From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: More A=A stuff
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:15:18 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

>Not necessarily.  I had a friend give me an example of how the
>exigencies of starvation made a man do somewhat irrational things.

Well, to qualify my statement, I wasn't including times where the mind
is losing or has lost its ability to be rational (mental illness, 
starvation, brainwashing, torture, dying of thirst; incidences of panic,
grief, etc.) There are exceptions, of course.

>> On the other hand, I do agree with the Objectivist epistomology. The three
>> axioms which need no proof and are self-evident are: existence, consciousness,
>> and identity. As I have said before, ignorance does not imply non-identity.
>> I know that there will always be facts out of reach of humanity, but that
>> does not preclude their existence. Actually, I came to this conclusion 
>> before I ever read any of Rand's material.
>
>Actually, I have discovered an argument that, in my mind, adequately
>subverts the axiomatic nature of existence.  I may or may not
>post the argument, but before I do (or don't), I would like to
>have you spell out PRECICELY and carefully what the axiom _existence
>exists_ means to you.
>
>For exampele, it may mean this:  Existence exists as my senses
>percieve it, and by using my senses in combination with reason
>and scientific method, I can learn undeniable truths about the nature
>of the universe.
>
>Is that an adequate statement, or do you wish to modify it.

Close enough. I don't know about "undeniable truths", but the three axioms
serve as undeniable truths, as far as I'm concerned. We, as humans, can
learn truths within our own current paradigms, but any succesive paradigms
must take these truths into account and accept or expand their definition.
Are we, as humans, close to the final paradigm, the one where no other shifts
are possible? Who knows? Obviously, the current paradigm serves very well,
since we have been able to find enough regularity in this universe to 
construct our societies along with all of their techologies. The three axioms
serve as bases that in the end, there are final truths (i.e., we don't have
to worry about gravity reversing itself, an apple won't be a pear tomorrow,
A=A, etc.)

>> 
>> Once again, please show me a case where A something other than A, in 
>> the context of A.
>
>Look, I do NOT deny the concept of identity.  My statement was 
>a rhetorical trick meant to imply that even if objectivist epistemology
>is adopted without question, it does not map itself over the complex
>interaction of humans in social contact as easily as objectivists
>and libertarians seem to think it does.  People here seem to imply
>that A=A can be used as a proof that taxes are bad or that non-initiation
>of force is good.  I am merely suggesting that the careful rationality
>of statements like A=A do not bear that much weight in the world
>of human social interaction.
>
>doug

It doesn't map over this as easily, as I have said before, because we don't
know everything!! Human relationships are difficult to understand because
we are kind of stuck in our own minds and bodies--our only route to 
objectivity is the annoying route of logic--the search for non-contradictory
explanations by means of trial and error--bleah. It's irritating, slow, unsure
because of the number of variables in human relations, but it's really
all we have.

Rand uses A=A in saying Man = Man. Her definition of man is that of the 
rational being, who uses his mind as his means of survival, since he
has no true instincts (born knowing how to kill, etc.) Rand also takes
the position that force is the opposite of the mind, that force prevents
the mind from operating at its fullest potential. Therefore, men should 
be free from force in order to live up to their fullest potential.

This means that all men have the same power over one another, namely none.
A society under this principle would mean all individuals are equal under
the law. This is where Rand uses identity.

I generally agree with Rand up until individual rights, but after that
her philosophy starts to lose me. She seems to think that all tastes, values
and behaviors can be objectified and judged as right and wrong. I generally
draw my own lines of right and wrong at individual rights, and leave the
rest of human behavior up to individuals to decide for themselves.
I like to have an emphasis on responsibility, independence, and rationality,
but once again my definition of rationality doesn't conicide with Rand's.

Why didn't you just SAY this in the first place?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)