HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:41:25 GMT

In article 93Jan12182647@lludd.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <1993Jan12.162935.29715@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
> (Robert Baruch) writes:
> 
>    >Since I was reading all of the responses as responses to the
>    >"trivial" argument, I am not aware of what the non-trivial argument is.
>    >What is it that I missed?
> 
>   The non-trivial argument is the argument Keith Ramsay explained in the
> article you responded to.

I guess the argument is how to determine the meaning:

] To say that one has to identify the meaning is fine, but does not
] explain how to do it.

and

] The problem is, as is well known, something to do with the meaning of
] self-referential sentences. The challenge is to produce a theory of 
] meaning which explains what exactly the problem is. 

To determine the meaning of a word, I look at it's context, and determine
what it means based on what the general population (or dictionary) says
its meaning is.  The example I gave is a clear case of context-dependant
semantics.

Then there is the self-referential sentences Keith talks about.  I think
the simplest is:

  This statement is false.

The statement cannot be assigned a truth value -- if it is false, then it must
be true, and if it is true, then it must be false.  

Rand said, something cannot be both A and non-A.  A meaningful dialog cannot
occur when one of the referents is both true and false.  If we were to
expand the paradoxical statement and include it in an argument, I would
have to claim that the argument is invalid, because one of it's constituents
violates this law of non-contradiction (which, incidentally, is the second
axiom of Objectivism).

I hope this addresses the problem.  Interestingly enough, what started off as
a question on the axioms of Objectivism began with me expounding on the virtues
of the law of identity, and now it seems that I expound on the *next* axiom!

--Rob
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A=A
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:09:29 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 7 Jan 93 05:52:23 GMT

In article <gthomas.726385943@unixg.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:

   In <2m8VwB3w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:

   >        If you complain that little can be drawn from this axiom, then I 
   >submit you would be demonstrating further ignorance. Euclidean Geometry 
   >proceeds from amazingly few axioms.

#   This little axiom being A=A.  Well yes, Euclidean Geometry does procede
#   from a set of axioms that has as one of its members A=A.


An object a point, a line, triangle is congruent to itself. Yes this
is an axiom of Euclidean Geometry.

The statement below is false. Abstract constructs in a Euclidean Geometric 
Space do not have significance in the real world. My knowledge of
such concepts and my ability to apply them in the real world allow
me to do quite a bit of engineering. Thereby I have altered the state
of nature.

#   However Euclidean Geometry has nothing to say about the physical world
#   much less about ethics or morals.

The fact that mathematical and physical law restrict the number of
possiblities for human action and create moral dilemmas that humans
must solve means that they most certainly do have something to say. 

Hopefully humans will solve these wherever possible with an appeal to Reason.

   >        The specific axiom to which you are complaining, "A is A", is a 
   >demand the concepts have clear meaning before they are subjected to 
   >logical manipulations. The acceptance of this axiom in mathematics could 
   >have eliminated much the problems it has been running into with respect 
   >to internal contradictions.

#   The people in sci.math would love to here more about this.

I'm one of those people.

-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:09:32 GMT

In article <C0GDwx.88B@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>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.

again, the impact of trying to be an objectivist in a world of non-
objectivists is being ignored. it is possible that her inconsistent
behavior is the residue of a lifetime of frustration. 

as an *example* (i am not saying that objectivists are more honest than others
necessarily), if i was a person who believed in honesty as a way
of life, and i was forced to spend my life among liars, i would get
very frustrated. from Rand's perspective, the world was probably a
miserable place.

objectivism cannot well be lived in isolation. if i believe in objectivism,
but i am forced to pay taxes for welfare programs, and otherwise live
my life in a way inconsistent with my beliefs, the result cannot be
taken as damning evidence against objectivism.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: How would free market anarchism work?
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:58:26 GMT

In article <C0LzBy.9MH@acsu.buffalo.edu>, sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
> In article <1993Jan9.044437.382@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes...
> >who are these arbitrators? how do we know they can be trusted?
> 
> 	You would know.  Such things are not secret in a market for law.
> Reputation is very important for arbitrators.  You would make sure that
> if your protection agency picked the arbitrators, you would have chosen
> a protection agency that chose arbitrators well.
> 
> 	BTW, how do I know that government judges can be trusted?!?
> Saying, well, they are the impartial third party in our theory of
> government don't cut it.

This is a key point.  Many objectivist discussions of government rest on 
assertions.  There will be an objective government.  It will have a monopoly
on force.  It will not initiate force.  This ignores the reality of
poltics.  Without competition, what is there to restrain an agency that
has a monopoly on force.

> 	The point is that they would have powerful incentives NOT to
> say it.  They are in business, remember.  Their reputation is important.
> The situation you describe did not happen in reality.
> 
> 
> >how do you deal with bad people getting in control of these companies?
> >and before you say "that's how it is with the government now", i don't
> >believe that. i think one can still get a *reasonably* fair trial.
> >and the government is not banging down my door.
> 
> 	Not your door, perhaps.  But what about government agents who
> bang down people's doors because of the mere HINT that there may be
> drugs on their premises?  It's real.  It's scary.  You could be next.
> 
> 
> >i see *much* more room for abuse with private companies.
> 
> >i have no doubt that the companies will protect their interests just
> >fine. i am concerned about the people.

This sounds a lot like the old slogan "people before profits", the
notion that the process of businesses making a profit is somehow
inimical to their providing for the best interests of their customers.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blumen                          | robert@tcs.com
Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:26:21 GMT
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5100742@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan5183723@lludd.sics.se>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: torkel@sics.se's message of 5 Jan 93 17:37:23 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan5183723@lludd.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:


   In article <MERRITT.93Jan5100742@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu 
   (Sean Merritt) writes:

      >For Goedel's theorem to apply you must have, or be capable of
      >representing the "natural numbers" (1,2,3...). Bertrand Russell
      >proved that although it is extermely difficult you can get a
      >representation of the natural numbers from Logic. Objectivism appeals
      >to Logic. Therefore it follows,that there exist conjetcures
      >which will not be provable (false or true) within the frame work
      >of objectivism.

&    This is an amusing piece of nonsense. Putting your bizarre reasoning
&   to one side, the basic point you need to get clear on is that "provability
&   within the framework of Objectivism" has no mathematical meaning at all.
&   There is no such formal system as "Objectivism". Godel's theorem applies
&   to (a class of) formal systems, nothing else.

Your trite comments aside sir: Godel's Theorem was a response to
Hilbert's systematic attempt to put Mathmatics on a unreproachable 
foundation. In particular it was a proof of nonexistence of a
a Turing machine that could solve the "Halting Problem".
That was: could a machine come to logical consistant conclusions 
given the axioms of that system , and stop computation.

Bertrand Russell responded to the Hilbert challenge by trying
to place Mathematics of the foundation of Logic. He was marginaly
succesful, however Godel proved that there would be conjectures
that arise that would be niether provable or unprovable.

Now I make no claims about how formal objectivisim is or isn't
but when Rand brought Logic into the picture,(since Logic
allows for the representation of natural numbers) Godel's
theorem ceratinly did become relevant. For if you look at it
Objectivism attempts to help Humans act as Turing machines
solving the Halting Problem. Furthermore a statement like:

"A is A" is not provable or disprovable.
 
If you accept it as true you do so subjectivly. 
For there is no objective proof of this statement. Humans are not 
computing machines and we can do this sort of non-algorithimic thinking.
The pundits of Artificial Intelligence, like Penrose, use this as the
basis of their feelings that we will never create a stong AI. 

-sjm


--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(6)
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:00:18 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA.

In article <1993Jan4.054140.19581@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
>"Atlas Shrugged" portrays people who, by the sweat of their brows and
>their own ingenuity create new enterprises and new resources.  In the
>real world, the people who end up in control are, more often then not,
>totally incapable of doing any creative or constructive work
>themselves.  This is becoming more and more true as manipulators of
>organizations are taking over and engineers, scientists and
>manufacturers are becoming ever more rare in the halls of the
>executive wing.
> 

But isn't that exactly what she was predicting in Atlas Shrugged??

Every time I pick up the newspaper I see something that could easily
have come out of the pages of the book.  She had the time period wrong,
but we may yet get to see if her conclusions about the results of
this kind of business were correct.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |               HARD HAT AREA
     bill@cs.uofs.edu         | New .signature being constructed on this site
                              |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:13:10 GMT

In article <106687@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.215714.16390@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
>>(Hmm... this brings up an interesting legal issue:  would there be a concept of
>>"criminal neglect" in an Objectivist society?  Would letting someone drown, if
>>you could easily save him, be a tort?)
>
>Forget about "torts": would there be anything *wrong* with it, in
>A Randian utopia of self-centered fountainheads?

starting with this vitriolic intro, i wonder if you even want
to hear the answer...

>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?

because most people value saving a life over staying put in their
deckchair. now if HR couldn't swim and his only way of saving
the guy was to jump in, i'd say he was well within reason in not
doing so. but if he wanted to, he would. that is all.

>He's too busy contemplating his own glory, and no-one else has a
>claim on his actions.

this is ludicrous. objectivists simply claim that he doesn't have
an *obligation* to save the guy. that doesn't mean he wouldn't,
if all he had to do was throw him a life preserver.

>So the guy in the water drowns.

if you say so.

>Has he behaved in a reprehensible way, Objectivists? As far as I can
>gather, your answer must be "no".

define "reprehensible". i would think his actions were reprehensible, based on
his prioritization of what is important. others might disagree.
of course maybe i don't know *why* he didn't act.

--
charles
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>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5100742@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan5183723@lludd.sics.se>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5132621@macro.bu.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:56:46 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan5132621@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu
 (Sean Merritt) writes:

   >For if you look at it
   >Objectivism attempts to help Humans act as Turing machines
   >solving the Halting Problem.

  Your account of various logical matters is quite garbled, but there is
no reason why that account should be criticized in this group. However,
your comment above is clearly relevant to the topic of the group, and
is wonderfully bizarre. So how about it, Objectivists? Did Ayn Rand
seek to help humans solve the halting problem, acting as Turing
machines?

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:41:13 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan13.030405.24535@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <106899@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>>Would you also agree that drinking poison is, by definition,
>>in your self-interest if you genuinely want to drink it,
>>for any reason, and you act voluntarily?
>
>given all the usual assumptions (i.e. no children, mentally
>"challenged" people, intoxication, etc.), then yes.

So for you, any voluntary action is "by definition", in your
own interest. This is trivially false, and so boringly so
that it really isn't worth debating.

>>Of course, drinking poison is generally a bad thing to do
>
>"generally"? if by that you mean "most of the time", fine.
>but there are times when drinking poison is the best course of
>action. i'm sure you don't need examples.

You really do seem to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking,
and incompetently so, at that. You might reflect on why you
feel compelled to act this way in public.

>>helping others is generally a good thing to do.
>
>only if the person who is doing it thinks so (am i getting through
>here?)

Of course you're getting through, Charles. Whatever you choose
to do is "right for you". Classic freshman ethical relativism.

>>My point is that
>>calling it "in your self-interest by definition" is quite false,
>
>why? prove it is false.

Look, if you wanted to call your ass your elbow "by definition",
I would be hard pressed to "prove" you wrong.  Appeal to truth
"by definition" is, for this reason, a notoriously cheap and
ineffective form of argument. And one which you seem to be
especially fond of.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Capitalism and the environment
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:10:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan11.050435.20361@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes...
> 
>One solution that comes to mind is "active consumerism," e.g. 
>boycotts, protests, etc. against companies that pollute. 

	That's one solution.

>Privitization of natural resources might also provide a
>solution.  If I own a river, I can make sure no one pollutes
>it and take them to court if they do.

	That's another.

>(Of course, how do you privitize the air?)

	That's already being done in places.  Ever heard of effluent
permits?  You don't privatize the air so much as you privatize the
right to pollute _under_ harmful levels.  These permits (which allow
you to pollute a certain amount in a certain area) can be sold or traded.

>Privitization, though, leads to the
>problem of companies buying resources (land, water) strictly
>for the purpose of polluting it ("It's my own d*mn land --
>I'll buy what I want in it!")

	This problem isn't as bad as you might think.

>Frankly, I don't find any of these ideas satisfactory or
>comforting, though.  Can one of you die-hard capitalists
>convince me?

	I don't know.  I hope so.  You might want to contact think tanks
that have been working on this issue.  The Reason Foundation and the
Pacific Research Institute come to mind.  They have done some good research
in this area.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth)
Subject: Re: Rich getting richer? The facts....
Organization: internet
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:28:39 GMT

In article <C0KACB.DtD@cs.uiuc.edu>, tthiel@cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:
|> What a bunch of crap.  Like the treasury Dpet. is some kind of unbiased source?
|> Get real.  Any moron can look at the state of the american economy including
|> unemployment, taxation, and the low gross national income and see that the
|> disinformation is coming from the welthy corporate assholes who support
|> right-wing newspaper columnists and provide personnel as political appointees
|> to the Treasury Dept.  it's absolutely idiotic and flies in the face of all
|> common snese to suggest otherwise.
|> -Terry
|> -- 
|> -Terry



Hmmm.  Where can one find unbiased facts in the world you describe?  Anybody
can rely on common sense to prove or disprove almost anything.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own and do not reflect those of my employeers....
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:26:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.191653.26314@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
(Robert Baruch) writes:

   >If you analyze the meaning of that sentence, it really is saying,
   >"If I am not mistaken that Santa Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists."

  No, you've missed the logical point of the paradox. "If I am not mistaken"
must refer to the whole sentence. That is

  (1)   If (1) is true, then Santa Clause exists.

The paradox follows because "A if and only if (if A then B)" does in fact
imply B. There is nothing paradoxical about "If I am not mistaken that Santa
Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists".

   >If Berkeley claims to stick strictly to the evidence, then he must admit
   >that his sight of matter is true.  Are you saying that when he closes his
   >eyes, he sees nothing, and hence nothing really is visible at that time?

  Not at all. This is not in the least part of Berkeley's argument. Why not
read his own (very readable) exposition?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Failures of Objectivism -- A rebuttal
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:54:11 GMT


   I just dropped in to see what was going on and stumbled across the
minor controversy, so I don't know its history. What I did notice was
the resort from both parties to simplistic appeals to cliches'. Every
pseudo-liberal seems compelled to attack the greedy rich as Evil
incarnate, the mere posession of wealth is evidence not only that the
wealthy are evil, but that the system that allowed them their success
is also evil. 

   Why do some people hate the rich? Is it envy, do they
feel humiliated because they can't do as well? What's even worse is
these same yuppie air-heads claim to care about the plight of the
poor. What hypocrisy! I would like to hear one good argument to
justify this trendy disdain for the wealthy. Even more, I'd like to
learn what is the connection between some people getting rich and
others being poor. And as long as I'm dreaming impossible dreams, I'd
like to hear how Reagan ruined the economy when the Congree was
controlled by democrats and the Supreme Court by notoriuos liberals.

   I have another question though. Why do the intellectually hip
insist that their philosophies are based on reason and logic as if
that should carry any weight? Why am I supposes to be impressed by the
claim that those who reject such and such philosophy are irrational,
that their objections are without logic and reason? Can anyone explain
to me why I should prefer a logical argument to an impassioned one?

   Logic, reason, passion, irrationality, love, hate, tolerance, eny,
these are all attributes of the human psyche, how can I know that some
of these attributes are preferable to others? Why am I supposed to
find a rational explantion superior to one based on passion? The world
continues on indifferent to we think or believe; all of our thoughts
have their only reality in our heads. Why agonize over the dominence of
one ideology or another, they are all equally insubstantial, they are
products, exclusively, of notoriously flawed human thoguht processes.


Bill
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism