HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:33:21 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726620508@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
 writes:

>What do you mean by "love is one of the best relfections of an objectivist's
>values"?  I see no reason to see that objectivism in any way implies love
>is "good", thus an objectivist is not showing his objectivist values through
>love.


Actually, I believe that Rand would define love as the feeling that one has for
that which one values, varying in degree and kind according to the level of
value -- e.g. "I love banana splits" vs. "I love my dog, Sandy" vs. "I love my
wife, Sandy."  [The implications of naming your wife after your dog, we'll
leave 'til later.  :) ]  Love is good because achieving one's values in good.

On that reading, acting in behalf of that which one values is an expression of
love.  Acts which are in others' interests, then, are part of the price of
loving, in the sense that "I care about (x) so much that I am willing to give
up (y) in order to make (x) better.  Doing so makes me more happy than keeping
(y) and not helping (x)."  To fill in some blanks, let's take the emergency
example offered earlier.  "I care about my wife so much that I am willing to
risk my life in order to save her.  Doing so makes me more happy than staying
alive without trying to help and seeing her die."
-- 
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.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: A=A: My Beef with the Bull
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:38:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.150540.18026@mcc.com> srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc
 (Steve Rogers) writes:

  >I'm suggesting that there
  >is a way to make a much more profound challenge to their claims than just
  >demanding a proof.

  Preposterous claims deserve facetious challenges (i.e. challenges that one
knows cannot be met). Profound claims deserve profound challenges.

   >An example of such philosophy is the
   >philo. of Leibnitz.  He starts with a few premises and deduces a bunch
   >of garbage because he never does a reality check.

  Nonsense. Leibniz was very much concerned with reality.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<C0D92H.MtI@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>
	<1993Jan6.151533.21967@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
	<1if7b7INNo8g@mirror.digex.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:29:19 GMT

In article <1if7b7INNo8g@mirror.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com 
(Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:

   >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.

  How do you derive this conclusion, whatever you mean by it, from Godel's
incompleteness theorem?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc (Steve Rogers)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Reply-To: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:17:50 GMT

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 . . . .

|> This is silly. . . .

> 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.

IMHO, Coppleston's book is fairly good.  I don't think it makes "silly" reading.
You will definately need something to guide you through Kant, as he is REALLY
hard to read and understand.  The philosophy of Kant and Hegel are, in many ways,
the opposite of Objectivism.  I would recommend looking at Plato and Aristotle,
unless you have a particular reason for studying Kant.  Most of the history of
philosophy is an elaboration and refinement of the controversy set up by Plato
and Aristotle.  Objectivism is on the 'Aristotle' side.

---
| Steven Rogers  MCC/ESL  3500 West Balcones Drive
| Austin, Texas 78759-6509  (512) 338-3691 srogers@mcc.com

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.math
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorm ....(Re: Where's
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:41:22 GMT

tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:
> All this discussion of godel theorem (GT) intrigues me to ask the net.minds:
>   What happens if GT is applied to GT itself?
>   Is GT complete or incomplete?
> Just curious, >T.Y.  >---- >tyadav@athena.mit.edu

GT cannot be applied to itself because GT is a logical conclusion based on
a formal system, not a formal system in and of itself.  It's like applying
formal logic to "William Tell shot apples off of peoples' heads".  You can't
really do it because there's no way to apply the logic to the statement.

Geodel's theorem implies that the incompleteness theorem is a provable theorem
of predicate logic, by our definition of predicate logic.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism(7)
Summary: Why Objectivism is ultimately a failure
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:45:34 GMT

The nearest we have gotten to an experiment in the value of
Objectivism was the era of Reaganomics.  The eighties were the triumph
of objectivism, as the virtues of selfishness led directly to the
wholesale looting of the economy and the treasury.   Massive debt was
incurred, not to increase productivity, but to funnel personal wealth
into individual pockets.  This debt was incurred without regard to any
ability to repay it, and the wealth that individuals accrued was kept
in spite of severe and predictable inability to repay.  Property
prices were artificially ballooned to extreme levels by a cynical and
criminal manipulation of the Savings and Loan and banking industries,
making those who understood what was happening fantastically wealthy
and those who were marginally surviving homeless.  And the poor saps
who just wanted to buy a home have been left holding the bag.
 
It might be argued that this looting was not performed by
Objectivists.  I suppose that all true Objectivists are safe and
secure academics who would never dream of actually doing anything.
Reaganomics was driven by people who were happy to take the precepts
of Objectivism to their logical conclusion.  The looting of the nation
in the eighties was performed by people looking out for number one,
and it's a small semantic leap from "the virtue of selfishness" to
"greed is good".  The result is immediately visible.  We are all now
suffering from its damage.
 
It might also be argued that Objectivism was not truly unleashed in
the eighties, that it was still restrained by some regulation.  Still,
what little we did see of this way of thought was sobering enough.  If
this experiment is to be continued, I very selfishly hope that it is
conducted on someone else's economy.  The Russians have recently lost
an ideology and have shown themselves capable of withstanding almost
infinite misery.  Maybe it could be tried there.

Michael Ward
mward@netcom.com

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.math
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorem ....(Re: Where's
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:31:17 GMT

tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:
> If GT is a conclusion based on a formal system, then can we apply GT on the
> "formal system GT is based on." That is to say, if we consider GT's "proof"
> and "premises"  - can these be subject to GT. 

Yes, that's what GT was all about.

> Without some formalism, the concept of proof can not exist. That means
> the proof of GT is based on some formalism - and therefore, the proof's
> formalism could be candidate for GT!!
> If no, tell me why? 
> If yes, tell me what then?

YES!  It implies predicate logic is incomplete, because we know predicate
logic is consistent.  That's what it did, that's what it does, that's what
it's supposed to do.

Note: in no way does this say that every system is "invalid", just that
every predicate logic system is either incomplete or inconsistent.  A
system which is incomplete but not inconsistent is quite capable of
generating an infinite number of "true" statements, but not "all" possible
"true" statements.  Thus, GT is proven true in spite of its implications
because it in no way "questions" the proof system or the proofs generated --
it just points out that the system, if not inconsistent, is incomplete.

>T.Y.  >---- >tyadav@athena.mit.edu

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:29:16 GMT

In article <106895@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.161855.27680@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>Mark never intended it to be the real Howard Roark.
>>he is talking about his specific straw man.
>>and despite his smart-ass remarks about "violating sacredness" in using
>>Roark's name, your confusion of his straw man with Rand's Roark is the
>>real reason why using Roark's name in his example is annoying -- it
>>is needlessly confusing because it implies the conclusion you made above:
>>that is he is talking about the "real" Roark.
>
>"Who is Howard Roark?"

"Who is John Galt"?
(sorry, couldn't resist).

>May I remind you that Howard Roark is a fictional character?

no you may not. because his "fictionality" does not matter
to this discussion.

>Rand made him up to illustrate and mouth certain positions of hers.
>I use him in my example to do the same.

if you do so, then everyone else has the right to voice their
opinions about what he would do too, because what Rand's character
would do is only the interpreter's opinion, in this case yours.
but of course you attacked anyone who gave you their assessment
of what Roark (Rand's) would do.

>He is no more made of
>straw in my scenario than countless Randian villains are made of
>straw in her fiction. To argue whether or not the "real" Roark
>would have done this or that is a little silly, now, isn't it?

no, the paragraph above is. 
because the first "fictional character" was made up by Rand, and she
decided what its attributes were, and therefore, what it would "say"
and what it would "do". the second "fictional character" was made
up by you, so you decide what it would "say" and what it would
"do". 

and you have exercised that liberty extensively in the last few
days. but you have no business stating what Rand's Roark would
do. that is why it is stupid to use the name "Roark" for straw men
where you contrive the circumstance and make the character "let
someone drown while he basks in his own glory", which is not
what Rand's Roark would have done. and that's why
it does matter which one we are talking about.

if you *still* don't understand the difference, well, i give up.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:35:06 GMT

> >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? 

Is this group to be restricted to believers and seekers?  If so -- and
its being so is fine by me -- I'll just take my doll and dishes and
play elsewhere.

But if the group is open to sceptics, especially to sceptics who've
done their homework, why then I'l like to stay; and for sure, no
"hiding behind" no nothing at all.

What say?
-- 
Michael Feld                  | E-mail: <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy           | FAX: (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba        | Voice: (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 22:17:30 GMT

Perhaps I can explain this with a metaphor.  Suppose I had a theory that
gravity was caused by tiny, sub-atomic particles I'll call gravitons.  I
declared that these little, unseen particles cause gravity as described by
Newton.  Then I drop an apple on my head and say, "See!  My theory is correct
because it works in practice!"  However, I have no theoretical basis for these
particles....I haven't percieved them, I just made them up.  This practice
when applied to philosophy (and most often to ethics) is called pragmaticism.

On the other hand, suppose I derive a physical law with logic only, based upon
previous theories.  For example, Turing's work was done without the benefit of
a sun workstation to test his theories out on.  He logically proved that his
"Turing Machine" was capable of emulating any kind of digital computer.  If you
tested this out and it was wrong, then either he made a logical error, or the
universe had suddenly stopped following the law of identity.

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.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: How would free market anarchism work?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:28:43 GMT

score one for the anarcho-capitalists...

i am not convinced that it would work, yet, but i am convinced that
it is worthy of consideration, whereas before i thought it flawed being
being worth investigation.

i want to thank those who provided information and book recommendations.
i have decided not to try to refute the anarcho-capitalist position because
i do not feel that i understand it well enough, so i would be arguing
from a position of ignorance, which is foolish. i may however ask the
occasional question about it or challenge isolated subpositions if
appropriate.

the book which was recommended to me was "The Enterprise of Law" by
Bruce Benson. haven't picked it up yet, but i would recommend you
objectivists out there who are interested check it out.

--
charles
From: brian@sgml.com (Brian E. Travis)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Plug for REASON
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 09:08:56 GMT
Organization: SGML Associates, Inc.
Reply-To: brian@sgmlinc.com

I have been receiving a magazine recently, and I think more 
people should know baout it.

The magazine is REASON, and it is published by the Reason 
Foundation in Los Angeles (we all can't live in paradise). 
Although this magazine (subtitled Free Minds and Free Markets) 
tends to attract more conservative (read: right-wing bigots) 
advertisements than I would like, the articles are based on a 
fundamental sense of rationality. One of my favorite regular 
columns is "Assets and Liabilities". Examples:
    ASSETS:
        Fanny Fees: How to privately finance a stadium: Make the 
        fans pay. Charlotte, North Carolina, wants a National 
        Football League expansion franchise. It doesn't have a 
        stadium. So, for a one-time fee of $500 to $5,000, a 
        season-ticket holder can purchase the right to buy a 
        specific seat forever. Franchise investors hope fans will 
        ante up $150 million to huild a 70,000-seat stadium.
    
    LIABILITIES:
        Another WINner?: Gerald Ford held an economic summit in 
        1974. The result: the Whip Inflation Now fiasco. Bill 
        Clinton plans his own summit in Little Rock. Since none 
        of Clinton's economic advisors are real economists, this 
        powwow  may be worse than Ford's. At least Jerry came up 
        with those neat buttons.

...and so on. The magazine seems to be in a growth phase. I hope 
that it keeps its objectivity and does not get too near the 
advertisers' hemlines.

The number listed for subscriptions is 815-734-6309.

(I have no connection with the magazine except as a paying subscriber)

Brian.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: Funding the govt.....(Re: Just a few...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:00:33 GMT

=========================================
 sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>	There's just one problem here with regards to keeping invaders out.
>National defense is a public good.  If you pay voluntarily for this service,
>then your neighbor might choose not to pay (to free ride).  If there are
>enough free riders, the service may be so drastically underproduced it will
>be worthless for everybody.  This is known as the "public goods" problem
>in economics, and it is very real.
>
>	If national defense cannot be provided by voluntary donation alone,
>would Objectivists be willing to tax for it?

 Although I like objectivism, let me admit that I do not know all the
 answers that would be consistent with objectivism. Having said that let 
 me offer the answer to your question. (since you seem to know
 economics/finance, let me use relevant parallels):

  I would support a fund (much like the mutual funds or pension funds on the
  wall street) that is paid for:
   [1] by citizens thru bills (call them tax if you like that word).
   [2] and, by the economic growth much like the way mutual funds grow.
 The most important feature of such an arrangement would be that the receipts
 from citizen would solely go into national defense. The fund shall not be
 used for any other purposes - a proposition which is equivalent to debt
 covenant for funding venture firms. Any excess or shortage would be 
 dynamically balanced thru T-bills or T-notes - which get paid thru in the next
 round of expense collection from citizens.

 Doesn't this sound like "national defense" being run like "phone company."

 I also think it prudent, that the defense fund be managed thru
 competitive means.
 
 All other govt functions can be objectively managed similarly.

 Comments?

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
From: siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Objectivism and the financing of government
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 22:15:33 EST
Reply-To: siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz)
Organization: Modem Madness BBS    1+516-295-9435

    The official Objectivist posisition regarding the financing of
government is that this is a very complex issue. The general idea is
that the government would charge a fee for its services.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US
Stimpson J. Katz

     Subscribe to the Introduction to Objectivism Mailing List.
Send mail to "Server@Momad.LI.NY.US" containing the phrase
"Subscribe AYN-RAND" in the body of the message.
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
	<TORKEL.93Jan5195646@bast.sics.se>
	<1993Jan05.223621.29557@news.mentorg.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:25:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.223621.29557@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.
com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:

   >What she really seeked to do was to project the ideal man. 
   >She invented Objectivism to make such a projection possible. 

  Well, Godel's theorem has no implications concerning projections of
the ideal man.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:39:53 GMT

   I'm curious about the referecnce to Fundamentalists. Does this mean
that you are opposed to Christainity, religion in general or just
Fundamentalists? Does Objectivism require atheism or is this just your
interpretation? Does Objectivism explain everything thereby replacing
religion does it concern itself with more earthly matters?

Bill


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 07:42:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan04.231520.8706@microsoft.com>, johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
|> In article sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> | 	IMHO, self defense must take the least violent path possible while still
|> | ensuring that there will be no further violence or significant threat of violence.
|> 
|> The problem is that in order to ensure their will be no further 
|> violence, the most rational and effective strategy is to have your 
|> opponent hit room temperature as quickly as possile.
|> 
|> Responding with less than deadly force is a proven way to get
|> yourself killed.  Remember, you don't know the opponent isn't
|> armed until you search the body.

	I think there's such a thing as REASONABLE assurance that an opponent is
no longer dangerous.  Going beyond that REASONABLE boundary (which, admittedly,
is hard to define, but clear-cut cases exist) is where I have a problem.

Steve
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:42:23 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan12.031646.2043@eplrx7.es.duPont.com> cristy@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Cristy) writes:
>...if the person is a stranger and it is quite clear that you will
>probably die trying to save the drowning victim then it is moral not to
>attempt the rescue.  However, if the person is your lover and you feel
>your own life would be incomplete without this person then risking
>one's life is moral.

I quite agree that one is under no obligation to sacrifice one's
life to save a stranger. BUT:

This is another excellent example of the "objectivist" tendency to paint
pictures in the exaggerated black and white of false dichotomy.
I remind you that the hypothetical case in question sits at neither of
these two extremes; it involves the safe, minimal-effort rescue of
a stranger.

The progression, of course, is a familiar one. We start with:

	A person throws a life preserver to a drowning man

but then the "objectivists" quickly start talking about	

	A person risks his life to save a drowning man
	(who might well turn around and kill him)

finally arrive at

	A person tries to save a drowning man, knowing
	that it will almost certainly result in his own death

and then proceed to reject a hypothetically-alleged obligation
that has never been suggested, neatly sidestepping the original issue.

And all this in the name of the purest logic the world has ever known!
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism