HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: ayn rand
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:53:23 GMT
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.

In article <1992Oct14.025153.5826@jesus.questor.wimsey.bc.ca>, jesus.questor.wimsey.bc.ca!scottc (Scott Chapman) writes:
>I am a student at UBC and recently saw a talk put on concerning "the  
>morality of capitalism". The speaker was Dr. John Ridpath of York  
>University. The substance of his talk was based on Ayn Rand's philosophy  
>objectivism, and he gave an interesting argument for capitalism based on a  
>ethics of egoism or rational self interest. The audience on the whole was  
>somewhat hostile, with some of the philosophy students poking fun at Ayn  
>Rand. 
>Is Ayn Rand considered a credible philosopher? Apparently some guy,  
    
Rand radically opposes mainstream philosophy as subjective, irrational, and 
evil. In turn, they dismiss Objectivism as technically incompetent altho some
accept parts of it. There is a small but growing number of Objectivist philo-
sophers in the universities. I had no problem consistently winning debates in
technical philosophy with my philosophy professors. Most contemporary philo-
phers are bizarrely dishonest but cover it with technical philosophy.

>Leonard Piekoff, has put forth her philosophical viewpoint in a  
>comprehensive treatise "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". 
>Has anyone heard of this book or know where to get it? 

    It is probably the best book in the history of philosophy along with
Rand's _Intro. to Obj. Epistemology_. Second Renaissance Books (110 Copper-
wood Way/PO Box 4625, Oceanside, CA 92052) sells Obj. literature, audio lec-
tures, and related material. They have very high standards. The book is also
available in large bookstores.
    Start with Rand's fiction, especially _The Fountainhead_ and _Atlas Shrug-
ged_. They are extremely entertaining stories, as competently written as Dos-
toyevsky and Hugo, and morally profound. Warning! They will take you spirit-
ually out of this society and out of the 20th century. 
    (MAIL) objectivism@vix.com and Ayn-Rand@iubvm are good. The first is more
general and the second is starting to discuss Peikoff's book. I have dragged
(NEWS) sci.philosophy.meta, kicking and screaming, into a grudging respect
for Objectivism.
    You're lucky to have heard Ridpath. He's a very effective lecturer.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: re: GOOD and EVIL
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:20:15 GMT

     In article <1992Oct14.213028.3225@raven.alaska.edu>
fxlof@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu writes:

=	Why can't original sin be included as part of the material for a  
=dicussion about who God might be and what She/He might be like.

     I guess it could be _part_.

=                                                                 As I  
=fumblingly said before, it is the actions of a person {godly being} that  
=do a great deal of defining who or what that person {godly being} is.  If  
=I wander around randomly punching people, you may/would begin to think  
=that I am not that great of a person.  If God is going to hold us  
=responsible for the sin(s) of our "forefathers"  (I guess it is kind of a  
=strange word Kevin, isn't it) than that action would help to form an  
=opinion of who or what God is.
=There, I think that was a better go at my argument, don't you Kevin?

     I'm not sure.  The one thing I think we can conclude from this is
that God is "not that great of a person."

                                     ---Kevin
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: Good Luck
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 20:34:19 GMT

     In article <fburdette-151092095028@fburdette.worldbank.org>
fburdette@worldbank.org (Franklin P. Burdette) probably broke the law by
posting a chain letter.

=To Saint Jude:
...
=	This is no joke. You will receive good luck in the mail. Send no money.
=Send copies to people you think need some good luck. Do not send money as
=fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your hands within
=96 hours.
=
=	Joe Elliot received $40,000\endash and lost it because he broke the
=chain.  Gene Welch lost his wife 51 days after receiving the letter. He had
=failed to circulate the letter. However, before her death, he received
=$775,000.
...
=	Do note the following: Constantine Dias ... Carlos Dadirr ... Dalan
=Fairchild ...  a young woman in California, [all either fared badly for
=not sending the letter on, or fared incredibly well because they _did_
=forward it].

     It struck me that sometimes common belief systems take the form of
chain letters.  People hold to them because they're afraid of bad luck if
they don't, they look forward to good luck because they are (holding to
them), and they demonstrate a complete disregard for anything their con-
science might require them to do.  (Is the good luck worth having the
twenty people who recieve this chain letter from you on your conscience?)

                                     ---Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: DOBENSON@ua1vm.ua.edu (Joe Demon)
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:14:39 GMT

>>Death is like that--after you're dead, your friends go on having fun
>>without you. (In fact, the whole world goes on without you--such cheek!)
>>After you're dead, you can't go to movies, you'll miss the latest political
>>developments, and you won't appreciate all the neat scientific discoveries
>>that are going to be made after your demise. You're shut out--you can't
>>participate.
 
Participate in what? When I'm dead, everyone else is gone. Disappeared. No
more. No more movies. No more drinking. No more PBeMs. No more AD&D. When I'm
dead, everything else ceases to exist. At least as far as *I* am concerned.
So what does it matter? If I'm not here, then nothing else is here. Because
I'm there. Over there. Dead. And nothing else matters, because it just don't
exist. No more.
 
            ^ ^                JOE DEMON                 ^ ^
      ^ ^   |||                                          |||   ^ ^
^ ^   |||    |           a helluva wicked sort            |    |||   ^ ^
|||    |     |                                            |     |    |||
 |     |     |                                            |     |     |
 |     |     |                                            |     |     |
 | BITNET: DOBENSON@UA1VM             INTERNET: DOBENSON@UA1VM.UA.EDU |
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: absolut@ravel.udel.edu (Jamie D. Campbell)
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:38:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.145235.3208@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>>	  Omniscience would require that "God" can read minds and predict
>>the future.  I do not see how this is possible even though He/She/It
>>did create the human mind and can alter the future.  I think this rules
>>out omniscience.
>
>Because _you_ don't see how it's done, this proves that it can't be done? A
>little weak, that. 

      Personally, I don't believe in God, so I think the entire question
is moot.  However, omniscience has not yet been proven to be a capability 
of any being, so the burden of proof doesn't lie on me.  I imagine that 
would be the "believer's" responsibility.  Correct?
--
Jamie Campbell                   "Sky fits heaven, so ride it."
absolut@brahms.udel.edu                            - Max Blagg
From: CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXAD)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Date: 11 Oct 92 18:02:31 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct11.001648.19870@yang.earlham.edu> mcpeabo@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>God Is.
>.

I deny wholeheartedly the validity of the above statement.

God is What?
"god" is what?
God "is" what?
God "is" not ...
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: akins@flamingo.cis.ohio-state.edu (gregory adkins)
Subject: Re: GOOD and EVIL
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:03:16 GMT

In article <11OCT92.15555611.0065@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXAD) writes:
>In article <1b9lo8INNjbv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:
>>
(story deleted)
.
>>If the patient dies, you'll blame me."  HE WHO TAKES CREDIT FOR THE
>>GOOD, MUST TAKE BLAME FOR THE BAD!!  Even God cannot escape this
>>responsibility.

How about: He who takes credit for the good, must take credit for
		bad.

>I assume this is an argument that God is "personally" responsible
>for the evil in the world, and thus can't be all Good.
>
>I would put forward, however, that God is responsible for giving
>humans the choice to choose between Good and Evil, but is not
>to be identified with the choices we make.  Ford Motor Co. may

If God is not to be identified with the choices we make
then while he does not effect bad, he also does
not effect good.

The way I look at it is that the world is part of God's design.
While bad things and good things may happen, the design will
necessarily proceed.  And if we assume that the design is
from a benevolent God, then then end of the design should be good.

While God may effect good things in the world, he can also effect
bad things.  Either way they will contribute towards his design.

Disclaimer:  The above argument revolves around several 
assumptions about God.  Please, no flames if you disagree
with the assumptions.  After all, this is not alt.atheism.
However, if you disagree with the logic proceeding the 
assumptions, please feel free to flame away :).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Akins                            |  It was not my strength that
akins@cis.ohio-state.edu              |  wanted nursing, it was my 
				      |  imagination that wanted
				      |  soothing. - Joseph Conrad
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom Died
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 10 Oct 92 08:12:05 EDT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct10.022506.5128@midway.uchicago.edu>
coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>  For those of you who do not know, Allan Bloom died yesterday.      
>His death is a terrible loss to this university, the University
>of Chicago, and to the field of political philosophy as a whole.

It escapes me altogether just in what sense Bloom's death can be said
to affect the field of political philosophy, as distinguished from
polemical journalism.  No Leo Strauss, he.

>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
>Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
>The University of Chicago Divinity School
>
>"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:20:13 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <1992Oct7.145235.3208@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter
> >  
> >The best definition of the God of Abraham that I've ever seen is Anselm's: 
> >"God is a being than which none greater can be conceived". (Note that the  
> >definition does _not_ ride on what you or I or anyone else _can_ imagine;  
> >it is a logical sense of "conceiving" that Anselm invokes.)  
> >  
>   
> I remember that one.  I thought it was a neat trick when i first saw  
> Anselm's proof.  However ...  
>   
> Why should God obey logic?  Proving he exists or doesn't exist, using  
  
do you mean "Why should 'God' obey logic?" ? Or what ?  
  
It is your language Man !  
  
> logic to say that he has or lacks some quality, all these things rely  
  
NO... logic doesn't say, but you say...  
'human logic' ??!! as if there is one for 'non-humans' ??!!  
  
> on human logic.  If God is all powerful, why should we be more  
  
because you confuse "'God' is all powerful" which is a grammatical  
remark about 'God' with 'God is all powerful' which I am not yet  
sure even if that is an experiential sentence...how do you know that  
'God is all powerful' if that is NOT "'God' is all powerful" - a  
grammatical remark ? Has your God revealed such a sign to you ?  
To the prophet/messenger that you believe in ? Revealed you via  
a messenger in a scripture ? You have hell lot of questions to  
answer, before you go any further towards heaven :->....  
  
> powerful than him by constraining him to what we puny humans can  
> conceive of?  
  
because you are not clear with your words yet, the words that you are  
improvising - all powerful, powerful, human, god...  
   
> God is whatever the hell he wants to be.  We're just little mortals  
  
Would this solve your problem ? Naa..., because your problem is related  
to your language, you are not clear what to do with 'God', and you  
think that you have a 'power' to decide what to do with 'God', so  
you perhaps must be the 'God'.....:->  
  
No, I am not going to help you at all, you have to bang your head  
to the walls of the grammar of language like a little mortal  
in a bottle, till you find the outlet...if you can make it while  
you still have time :-> I am really enjoying watching you here...  
am I Satan then ?  
  
> with pretensions of divinity.  
   
> Alejo (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)  
   
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: re: GOOD and EVIL
Summary:  Why should a person who believes in an inherent good believe idea?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:33:02 GMT

     Article <1992Oct6.003102.840@raven.alaska.edu> quotes Peter Dolan:

=In article <1992Oct5.230639.17324@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
=simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
...
=>      The one major problem I have with this method of defining good and
=> evil is that I get the feeling that the class of all evil things and the
=> class of all good things could be completely interchanged, and we'd come
=> up with a system that worked just as good.  We could take the source of
=> all good things and call Her/Him evil, and take the source of all evil
=> things and call Her/Him good, and the whole universe would be tipped on
=> its ear.
=>
=>      Peter, am I reading you wrong on this?
=>
=>                                      ---Kevin
=Hee hee hee (nope you read me fine).  You just caught me in the
=contemplation of a thousand different morality sources, all battling it
=out, trying to be the ones to end the universe so they can "win".

     Apparently, then, the choice of which sources are good and which are
evil is completely arbitrary, and therefore the ability to distinguish be-
tween the "good" that comes from the "good" sources and the "evil" that
comes from the other sources is also ultimately arbitrary.

     Now, Peter, I happen to be somebody who thinks the decision of what
is good and what is evil should not be arbitrary, but that the difference
between the two should be somehow inherent.  For me good is what one
should strive for in life, and to say that it is arbitrary just rubs
against the grain.  I certainly don't like the thought that the ideal that
I am striving for is replaceable with its opposite.

     Why should someone like me consider the possibility that your theory
might hold any water?

                                     ---Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom Died
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:07:10 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu's message of 10 Oct 92 08:12:05 EDTLines: 22

In <1992Oct10.081205.16227@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu writes:
                                              ^^^^^^
                                             ******

>In article <1992Oct10.022506.5128@midway.uchicago.edu>
>coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> 
>>For those of you who do not know, Allan Bloom died yesterday.      
>>His death is a terrible loss to this university, the University
>>of Chicago, and to the field of political philosophy as a whole.
> 
>It escapes me altogether just in what sense Bloom's death can be said
>to affect the field of political philosophy, as distinguished from
>polemical journalism.  No Leo Strauss, he.

Have you no decency, you ubiquitous moron?  You don't write a critical
rejoinder in response to someone's obituary, no matter who they are, and no
matter who you are.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
From: though@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Descartes
Date: 17 Oct 92 14:01:46 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <exukjb.323.719096681@exu.ericsson.se>, 
exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
> In article <Bw4D0z.8t7@news.iastate.edu> 
>rjk@iastate.edu (Russell J Kraemer) writes:
>>From: rjk@iastate.edu (Russell J Kraemer)
>>Subject: Descartes
>>Date: 14 Oct 92 16:12:34 GMT
> 
> [intro deleted]
> 
>>My problem lies in meditation 3... in reading it, I belive that
>>Descartes is trying to logicaly prove the existence of God.
>>However, breaking his reasoning into my words, I think he is saying
>>that (paraphrased) It is imposible to imagne a being such as God
>>could exist, ie something all powerful and all good is not within
>>human imagination, therfore he must exist.  I must say that I feel
>>that that is a pretty terrible proof, so am I missing something?
> 
> [Hobbes request deleted]
> 
>>Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>-- 
>>rjk@iastate.edu                 
> 
>>I think therefore I.......shoot, was I saying something?
> 
> Well, actually, if my memory serves me right, Descartes' argument is 
> roughly that:
> 
> 1. I have an idea of an absolutely perfect being.
> 2. How do I account for the presence of this idea in my finite mind?
> 3. A cause must have "more reality" or "perfection" than the effect.
> 4. Therefore, God must have caused me to have this idea.
> 
> I think that's it. A bit more plausible that your rendition, but, of course,
> still an unsound argument.
> 
That's it. In his Principles of Human Knowledge (part one of Principles of
Philosophy), he also talks about how we can recognise perfection, which means
we did not create ourselves because we would be perfect if we had done so.
He also says the more perfect a thing is, the more perfect its cause must be,
and because we can imagine a perfect being (for Descartes this is God) we must
have been created by God.

I think that's how it goes.  It's all in the first twenty Principles.
BTW In #16, Descartes says that we can imagine things that may have never
existed and may never exist in the future.  And in #18 he says that we can't
have an idea or image of a thing without there being an original which contains
all the perfections of it.  Does this then mean that non-existent things do
exist, or am I just taking the two out of context?
>   
> //////////////////////////////////////
> /* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
> //////////////////////////////////////

Trevor Hough, Graduate in French at University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ.
e-mail: though@waikato.ac.nz
I can receive e-mail, but at the moment I don't seem to be able to send any.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: A Riddle (was re: The Pipistol still running short of )
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:49:28 EDT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: tHE pHThe Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <10292288.47908.16993@kcbbs.gen.nz>
Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:

>Mikhail Zeleny, the Pipistol, the Charity Funder for Religious-Porno  
>still running short of words:->  

What is the difference between Hakki Kocabas and a brook?



The brook never demands that you babble back.



cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Allan Bloom Died
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:25:06 GMT

  For those of you who do not know, Allan Bloom died yesterday.      
His death is a terrible loss to this university, the University
of Chicago, and to the field of political philosophy as a whole.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Good Luck
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:47:26 EDT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct16.073005.27299@midway.uchicago.edu>
coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>In article <fburdette-151092095028@fburdette.worldbank.org>
>fburdette@worldbank.org (Franklin P. Burdette) writes:

FPB:
>>To Saint Jude:
>>
>>With Love All Things Are Possible
>>
>>	This paper has been sent to you for good luck. The original in is New
>>England. It has been sent around the world nine times! The luck has now
>>been sent to you. You will receive good luck within four days of receiving
>>this letter provided you, in turn send it on.
>>
>>	This is no joke. You will receive good luck in the mail. Send no money.
>>Send copies to people you think need some good luck. Do not send money as
>>fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your hands within
>>96 hours.

COO:
>  I send this good luck letter on to Mikhail Zeleny on the occasion
>of his discussion, or whatever one might call it, with Hakki Kocabas.

I advise you to take over with Hakki-speak, Charles, -- ever since your
confession of cognitive dissonance, which precipitated an abrupt withdrawal
of your opponents in this summer's Heidegger--Nazi discussion, your vapid
blowhard disingenuousness is a perfect match for his ditzy incoherence.
Just think of the melodious noises you could make together!

>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."
From: mcpeabo@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:16:48 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

God Is.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: re: GOOD and EVIL
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 14:53:10 GMT

     In article <1992Oct12.230130.19022@raven.alaska.edu>
fxpcd@ix.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Peter Dolan) writes:

=If we're running our discussion out of the axioms from a certain type of  
=Christianity, then we are responsible for our actions, even some over  
=which we have no control (or at least, this is how I extend the  
=interpretation of the concept of original sin).

     Why in the world would anyone want to run a discussion about God "out
of the axioms from ... Christianity"?  Actually Christianity probably pro-
vides a lot of interesting material for a discussion about who God might
be and what She/He might be like, but you can't seriously include original
sin (as presented above) as part of that material.

                                     ---Kevin