From: robscjr@athena.mit.edu (Robert S Cruikshank)
Subject: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:28:44 GMT

I would like to interject a few comments, based on what I have read so far
and what I hope to be reading here in the future.

Someone commented on low flamage of this newsgroup.  I too hope to see that
be and remain so.  I have a few suggestions, which seem to be already 
partially implemented.

1.  Let us debate, not argue, as far as possible.  I would define debate as
an attempt to improve understanding through reasoned discussion, and argument
as discussion which cannot be resolved with logic, and/or refusal to define
terms, and or refusal to agree upon definitions.

2.  Agree upon our definitions.  I began to cringe seeing an argument brewing
over confusion in the definition of "obligation" and "right", the same sort
of error which has produced many, many fights and signal loss I have observed
on the newsgroups.  To my pleasant surprise, the participants in that 
argument partially remedied that and moved closer to debate again--notably
the one signing "Steve".

Let me explain my own views as simply as possible.  I ask strenuously that
those who wish to debate my opinions attempt to understand my definitions
as expressed, and to state their own definitions if they reject mine, and
offer me some reason to switch my definitions.  (I would take it as a simple
and reasonable *custom* for this newsgroup to accept the first definition
of a word offered unless it is grossly different from dictionaries and 
common usage.  Debate is to me useless unless the definitions are agreed
upon FIRST.)  Let us speak one language if we wish to communicate!

My views:
A. Logic cannot bootstrap itself---there are ARGUMENTS for axioms, not PROOFS.
B. After years of amateur reading of physics, math, philosophy and rhetoric
and logic in a deep abiding passion for understanding fundamentals, I have
decided that I personally wish to have no beliefs, no axioms at all.  By
this I mean that I wish to use working hypotheses.  I would consider the
definition:  a BELIEF is an axiom with strong emotional attachment.
C.  More simply, I don't want to believe anything so firmly that I will
ignore evidence to the contrary.  We all prioritize our beliefs, our 
emotional attachments to ideas.  For most of my life I have been a zealot;
first Catholic, then Christian, then Absolute Truth seeking.
D.  I have argued and debated with Objectivists before, and despaired of
their help in my struggles to understand.  I left a mailing list for
Objectivists because those with whom I communicated seemed to BELIEVE
Rand's axioms;  it was their RELIGION.  They attached strong emotions to
those axioms, and I consider that a religion, no different from the Church
that indoctrinated me.  
E.  I take just about all of Rand's axioms as extremely useful hypotheses
every day.  I refuse to BELIEVE them, however.  I have had quite enough
of that, thank you.
F.  I have dug deep into the heart of Quantum Mechanics on my way to a
physics BS from MIT, and I have seen every form of debate and argument
known;  the topic is an excellent test case for human thought.  I have
learned to spot when a discussion is eroding and when it might be yielding
something.  I have held more than my share of silly positions and given
many a flawed proof or argument.
G.  I want to understand as much as I humanly can.  I have found no better
weapon than logic for this.  Emotions are not valueless;  they define value
for us.  Emotions are the why;  Logic and math are the how.  Science and
most else is the who what where when.  These are my emotional biases and
will not change unless I have an emotional reason for it.
H.  Argue axioms and debate proofs, and please do not mix the two.  In this
newsgroup, I would hope to see the latter, and for the former, agree to
disagree axioms, and do not attempt debate with someone whose axioms you
cannot accept in the discussion's context.  Let this be a forum for debate,
not argument, I ask.
I.  I am very big on self-consistency.  This has driven me slowly and painfully
to be an all-doubting amoralist, a process I am still completing.  Many people
think there is one morality--theirs.  I used to be such a person.  It took me
a long time to recognize that there are multiple views, that morality is not
an Absolute.  It took me still longer to conclude that I was forcing myself
to be unhappy by following a morality I did not in freedom choose.  Someone
wrote DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW.  I do not think that
is anarchy, though I used to suspect it.
J.  All of this---Objectivism, amorality, total doubt---requires strong
desire, and to avert disaster, great intelligence.  I feel that morality
was evolved to help control people in part because many people cannot
reason out for themselves why killing some offensive SOB is not in their
long term best interests.  Most moral rules got that way because they
were useful in some fashion.  This is akin to Ben Franklin's comment in his
autobiography," I came to the conclusion that these things were not bad
because they were forbidden; rather they were forbidden because they were
bad."  (apologies for any slight misquote.)  When considering violating
one of society's sacred cows---which I do more frequently these days---it
helps to stop and try to discern why that cow got put there first.  Many
are the cows I have left alone after such contemplation.
K.  Answer to why Objectivism alienates:  I find three top reasons.
First, the aforementioned conversion of Objectivism to a religion by some.
Second, the nature of precise debate requires exact definitions, more 
exact than are needed anywhere else except law and science and math.  This
is not only hard work, but leads to PLENTIFUL misunderstandings due to a
drifting of Objectivist definitions and language from the fuzzier but more
common versions of English which allow more errors.  An extraordinary
effort is required to explain enough of what an Objectivist is talking
about to convince an outsider that they are a) not saying something
entirely different and b) that precise language really is necessary and
not elitism or shyster trickery.
Third, the conclusions of Objectivism hurt, deeply, emotionally.  I cannot
begin to express my self-torment endured in the slow rewiring of my entire
conceptual picture of the universe.  I'd have died a Catholic if my passion
for understanding and thought were one whit less intense.  Objectivism 
directly conflicts with much, indeed MOST of mainstream society.  Any large
fuzzy system contains contradictions.  Look at the dictionary, or society,
or the Bible.  Removal of contradictions only happens when you have two
conflicting beliefs and your emotional attachment to self-consistency is
greater than your attachment to the more weakly valued idea.

In conclusion, Rand struck me as an individual who knew far more about logic
than she did about human beings, and the irrational thought processes that
drive them.  She advocated a black-and-white view of the world (see the
Playboy Interview) and while any question of logic is best treated so, humans
are painted in not only shades of gray but every color of the spectrum.
In her novels I found two types of human beings only, Good and Evil.  Not
to detract from Atlas Shrugged, which did move me emotionally but needed
over a thousand goddamned pages to do it---(I almost threw the book away in
disgust when after 900 pages I got to Galt's speech and flipped ahead and 
found it over 60 pages long!  Glad I finished it but barely, and I'll never
reread that damned thing in my life even though it was a marvelous book.
Life's too short!)---To me the most telling point was when Toffler asked
Rand whether following Objectivism would lead to a "juiceless, joyless
existence."  I read on eagerly, this question burning in my mind at the time.
Rand's reply began, "I really have no idea what you are talking about.  Let's
define our terms..."  I wanted to scream in frustration.  I really think Rand
didn't have a clue as to how someone couldn't make that conceptual leap, one
that requires a VERY great deal of thought--or lucky axioms.  Face it, 
almost nobody is raised an Objectivist.

She was a great thinker, but I'd hate to have her as my fifth grade teacher! 

I didn't mean to ramble quite so much, but I hope I've made myself clear as
to what views I hold and I am very interested in finding people with 
similar values to my own.  Every now and then I look at the Objectivists
again hopefully.  So far this newsgroup is holding my interest, though I
don't have time to join in most particular discussions.

The question is put:  do you want to use this newsgroup to rhetorically
argue for particular sets of axioms, explore the consequences of a particular
set (most likely Rand's), explore consequences of many different sets, or
all of the above?

I look forward to reading the responses.  But please, no flames...!  Life is
too short for me to want to spend it screaming and being screamed at.
Thanks.
--
Robert S. Cruikshank         Cartographer of the Infosphere
robscjr@athena.mit.edu    Disclaimer:  So sue me.  Claimer:  Yes, I said this.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism