HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:44:04 GMT

In article <Jan01.011920.23731@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.201717.2669@nynexst.com>, baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch) writes:
>|> However, I too have had problems with this "right".  I feel within
>|> myself that to be civilized means to take care of those who cannot
>|> take care of themselves.  Lest anyone start to flame me, I try
>|> to filter these feelings through the reality-screens...
>
>	I agree totally!  I merely think that such help should be provided
>voluntarily, not through the means of government force.  Here, of course, I think
>I disagree with Ayn Rand, who seems to maintain that any form of altruism is
>somehow evil.  Correct me if I'm giving an unjustified black eye to Ayn Rand, but
>I think private altruism is perfectly OK, and I think she would
>disagree.

Not entirely.  I believe it is in "Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand"
that she states that she supports "helping innocent victims".  I don't
think she has anything against private altruisim in principle.  We all
know that it is difficult to achieve in practice.  Ask how much of
your money actually gets to needy people when you contribute to a
charitable organization.

--
-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Objectivism can't fail, by definition.
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:28:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.150158.17351@news.nd.edu> fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
>It appears to me, having read this discussion (and _Atlas_Shrugged_
>a long time ago) that Obj. cannot fail because it is defined in
>such a way that it cannot be tested.  Any real-world implementation
>of Obj. would require some compromises.  Then, when it failed, the
>faithful would say:  "But that wasn't Pure Objectivism."

Nope, you can test it in your own life without compromises.  I don't
claim to be John Galt, but I've found that I am happier, more
productive, and less confused about life to the extent that I live my
life by Objectivist principles.  

As far as applying it to an entire society is concerned, I really
don't know.  Some one else could probably answer your argument better.
But if every individual becomes moral, happy, and purposeful, doesn't
that make the entire society so?
-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philo
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:57:20 GMT

In article 93Jan6134120@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
> In article <1993Jan6.153443.27955@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch) writes:

  (...stuff deleted...)
 
>    > Point is you must accept "A is A" as true. Hummans do not act or 
>    > think as Turing machines. Regarding that "A is A" as true
>    > (which I believe it is as far as I , a human can know it,to be)
>    > is an act of faith and there is no logical basis for it
>    > while there is certainly a rational basis for it.
> 
> #   There is certainly a logical basis for it.  If "A is A" is false, then
> #   you cannot argue about "A is A" because "(A is A) is (A is A)" is false.
> #   Therefore, you don't really know what you are arguing about, and what is
> #   the point in arguing about something you don't know about?  That was the
> #   essense of Ayn Rand's statement -- A is A means that before you talk about
> #   something, you must know exactly what it is you are talking about.  She
> #   said it another way -- "existence exists".
> 
> There is no logical (not rational) proof of self congruence, it must
> be an axiom. You can never prove axioms, you accept them on "FAITH" 
> if you are human or they are downloaded to you if you are a machine.
> 
> There is a rational basis for accepting self conguence at some
> level of your perception. That rational decision is based on an 
> act of faith or if you will empirical knowlegde. Any bit of
> empirical knowledge has the possibility of being proved invalid
> is some context. If you say I am 99.99% certain that "A is A"
> there is still the finite(although small) probability that "A is not A".

Really?  If A is not A, then how can you claim that (A is A) is false, since
you are already assuming that (A is A) is not really (A is A)!  What in the
world does it get you to think that there is a finite probability that what
is, is not!

> 
> Your observation of reality (your subjective view), will fail
> to coincide with the `objective reality'. While allowing
> for a finite but small probability you have in effect remained
> more consistant with `objective reality'. 

How do you know that your objective reality (in which A is A is not true)
exists?  After all, if A is A is false, then that reality is not reality, and
existence is not existence.  How could your mind function if you aren't you,
your mind isn't your mind, and functionality is not functionality?!

How could you argue that A is A is not necessarily true?  To do so, you would
have to admit that (A is A) exists -- that is, (A is A) is (A is A).  If it
isn't, then you really don't know what you are arguing about!

--Rob

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:43:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.181000.2522@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) 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?  No one posts messages on the rec.games.mud groups like:
> "Do you actually think you are having fun?  Get a life." or "No
> wonder this group is in rec.games."   

I have observed in any groups that deal with important and substantive
topics, such as politics, economics, health, football :-), etc.  there is
intense contention and disagreement.  That seems to be a part of life on
the net.

> 	I can sympathize; however, no one is forced to subscribe to
> this group.  If you don't agree with objectivism, then this isn't
> the place you ought to be.  

Also, no one who subscribes is forced to read all the articles.  Try
killing the threads that have degenerated into pointless babble.  I submit
thatnewgroups are not limited to people who hold a particular position on
the topic of the group; rather they are for discussion pro and contra.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blumen                          | robert@tcs.com
Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Keywords: It seems to me that there are a bunch of people
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:33:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.181000.2522@fcom.cc.utah.edu> leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
>	I can sympathize; however, no one is forced to subscribe to
>this group.  If you don't agree with objectivism, then this isn't
>the place you ought to be.  It is pointless to argue with those
>who won't even agree to the Law of Identity, since the concept of
>logic is derived from this law.  Furthermore, while I understand
>that even the mildest of my statement will make someone's blood
>boil, it's just as annoying to me to find irrationalists flooding
>the group with mindlessness.  I interpret this behavior as a
>malevolent attack on those of us who would like to have an adult
>discussion about objectivism.

i am quite pro-objectivist, as many can attest, and i must disagree
with you. if objectivism is to be proposed as a rational philosophy
appropriate for all to embrace, it must be able to deal with
criticism. it can be difficult to deal with, but it *must* be dealt
with.

note that i mean *criticism* though, not baseless attack. and perhaps
that is the majority of your objection. but that happens everywhere.
and if objectivism is the rational system i believe it is, those
who believe in it should be capable of refuting illogical arguments
or premises, or exposing the contradictions of attacks upon the
philosophy.

>	Lastly, for those who honestly wish to learn more about
>objectivism, then I suggest that individual study is the best
>choice.

with this i would definitely agree.

>The works of Rand, Peikoff, and others are eloquently
>written and probably more precise than we can offer over the net. 
>This group is more appropriate for the discussion of
>higher-order objectivist issues such as ethical conduct regarding
>government educational grants or the political worthiness of the
>Libertarian party.

i believe that isolationism will not help to foster belief in Rand's
theories by others. to me, it suggests weakness and exclusivity.

>	I'm really excited about this group and hope to contribute
>often, but I refused to cater to a Kantian mob who's only real
>purpose is to shut us down.

the more you say this, the more you are *guaranteed* that they
will arrive. you always have the option of ignoring those who you feel
are just baiting you. but then you have to let their words go
unchallenged. very tough to do.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Summary: an interesting lemma
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:15:18 GMT

One comment about the idea of axioms and conclusions that follow from them: as 
formulated, A=A is not so much a proposition from which everything is supposed 
to be derived but rather the cardinal rule one must always be sure to observe 
when one is using logic to operate on information to produce further 
conclusions.  Of course, if you take a (somewhat straw) formulation that you 
can derive everything directly from "A=A" and "Consciousness is the faculty of 
identification", you can defeat that.  But it is rather more useful to look at 
these propositions as the basis behind what you do with logic and data.

As far as producing a little lemma, Rand talks about the primary ethical
responsibility of living beings.  Basically her argument is:

1) Living things exist
2) Continued existence requires a certain course of action
----
3) Living requires a certain course of action
4) In order to have any values at all, a living thing must first continue to
   live
----
5) The primary value of a living thing is its life
6) Ethics is the science of how people ought to act
7) People ought to act in order to achieve their values
----
8) Man's primary ethical requirement is to further his life

Now, I don't claim to be a logical giant, and, in fact, just did this little
ditty off-the-cuff, but at least this is a starting point for people to argue
over.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Foundations of Objectivism
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:36:44 GMT


   At last someone who understands and will admit to the limits of
human intelligence - stick around pal, you are indeed rare. My only
reservation is the appeal to Quantum Physics, which is still to vague
and obscure to contribute much to this or any other discussion (Frijof
Capra notwithstanding).

Bill

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:17:26 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 to any works of his that
>>are suitable for layman reading. Whether Kant deserves Rand's
>>criticism or not I don't yet know. My own experience of people who
>>claim consciousness to be supreme has been that they wanted me to
>>accept THEIR consciousness as supreme.
>
>This is silly.  If you want to find out about Kant you need to read
>Kant.  I suggest the 'Critique of Pure Reason' at least.
>
>-- 
>     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
>               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Hold on a minute!  Save those Critiques for another time!  You may want
to start with something a bit more low-key as an introduction to Kant, 
say, the _Groundwork for the Metaphy. of Morals_; the Harper Torchbook ed.
is the best translation I have seen, and it includes a commentary.  And
the _Groundwork_ presents Kant's ethical views in a clear and concise 
manner.

If you encourage Mr. Nerurkar to commit a rash act like taking up the
_Critique of P. R._ right away, we might not hear from him for some time 
here on the Rand-bund.  I don't know if you are willing to take respon-
sibility for any of the secondary consequences that typically result from
reading the Critiques: loss of one's job, home, friends, etc. either.

Otherwise, I agree with Mr. Smith; secondary work is no way to learn an
author.  Whatever you learn has a short half-life in your head, it's not 
as enjoyable as the real thing, and the commentator could be LYING to you. :) 
cg
-- 
:::::======  Christian Gustafson    
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
===========  
===========  The last living Spencerian - a veritable museum piece!
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:58:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.180059.24750@fcom.cc.utah.edu> leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.190000.23047@news2.cis.umn.edu>, rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes:
> 
>|> I am
>|> curious as to exactly where he contradicts
>|> Objectivism.
>
>Well, I'd say first and foremost, Kant refutes the idea of objective reality.
>He suggests that reality is shaped by our perceptions, thus if we imagined that
>an apple were an orange, it would become so, for the perceiver that is.  This
>goes back to what everyone is yelling about lately here because it contradicts
>the Law of Identity.  Based upon Kant's work, many philosophers created some
>extremely mind-numbing work of their own.  Examples would be Hegel and Nietzche.
> [Rest of post deleted]


Besides Kant's distinction between a phenomenal and a noumenal world, you
can't forget to mention the other basix of Kant's moral philosophy, that
self-interest and personal desires must be wholly absent from one's intention,
from one's Will, for an action to be moral.  Kant wants us to act according
to imperatives, to follow a _duty_ independent from our interests or personal
desires.  From Kant's perspective in evaluating an action, everything is
tied to the original intent, to 'good Will', and NOT to the actual outcome 
of action.  Blah!

Re Nietzsche and Kant, please don't suggest that Kant influenced N. in a
positive way; many of N.'s best polemics are against that Koenigbergian's
attempt to restore philosophy in the mold of Christianity - hence, the
'noumenal' world 'beyond' the world of mere phenomena (the _real_ world!).  
Cf. _Twilight of the Idols_ or his (N.'s) _Antichrist_.

Is Peikoff's book really worth reading?  I don't know, it just sounds too
darn predictable.  Where/when does he begin his study?  Does he begin with
Martin Luther?
cg
-- 
:::::======  Christian Gustafson    
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
===========  
===========  The last living Spencerian.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorm ....(Re: Where's
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.93Jan10203802@bast.sics.se> <lewchuk.726713694@therien>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:39:31 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726713694@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
 (Michael Lewchuk) writes:

  >Goedel's theorem implies incompleteness is a provable consequence of
  >predicate logic.

  That's what you said before, and I wondered what it meant.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:01:48 GMT

rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
>This, of course, is quite untrue.  Love (charity, benevolence, kindness)
>is one of the best reflections of an objectivist's values -- when given
>voluntarily.  It is charity of the coerced variety (e.g. today's welfare
>systems) which made Rand so angry.
>Rob DeLine >Computer Science, University of Virginia >deline@Virginia.EDU

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.

Note: government mandate means that at least one function, "law", is performed
not because people want it but because it is mandated, thus it is possible
for people in an objectivist system to be forced to provide services they do
not wish to: namely rights to people they do not feel should have them.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Organization: SCTC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:26:00 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

>i think the point some O/objectivists are making is that her flawed
>behavior and her claim that her behavior reflected proper O ideals
>do not necessarily mean O is flawed. 

Actually, I've been waiting impatiently for someone to make that claim,
in the name of big-O Objectivism, and nobody has. I'll be inflammatory
and present my own humble opinion, which is that big-O Objectivism is
so shot through with denial, faking reality, and self-abnegation that
they don't think about the issue. They just recite catechisms from
Rand, try to feel moral, and avoid the obvious intellectual problems.
My dad responded that way when I asked him to square up his Bible with
the lessons he taught in physics class.

>there are two possibilities:
>A. Rand was right that her behaviour reflected objectivist ideals
>   and since her behavior was flawed, objectivism is flawed;

As is clear from my comment above, I believe big-O Objectivism is
flawed. Since little-o objectivism seems to mean "whatever extended
subset of Rand's ideas that appeals to me," then it says nothing about
little-o objectivism. Of course, that definition covers a lot of
ground, and doesn't necessarily exclude Marxism ;->

>or
>B. Rand was *wrong* that her behavior reflected objectivist ideals
>   and so the flaws in her behavior are irrelevant.

I do not believe a big-O Objectivist can hold position B and still
remain one. Since a little-o objectivist bases their set of values
on individual choices that may or may not be related to Rand's
justifications of objectivism, then I agree with B.

However, anyone who is convinced by Rand's arguments must keep in mind
that she used the same intellectual mechanisms to justify her
philosophy as she did to justify some really poisonous and self
destructive behavior.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: a relavant quote on logic
 	"It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality."
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:07:04 GMT

Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification. 
Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various
corollaries.  If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means
that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality.  If so,
then: a. things are not what they are; b. things can be and not
be at the same time, in the same respect, ie., reality is made up
of contradictions.  If so, by what means did anyone discover it? 
By illogical means. (This last is for sure.)  The purpose of that
notion is crudely obvious.  Its actual meaning is not: "Logic has
nothing to do with reality," but: "I, the speaker, have nothing
to do with logic (or with reality)."  When people use that catch
phrase, they mean either: "It's logical, but I don't choose to be
logical" or: "It's logical, but people are not logical, they
don't think--and I intend to pander to their irrationality."
					--Philosophy: Who Needs It? pg 15


Keywords: 

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:16:37 GMT


In article <1993Jan12.031646.2043@eplrx7.es.duPont.com>, cristy@eplrx7.es.duPont.com writes:
> Concerning the drowning man.  Rand answers this question in her writings:
> 
>    Never sacrifice a higher value for a lesser value
> 
> That is, 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.
> -- 
> cristy@dupont.com

That's all well and good for the two extremes you list.   What if the
person is a stranger but there is no (or minimal) risk to you?  Is it
moral (by objectivist standards) to walk away?

-- Erik
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Summary: Can objectivists be anarchists?
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:31:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan6.181000.2522@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) 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.  

>	I'm really excited about this group and hope to contribute
>often, but I refused to cater to a Kantian mob who's only real
>purpose is to shut us down.

I know I may often sound argumentative, but I *am* interested in objectivism.
When I get the time I will expound more; my initial reaction is that 
if objectivism is based on reason and the few "tenets" presented here,
I don't see how you can deny your links to anarchism.

Clearly, you may decide to be a objectivists who wants some govt (govt that
you want, whether or not others like it.  Now let others apply that same
logic to you...wait, we have a contradiction...not that an occaisional 
contradiction is all that bad--so long as we are aware of it--for I have
found little in life that makes perfect sense).

At any rate, I think it's possible to be an anarchist *and* an objectivist.
Anyone agree?  Why or why not?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism