HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:46:20 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <C0nJw2.FEx@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
|> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
|> 
|> [about whether 'tis nobler to believe in an objective reality]
|> 
|> >Lets just say that regardless of whether an objective reality exists,
|> >assuming the existance of such a reality in one's cognitive model of
|> >the world seems necessary in order to survive.
|> 
|> Now this is an interesting point.  I doubt that it is *necessary*,
|> but it could well be an aid in guiding one's actions.  [There is
|> an important difference between belief and making an assumption
|> to make life easier, of course; this is the difference between
|> religion and science.]  An analogy might be to include the infinity
|> point in the complex plane; it makes integrals easier.  And if
|> people want to argue it on that basis, and don't insist on some
|> magical direct perception of objective reality, I have no quarrel.
|> 
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>  Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>  Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.

Good that two of you have reached compromise. However, IMO Ayn Rand's position
that "objective reality exists" was not because it is more practical to do so
but because it is the absolute truth according to her. If it could be shown that
Kant's view has practical advantages, she would still reject him. 


Madhav Nerurkar                    Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(8)
Summary: Why Objectivism is ultimately a failure
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:02:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan5.023915.8322@netcom.com>, mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes...
>On a personal note: Ayn Rand was a consummate coward.  She tolerated
>no opposition to her own ideas.  She dismissed all but her most rigid
>True Believers.  She betrayed her chief collaborator after years of
>intense work together.  She refused to give credit to her
>contributors.  Ultimately, she failed herself, trading self interest
>for self indulgence as she evolved into a cantankerous and vindictive
>old woman.
> 
>This, of course, says nothing about the philosophy itself.  Still, 
>somehow I just want a better role model for my kids.

	Excellent point.  I wonder if Objectivism naturally leads towards
this kind of behavior (perhaps due to unexpected quirks in human nature)
or if this effect was a personal quirk of Ayn Rand.

	If Objectivism does fail to properly take human psychology into
account in producing this effect, this may be the strongest criticism
of all.

> 
>Michael Ward 
>mward@netcom.com

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Where's the Beef?
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:23:01 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA writes:
 
>[Godel proved that no]
>formal system of *logic* could be both consistent and complete.
>Mathematics can be shown to be a subset of logic.
 
This is absolutely incorrect on both counts. Taking first-order
predicate calculus as an instance of a formal system of logic, we do
indeed have a consistent, complete system.
 
And mathematics is *not* a subset of logic. This is *exactly* the dream
that was dashed by Godel's proof!
 
Elsewhere, ecoenen@phonon.uwaterloo.ca writes:
 
>Mark Hayes writes,
 
>>Can you provide a set of axioms, a set of tranformation rules,
>>a set of definitions ... and a set of valid inferences
>>[that prove the truth of "objectivism"?]
 
>Oh, so you want in a 40 line news article, the total framework of
>objectivism to save you the effort of having to look it up yourself?
>The fact is that this is not a small request and I doubt anyone will
>feel like humoring you in it.
 
I knew someone would crack this line. Obviously, someone would have to,
or your collective inability to respond to my challenge would be a
little too painfully apparent.
 
Look.  It is the nature of formal proofs that they tend to be
fairly compact. If someone asks for a proof that the square root
of two is irrational, it can indeed be provided in something like
a 40 line news article. I am not particularly inclined to subject
myself to absorbing "the total framework of objectivism". But since,
we are constantly told, "objectivism" flows in a PURELY LOGICAL
way from a SELF-EVIDENT SET OF LOGICAL AXIOMS, shouldn't it be
possible to provide a formal outline of the alleged proof
without this kind of handwaving?
 
There's been much talk of Godel's proof here lately. I have seen the
proof neatly summarized in two or three pages (without vague mumblings
about "truth transcending theory", either; I'm talking real, formal
proof, now). If someone asked, "hey, what is this 'Godel's proof' I hear
so much about?", and received the reply "oh, go read his life's work,
we're not going to 'humor' you by telling you", one would begin to
suspect that either (A) the proof was bogus, (B) the replyer didn't
understand it well enough to articulate it, or (C) there simply
was no such proof.
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:28:36 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: torkel@sics.se's message of 6 Jan 93 20:37:20 GMT


#In article <TORKEL.93Jan6213720@bugs.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:



      >It seems to me that there are a bunch of people
      >participating in this news group who are not objectivists and
      >show no indications of having in any desire to do anything but
      >cause trouble.

#     Certainly, and I'm one of them. More precisely, I'm interested in
#   troubling Objectivists with some outside viewpoints, with criticism
#   of nonsensical talk about logic, and with invitations to produce some
#   of their fabled logical deductions from philosophical axioms. I'm
#   sure you don't want this kind of trouble, but it's part of the net.
#   Stick to the Objectivist mailing lists if you wish to mingle only with
#   the faithful.

Is this only to be "Preaching to the Converted"?

I do not totally reject Objectivism, I see it as flawed but
that an accpetable and consistant Objectivism is possible.

Is there no room for revision?

If to be posting in this group on a just basis you must accept
the words of Ayn Rand as Dogma, well maybe you the name should be
alt.fan.ayn.rand, I'm sure that Ms. Rand would agree there would
be little lattiude to discuss the ideas and implications of
the Objectivist Philosophy if every word written or uttered by
her on the subject was to be unquestionable.


-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
From: brandyn@Apple.COM (Brandyn)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A Warning to the Uninformed
Date: 6 Jan 93 08:14:37 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan4.213128.9878@mcc.com> amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>In article <76057@apple.apple.COM> brandyn@Apple.COM (Brandyn) writes:
>>
>>    From OPAR (Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand) page 366:
>>
>>        [The purpose of government] entails three and only three
>>        governmental functions.  In Ayn Rand's statement, these are:
>>        "the police, to protect men from criminals--the armed services,
>>        to protect men from foreign invaders--the law courts, to settle
>>        disputes among men according to objective laws."  Any additional
>>        function would have to involve the government initiating force
>>        against innocent citizens.  Such a government acts not as man's
>>        protector, but as a criminal.
>>
>>    Welcome to America.
>
>I don't understand your last line.  Are you saying the paragraph from
>OPAR describes (present-day) America?

    Not the paragraph as a whole... just the last two sentences.  ;-)

    -Brandyn (brandyn@apple.com)

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 22:36:21 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <TORKEL.93Jan5195646@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
|> 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?
|> 

No. Nor the problem Mr. Merritt really means. 

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


Madhav Nerurkar

Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: kleiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Ron_M_Kleiner)
Subject: A=A again (I'm new to this group : )
Organization: York University, CS Dept. Toronto
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:06:39 GMT

I'm a newcomer to this group.  I want to have a basic understanding of
what Objectivism is all about.  My confusion begins with this "axiom".
There has been much argument about whether "A=A" can be proved.  It seems
to me that it follows from the definition of the relation "=".  In fact it
IS the definition.  Now, can someone kindly demonstrate a few interesting
"theorems" of objectivism from that and the other axiom?  (Actually, I first
need clarification about the second axiom...)

-Ron
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:03:40 GMT
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com>
	<1993Jan5.224006.714@eecs.nwu.edu>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu's message of 5 Jan 93 22:40:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.224006.714@eecs.nwu.edu> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:

   In article <1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
   >I agree that the post you are responding to is not accurate. I disagree that
   >Godel's theorem is not relevant to Objectivism. Ayn Rand intended to provide
   >a sound and complete theory of reality.

#   Is there really any evidence that Rand intended Objectivism to decide
#   questions of elementary arithmetic?  Come on people.
 
There will arise in the course of human interaction cases where the
solution of a moral dilemma most certainly will be aided by the
application of mathematics and or logic. 

--
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: rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand on Charity
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:20:52 GMT

Mike Leipe writes:
> She also once quoted an american preacher named Reverend Ike, who said "The
> best thing you can do for the poor is not become one of them."  I've always
> liked that one.

One of my favorite quotes on this topic is from Milton
Friedman, whom I can only paraphrase at the moment:

  Never give a man a fish. Give him a fishing pole instead.



Rob DeLine
Computer Science, University of Virginia
deline@Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Organization: SCTC
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:56:09 GMT

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

>btw, i don't believe a small-O objectivist like myself would really
>care about how Rand lived her life. i am interested in basing my life
>upon theories which are reasonable.

One can't effectively evaluate a theory without looking at how it
works in practice. Rand created fictional characters to illustrate how
she thought her philosophical viewpoint would play out. There's
something irrational about basing one's actions on the behavior of
fictional characters.

Fortunately, Rand also made a strong personal commitment to herself
live by her philosophical principles.  Rand liked to point to herself
and to her followers as examples that objectivism _could_ be used as
one's guide to behavior.  Thus, her life (and possibly those of her
followers) should serve as a source of information about the practical
application of her ideas.

> i consider the philosophy, not
>any particular implementation. and if rand was unable to live her
>life according to the ideals she believed in, that doesn't change necessarily
>the value of the ideals. many people strive for ideals and fail
>to achieve them. or have weaknesses and therefore fail to live
>up to their potential.

Rand expressed profound contempt for philosophical systems that were
impossible for people to live by. She considered it a mark of failure
if the philosophy wasn't practicable. In particular, she objected to
the fact that such philosophies set people up for lives of misery and
failure, since they're constantly challenged by the unachievable.

If Ayn Rand, the acknowledged patron saint (godhead?) of Objectivism,
was unable to live up to the standards of Objectivism, then perhaps
the standards are unrealistic, and thus inappropriate.

[the open question is _Which_ objectivist standards of behavior
 are unrealistic? I'm open to suggestions..]

> example: how many doctors smoke? plenty. 
>does that mean a doctor who advocates non-smoking for his patients
>but who smokes himself is incorrect? i don't think so.

A false analogy. Anyway, I don't see anything positive about the
doctor's moral stature. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a dubious
argument in the realm of ethics, especially in a libertarian crowd.
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Where's the Beef?
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:23:08 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan10.004906.13492@eecs.nwu.edu> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>The word "complete" is used in two senses in first order logic.  This
>is how there can be both a Godel Completeness Theorem and a Godel
>Incompleteness Theorem.  The latter is what is usually meant by
>"Godel's Theorem".  In the sense of the latter theorem, first order
>predicate calculus is incomplete.

And what might these two senses be? "Complete", as far as I know,
means "yielding as theorems all true statements expressible within
the language".  In this sense, first order predicate calculus
is proveably complete. Godel's incompleteness proof pertained
to all possible formalizations of arithmetic, which is a
very different affair.
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:11:16 GMT
	<1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com> <106228@bu.edu>
	<lewchuk.726347503@therien> <MECH.93Jan7065809@mdis1.wdl>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: mech@mdis1.wdl's message of 7 Jan 93 14:58:09 GMT

In article <MECH.93Jan7065809@mdis1.wdl> mech@mdis1.wdl (Miguel Echavarria) writes:



   In article <lewchuk.726347503@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael
   Lewchuk) writes:

   < Replying to an assetion that Goedel's theorem, of which I know nothing
   about, only applies to formal systems >

#      Not entirely correct.  The proof was much stronger than this. It was that no
#      formal system of *logic* could be both consistent and complete.  Mathematics
#      can be shown to be a subset of logic.  Thus, mathematics in and of itself
#      cannot be both consistent and complete.

Even a certain person from Sweden will agree here.

#   < example deleted >
#
#      I believe what this means is that rationality is a more poweful system
#      than logic since logic cannot prove all possibly true statements but
#      rationality can account for them in some fashion.

I believe that this means Logic is a subroutine of Reason. Thus it is
possible to make a decision with reason and without logic. A machine,
in particular a Turing type machine could never do so. 

#   -------
#
#   I presume Goedel arrived at his result using logic. I consider it a testament
#   to the worth of logic that it can in some manner reveal its own limitations. I
#   wonder if 'rationality' leads to similar results. You seem to imply that it is
#   the be all and end all of human ( or perhaps sentient ) thought. I have a hard
#   time understanding what I take to be 'rationality', but I assume it is some
#   super-set of logic. Is there a book or primer ( like the ones on fallacious
#   arguments ) that might provide a basis for what is considered 'rationality.'

What I am thinking is this:

Humans can reason without logic, but in doing this they do so in an
entirely Subjective sense. A result of such reasoning is defintiely
correct or incorrect, but we as humans have no way of objectively
proving which it is(before action is taken, afterwards there is an
empirical data point). 

#   This may be off the subject, but before we deify rationality or reason or
#   whatever, it might help to outline what we think these concepts mean.

 If we are to "throw out the baby with the bath water" as some might
 have us do, then there is no subject to deviate from. This is 
 entirely relevant, and at the crux of the matter.


-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 06:20:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.042114.13709@sctc.com> smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>>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. 
>
>In other words, irrational behavior is justified since one lives
>in an irrational world. This is not consistent with Rand's view of
>things (or with mine, for that matter).
>
>>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.
>
>This is inconsistent with Rand's view, too. A key point of objectivism
>is that you are responsible for your own _uncoerced_ actions. Rand is
>quite specific about how individuals suffer no moral breach when they
>are coerced into behavior that goes against their beliefs.

i will let someone more familiar with Rand's "crimes" take this up.
i was just raising a possibility.

btw, i don't believe a small-O objectivist like myself would really
care about how Rand lived her life. i am interested in basing my life
upon theories which are reasonable. i consider the philosophy, not
any particular implementation. and if rand was unable to live her
life according to the ideals she believed in, that doesn't change necessarily
the value of the ideals. many people strive for ideals and fail
to achieve them. or have weaknesses and therefore fail to live
up to their potential. example: how many doctors smoke? plenty. 
does that mean a doctor who advocates non-smoking for his patients
but who smokes himself is incorrect? i don't think so.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: (A=A -> objectivism): Where's the Beef?
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 21:26:37 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <106255@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
|> 
|> So how about it, Randites? You talk the talk, but do you chalk the chalk?
|> 
|> Can you provide a set of axioms, a set of tranformation rules,
|> a set of definitions (no cheating, now!), and a set of valid
|> inferences showing how to get from premises like "A=A" to
|> conclusions like "I have no responsibility to help a little old
|> lady who just fell down in front of an oncoming truck", or whatever
|> your favorite illustration of the glory of selfishness is? (This
|> particular example comes from an actual conversation I once had
|> with a Net-Randroid, who admitted, however, that she might help
|> the little old lady on the off-chance that she was rich).
|> 
|> We're waiting..........

	You are requiring of Objectivism something that few, if any, other
political philosophies in history have ever been asked to do: define themselves
completely using formal symbolic logic and axiomatic set theory.  I daresay you
haven't done the same thing with your own political philosophy.  (If you have,
I'd love to see YOUR complete list of axioms and theorems!)
	I certainly cannot do as you ask, because I have not spent 12 years of my
life studying formal logic, nor do I intend to.  Formal logic has about as much
to do with real life as a textbook about water has to do with swimming.
	Yes, most of us rely on good old fashioned, somewhat vague, somewhat less
than absolutely proven REASONING.  It works quite well in real life, unlike your
endlessly pendantic formal systems.  Life, you see, is the art of deriving
sufficient conclusions from insufficient data.  But formal logic demands
sufficient data.  it does not understand the inspired guess, the leap of
intuition, all checked by rationality and common sense.
	Formal logic is a tool.  A very limited tool.  It is not a god.  Don't
try to make it one.

Steve