter, not judged to be philosoph-
ically significant."
		- Nathaniel Branden, _Judgement Day_ p. 299
		(reprinted sans permission.)
			
Hurrah for Nathaniel Branden, who has his head on straight!  I have found 
his history of the O. philosophy and movement quite enlightening, a good
read for those who are interested.

Where have I heard these ideas before?  They sound sort of familiar to me.
Hint: Ayn Rand was *NOT* the first thinker to derive a moral justification 
for individualist ethics, laissez faire, big-C Capitalism, what have you, 
from an epistemological base and an understanding of what is required for 
human life.

But that takes us back a century or so...
cg 
-- 
:::::======  Christian Gustafson    
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
===========  
===========  The last living Spencerian.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism