HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 5g72wheelerj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John C. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: RE: God exists. Proof within.
Date: 22 Jan 1993 08:00:37 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 5g72wheelerj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

Firstly, this is in no way an attack on faith or a "flame," but a
statement from the point of view (quasi Kant/Kierkegaard) that religion
is a matter of faith and faith alone - as is the denial or religion; the
matter is simply not empirically verifiable.
     I - Historians often measure the scientific ability of ancient 
peoples by how well they were able to compute the value of PI, the
ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (currently listed by
some computer as 3.14159...).  The Egyptians had it at 256/81, or 3.16049,
the Babylonians 3 and 1/8, or 3.125; the Bible, however, mentions a 
giant round cauldron at Soloman's temple 30 cubits around and 10 cubits 
across - giving the Biblical value for PI at exactly 3.
    II - Scholars in the Catholic and Lutheran churches, as well as
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:17:18 GMT

Actually, it has been shown, and is accepted (at least by my ECON 101 text,
which on the whole is a balanced assessment of free-market behaviour), that
there is a type of good called a "public good" which, if left to the market,
would not be provided.

The typical example is military defence.  I recognize that in an Objectivist
world, the military would have little or no place.  Military defence is
viewed as a "public good" because, simply, the cost of protecting one
extra citizen is virtually zero.  In the ideal competition model, the
producers of a given good equate the marginal cost of a good (MC, which is 0
for public goods) with the marginal reevenue generated by it (MR, which is
ideally the market price of the good).  The market will produce at the point
where the graphs of MC/MR vs. output quantity meet, which will be at 0.

There is another reason why this is the case, having something to do with
constantly decreasing average total cost (never increasing), but I don't
remember too much of that one.

In any case, the case for the existence of public goods was made fairly well
in that particular textbook (Microeconomics, 7th ed, Lipsey, Purvis, Steiner),
and is logically valid.  Therefore I accept it.

Needless to say, I was extremely surprised when I read that there are _some_
products the market will not produce because there is no long-term profit in
it.

- Stephen Van Egmond

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: objectivist candidates
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:28:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C1Bztx.Gyz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, czeller@ih-nxt04.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher M Zeller) writes...
>Does anyone know of any  true Objectivist candidates that ran in the 1992
>presidential campaign?

	There were none that I am aware of.  I doubt there were any.

>Beyond that, which of the three candidates leaned more toward objectivist 
>beliefs. I know the nature of this question is highly subjective but  
>please include as much proof and as many examples as you can.

	None of the three really.  The closest by far was Andre Marrou
of the Libertarian Party.  He came in fourth with about 300,000 votes.


Mark Sulkowski
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Ignorance IS bliss
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:31:48 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Real Life?!?! HA!!)
Subject: Re: Atlas Shrugged casting
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:16:30 GMT

rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:

>Now the stretch:  for Midas Mulligan...James Earl Jones.

YESSS!!!!  I can SEE it!  Funny I didn't think of that before.  And for 
Kay Ludlow:  Michelle Pfeiffer.

More anon!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael T. Chaffee       | mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu  |  ______    
"It has been said - mostly by illiterates and conserv-|  \    /   HATE
atives - that the belief in God is at the base of the |   \  /  is not a
American system, and that the United States is a prod-|    \/  FAMILY VALUE
uct of Christian piety."  -  Leonard Peikoff          |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: what i think of ayn rand
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:28:04 GMT
Organization: SCTC

>Robert B. MacMillan <RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>> ... she has the shittiest most
>>reprehensible, pseudo-fascist philosophy i have ever had the misfortune to
>>read.  i am glad she's dead.

And gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>"Pseudo-fascist"?????  ...

>You are not the first person I've heard say this.  Someone please explain to
>me how in the hell you can read her works and get the idea that she is
>advocating facism (as you said), or communism (one I heard before).  Such an
>evaluation is in absolute contradiction to EVERYTHING she wrote!

Despite Rand's glorification of reason and logic, her writing style is
highly charged with emotion. She advocates emotional repression at the
same time that she manipulates one's emotions in favor of her point of
view. The objective message is anti-fascist but the subjective message
is emotionally coercive.

While this doesn't match any "political" definition of fascism, it is
an attack on one's ability to think logically about the issues. This
is a propagandistic approach to rhetoric. For obvious historical
reasons, many people associate such rhetoric with coercive government,
i.e. fascism. In other words, they're reacting to Rand's actions
rather than her words.

It's incredible how well her style worked, as evidenced by hordes of
Randites who honestly believed that true individualism required word
for word agreement with everything she said. Fascinating.

>>help, someone, please recommend me something that will make me feel different
>>about this cold-hearted bitch who can write like no one i've ever seen...

Read "Judgement Day" by Nathaniel Branden. He was her principal
disciple until she turned on him. The book describes their
relationship. It helped me come to terms with her.
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: My Godel is Killing Me
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:42:29 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

> [Godel's Incompleteness Proof]
> ... shows that logical deduction is insufficient to explain anything
> complex no matter how many starting axioms you take.
 
I can't believe this pot is still bubbling.
 
Godel's Proof says nothing, Nothing, NOTHING about the sufficiency of
anything to "explain" anything. Godel was concerned with the limits of
proof in formal systems. The nature of "explanation", however, is not at
all formal (though explanations, of course, may involve formal proofs).
It would seem to have much to do with a kind of "rational satisfaction"
that is extremely difficult to characterize: theory T "explains"
phenomenon P iff T somehow satisfies an ideal rational being's desire to
understand why P happens. Whatever that means.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.math
From: cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra Stewart-Cole)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorem ....(Re: Where's
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:25:40 GMT

I think the missing links between GT and the assertitions you've seen it 
applied to are that science and philosophy are attempts to create a fully 
logical complete consistent system for modeling life and the universe. That is
not really all that accurate, but I think it explains the connection for (1) 
and (3). The fiction of truth is a bit different. There is no proveable truth 
logically beyond ones own existence if one does not make assumptions of truth.
For those who have sought to make only a few assumptuions and prove various 
truths that fully represent reality consistently from them, GT undermines the 
attempt. It shows that logical deduction is insufficient to explain anything 
complex no matter how many starting axioms you take. For seekers of objective 
truth backed by logic, this is a disturbing concept.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:36:54 GMT

Most of the religion-atheism talk so far has focused on whether the
proofs offered so far are consistent.  This is not abnormal in this 
newsgroup.  Frequently, discussions race about what can be said about
various paradoxical sentences, whether certain axioms support other
conclusions, and other "logical" churnings.  However, what is most
frequently missing, and which would be most illuminating, is a 
presentation of definitions of the central terms involved.

Nowhere is this lack more obvious than in the current thread.
No one has suggested what God is, what the essential qualifications
of a god are, what it would take to prove that there were such a 
thing, and so on.  This has not diminished the velocity of the debate,
however.  There are many postings in this vein, and you may examine them
to see whether this is so or not.

I suggest that people who talk about a god have in mind an all-powerful,
all-knowing supernatural being who created the universe.  Now if that
is the point of departure, then the refutations are obvious.
1.	The universe is everything that is.
	Something that created the universe is not  in the universe.
	Something that is not in the universe does not exist.
	THerefore, God does not exist.
2.	From the Objectivist point of view, proof is the reduction of
	a concept or argument to the perceptable.  It involves showing
	how things exist in reality.  If you have soemthing that is outside
	the universe, that has no material form or appearance, then how
	could one go about proving that it exists? Certainly not by
	pointing at it and saying, "There it is."  The point here is that
	the thing is outside of our ability to show and thus not provable.

Now you may disagree with my thumbnail proofs or with my definitions.
I think, however, that they give an indication of a more fertile location
to begin the discussion:  definitions and fundamentals.

Hugh 
	
-- 
hugh@mks.com

Mortice Kern Systems
35 King Street North
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.philosophy.misc
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Logical philosophy
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:31:18 GMT

pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:

>In article <C10nDx.G0D@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra 
>Stewart-Cole) writes:

>WHICH axioms one takes are the source of 
>>variations in objectivism. 

>SG	The primary axiomatic concepts of Objectivism are existence, identity, 
>and consciousness. These are implicitly or explicitly basic to all knowledge, 
>from an infant's to a philosopher's. 
>	Existence exists.
>	Existence is identity.
>	Consciousness is (the) identification (of the identity of existence).
>________________________________________________________________________________
>Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>

Let me pick up on Existence is Identity. I take it  that this means if x
exists then for some propery P, P(x) or more picturesquely, to be, is to
be something.  

Suppose you encountered a phenomena that was totally alien to anything you
had ever experienced, and suppose further more, that said phenomena
ocurred only once (to you). How could you get a genre (genus) in which to
fit this strange thing. If I understand Rand's epistomology every existant
can be placed in a genus determined by its central characteristic, and
then further differentiated from the genus and placed in a species
(differentia). This would be the case if you had enough instances to
compare and to contrast. But what do you do with once onlies? (sui generus).

In a second order logic I don't believe that the formual 

	(x)EP. P(x) 

is a semantic tautology.  Can some expert out there comment on this.

Conan the Libertarian
 
-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: So, what is god?..........(Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:49:22 GMT

======================================================
 shouldn't we move these "god" threads to alt.atheism,
 talk.religion.misc, soc.religion.christian..... ?
======================================================
 jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>I'm not really sure if that's a definition, but that's what I have to say
>when asked what is God, I hope it's enough.

 No, not yet.

 You write:
>I think God is
>	[1] an all-knowing (yet doesn't act on all the knowledge He has),  
>	[2] all-powerful (yet restricted by promises He has made to Himself),
>	[3] all-present (yet not felt everywhere) non-physical part of
>	    the universe.

 Well, this description fits Nature and the Laws of the Universe too. 
 The Laws are all knowing, all powerful and all present. 

 Furthermore, this description fits you, me and everyone else too - although
 not so explicitly as it fits Nature. We could say, a human "is" all knowing
 but doesn't act on all the knowledge He has, infact a human doesn't even
 care about finding out all that he knows (this would strike a chord with 
 those who like plato :) ); ..........

 Lets get back to the Nature and Laws interpretation. First of, we humans can
 comprehend the Laws of the Universe and play with them, even control them in
 ways that suits our needs, desires, wants, happiness. Does that mean that we
 are above God?

 Let me skip further evaluation of your answer, and request you to ponder
 and post answers to following:

 [1] What is NOT God?
 [2] What makes the concept of God unique?
 [3] What gives God the attributes he has - knowledge, power, omniscience...?
 [4] How do you know that these answers are correct?
 [5] What is the relevance of God as defined in above "[1] thru [3]" questions?
     That is, why should I care?

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.93Jan21213301@bast.sics.se>
	<1993Jan22.101229.15861@ulrik.uio.no>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:07:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.101229.15861@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
(Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:

   >I have noticed that my argument differs from Baruch's. But if
   >it is MY argument you find inadequate, I challenge you to show
   >what you claim.

  I take it you're referring to your suggestion that a sentence, to be
meaningful, must be "built from elements already possessing meaning".
This suggestion, while natural enough, is inadequate as it stands
since it does not by itself constitute any theory of truth or meaning
such as philosophers look for, but can only serve as a starting point
for such a theory. For example, it is not at all clear how you propose
to reply to Keith Ramsay's comments, nor what follows from your
principle applied to such sentences as "this sentence is meaningless"
or "this is an English sentence", nor what kind of hierarchical
construction is presupposed in "already".

  In short, it is entirely premature to introduce any challenges to show
anything. You need to develop your principle first.
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Certainly, Statism, and Toilet-Training
Date: 29 Jan 1993 04:58:49 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: vongole.mit.edu

those who disapprove of low-content disputes hit "n" now.

In article <108330@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>>And, given the fact you've been polluting the newgroup with trite, selfless
>>statist philosopy for so many weeks ...
> 
>Whatever have *you* been reading, oh, Objective one? I realize it's
>hard for you to break out of the habit of dribbling Randroid cliches
>in response to any challenge, but I have never advocated anything
>that might reasonably be called "statist".

actually, what most of it might reasonably be called is
"inflammatory and idiotic".

>As for "selfless",
>I assume that's just your way of saying that I've advocated an
>ethical code that includes obligations to others, so I'll let
>you have it, silly though it may be.

i assume by "silly" that you are refering to your ethical code.
of course you haven't made your ethical
code very clear anyway, just sniped at others'.
 
>>3) You simply refuse to accept anything that is contrary to your arbitrary
>>beliefs because it threatens some irrational teddy bear you've got hidden
>>in your subconscious.
> 
>Sure, and you were toilet-trained prematurely. Give us all a break,
>OK, from this kind of cheap shot?

i don't agree with Leon's posts on this issue, but the fact is that
*you*, Mr. Hayes, have been responsible for the vast majority of the
potty activity on this newsgroup. frankly, i hoped you had gone away
when your tripe ceased for about a week, but i guess no such luck.
why don't you give *us* all a break, include the legitimate critics
of objectivism, and go away?

>Anyway, I revise my views
>quite readily, when presented with persuasive arguments to the
>contrary.

bull. you repeat them over and over again, and when disproven you
slink back under your rock and then re-emerge a week later spewing
the same garbage. you haven't made a single point in your
quixotic attempt to prove objectivism "wrong". if Randians are so contemptible
to you, why don't you at least try to learn something from those
who *reasonably* argue against them, such as the few who do on this
newsgroup?

>Anyway, again, I'll let you slide with the "arbitrary",
>since I assume it's just another code word for "non-Randian".
>You'd certainly be hard-pressed to justify the charge otherwise.

Mark, we all know how you feel. you know how we feel. 
do you think we're going to change our minds just because you
express endless anger? what are you trying to accomplish?
why don't you just go away? please? need we take up a collection?

_______________________________________________________________________________

  ``An ideal cannot wait for its realization to prove its validity.''
                                   - George Santayana
_______________________________________________________________________________
charles m kozierok                                           cmk@athena.mit.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Actors as Rand Characters (Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:56:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.083101.27505@cheshire.oxy.edu> ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho) writes:
}
}  Yes, I agree that Matthew Broderick would look great as Keating.  How
}about Michelle Pfeiffer as Dominique?

Nah.  I'd go with Kathleen Turner, Cybil Shepherd, or Sharon Stone.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:15:07 GMT

shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

>Another aside:  Has anyone besides me ever noticed how much Gary
>Cooper's dentures make during the courtroom defense scene?  I assume
>it's his dentures because there's this awful snapping noise every
>time he talks. Or did I imagine this?


I don't remember the denture noise, but I bet he had wooden false teeth
(ala George Washington) to match his wooden performance. He just didn't
seem inspired; it's hard to believe that Ayn Rand had him in mind when
she was writing the book.

Peter J Nelson
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Certainly, Statism, and Toilet-Training
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:29:37 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) says:
 
>                       ...  If one understands something, then one can
>be certain of the behavior of that object.  Gee, that wasn't too hard
>to understand.  I guess there is a relationship between certainty and
>understanding afterall.
 
Not at all hard to understand, Leon, just wrong. Many people would
claim to understand many things, but only a handful of arrogant
types such as yourself would claim certainty about them. Particularly
when it comes to your favorite specialty, "reality", on the subject
of which you quote me:
 
>|> Such arrogance is bad enough when restricted to a relatively limited
>|> subject like economics or government. But it becomes positively comical
>|> when it takes the form of proclamations that one "understands reality"
>|> (whatever *that* is supposed to mean).
 
>This statement seems to suggest that YOU don't understand.
 
Ah, a potent logical refutation if there ever was one.
 
>And, given the fact you've been polluting the newgroup with trite, selfless
>statist philosopy for so many weeks ...
 
Whatever have *you* been reading, oh, Objective one? I realize it's
hard for you to break out of the habit of dribbling Randroid cliches
in response to any challenge, but I have never advocated anything
that might reasonably be called "statist". As for "selfless",
I assume that's just your way of saying that I've advocated an
ethical code that includes obligations to others, so I'll let
you have it, silly though it may be.
 
>3) You simply refuse to accept anything that is contrary to your arbitrary
>beliefs because it threatens some irrational teddy bear you've got hidden
>in your subconscious.
 
Sure, and you were toilet-trained prematurely. Give us all a break,
OK, from this kind of cheap shot? Anyway, I revise my views
quite readily, when presented with persuasive arguments to the
contrary. Anyway, again, I'll let you slide with the "arbitrary",
since I assume it's just another code word for "non-Randian".
You'd certainly be hard-pressed to justify the charge otherwise.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jardar@swix.nvg.unit.no (Jardar Eggesboe Abrahamsen)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Nettverksgruppa - UNIT
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 11:32:35 GMT

Let us not forget the second half of the subject line, especially the last
word: "Proof _within_".

Maybe "Internal proof" would be better? Having the fundament "Bible" or
"Christian belief" the "proof" is a very good one, and not at least if one
doubts. But having another fundament for ones "philosophy of life" (it be
religious or non-religious) it just illustrates that one cannot prove
God's nonexistence... 

Had I been a boubting christian, I would have been very grateful for this
"proof".

-- 
Jardar Eggesboe Abrahamsen            "Ili rigardis min kiel sian
studanto pri lingvistiko               moralan chefon."
jardar@swix.nvg.unit.no                                (L.L. Zamenhof)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism