HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.93Jan6004257@bast.sics.se> <C0GMJK.1Hz@SSD.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:15:37 GMT

In article <C0GMJK.1Hz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) 
writes:

   >This is just semantics.  If conclusions regarding human behavior, good
   >and evil, morality and values, based on certain assumptions, do not
   >constitute a "philosophy," then what do they constitute?

  You misunderstand my comment. I said that the idea that philosophy
consists of "philosophies" resting on "axioms" has little to do with
how philosophy is understood outside Objectivism and similar sects.
Philosophy, as it is understood and practiced by philosophers, is
largely considered part of the search for knowledge and understanding
in general.  It is not a battle of competing "systems" of whatever
kind. Nor is it "axiomatic", any more than science is, but uses many
different types of argument, sources of knowledge, and modes of
reasoning and investigation.

   >You seem to be denying that any conclusions can be logically drawn
   >from the Objectivist axioms.

  I am saying that the supposed "axioms" are merely flexible slogans, and
that the arguments are not logical deductions at all. Generally speaking,
Rand's knowledge and understanding of logic is poor indeed.

  It is characteristic of Objectivists - the eager, hard-core kind,
including of course Rand herself - that they go on in a very silly way
about how rational and logical and unassailable Rand's thinking is and
how it is the epitome of philosophy. The first step towards discussing
selfishness, capitalism, romanticism, and whatever ideals Rand would
promote, is to drop this silly business. And indeed there are people
who sympathize with Rand's general outlook and do take this approach.
They are of course denounced as evil renegades or worse by the
faithful.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: byafuso@athena.qualcomm.com (Byron Yafuso)
Subject: So where are the objectivist governments?
Summary: If objectivism makes so much sense, why isn't it widespread?
Keywords: objectivist
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:57:34 GMT

It seems to me that objectivism has a thread of natural selection beliefs
running through it.  The intelligent would and should flourish above the
not-so-intelligent.  This system, though sometimes viewed as merciless
and cold, may be theorized as providing the greatest average degree of
freedom possible for all its individuals.

I also believe that natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is
prevalent (perhaps ubiquitous).  There is a strong tendency for an
un-occupied niche to be filled in time.

My question is:  if objectivism and Laissez-Faire government could be
so effective, and yield such greater productivity, why hasn't it prevailed
anywhere?  Or am I just not aware of where it has prevailed?  Or is it
where mankind is heading, but just not yet arrived?


Just my contribution to the debate-fuel in this group (food for thought),



Thank you for your indulgence,

Byron Yafuso
byafuso@qualcomm.com
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
	<1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com> <106228@bu.edu>
	<lewchuk.726347503@therien>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:07:56 GMT

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

 >Not entirely correct.  The proof was much stronger than this.  It was that no
 >formal system of *logic* could be both consistent and complete.

  Whatever you may mean by this, it is not a formulation of anything proved
by Godel.

  On the other hand (just to add to your confusion), Godel did prove the
completeness theorem for first order logic.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:40:06 GMT

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.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
From: tregan@everest.srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A=A
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:30:28 GMT
Reply-To: tregan@srd.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

From article <2m8VwB3w165w@momad.li.ny.us>, by siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz):
>         As far as "existence exists", this is the claim that reality is 
> objective. Without this claim, no reasoning is possible. If you didn't
> already accept this, you could not even post a message to this group.
> 
>         If you think nothing can be derived from this, I will just point 
> out how much trash CANNOT be even considered with this. The question of 
> whether you exist is dealt with immediately.

I am now confused. Are you saying that from 'A=A' and 'existence exists'
you can _prove_ that I exist? How?

				Cheers,

				 Tim.
--
Timothy Regan		tregan@srd.bt.co.uk		Tel: +44 473 645811
Applications Research Division, BT Laboratories, Martlesham Heath IPSWICH IP5 7RE
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:05:50 GMT

In article 93Jan5232442@bast.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <1993Jan5.212546.12567@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
> (Robert Baruch) writes:
> 
>    >Santa Claus exists if I am not mistaken.  This sentence is certainly
>    >true and hence, I am not mistaken and therefore Santa Claus exists.
> 
>   This is a formulation of a standard paradox, one that is particularly
> of interest in connection with Loeb's theorem. But why do you invite me
> to discourse on it? Do you have some kind of interesting Objectivist
> derivation from the "law of identity" touching on this paradox?

Ayn Rand meant the "A is A" formulation to mean that before you can talk
about something (and extract truths from it), you must know exactly what
it is you are talking about.  If you look at the formulation above, you
will find that if you apply Ayn Rand's "A is A" to the two "I am not
mistaken" phrases, you will find that they mean different things, and
so the formulation is invalid.

> 
>   In the remainder of your message you expand on your philosophy of
> perception, and now comment on sensory deception as well, by
> emphasizing the infeasibility of constantly doubting our senses.
> However, you will find that there is wide agreement in philosophy on
> the infeasibility of constantly doubting our senses. In particular,
> philosophers as diverse as Berkeley, Leibniz, Hume, and Wittgenstein
> agree on this. Why, one wonders, are they not then Objectivists, at
> least as far as their philosophy of perception is concerned?
> 

Unfortunately, I cannot answer this, since I am not familiar with the works
of these other philosophers.  However, if they agreed on the infeasability
of doubting our senses, I wonder what their views were on doubting the senses
for *anything* (not constantly, just for some things).  Does that make
sense, or am I just psychobabbling? :)

--Rob




Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:21:57 GMT

In article <106333@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>If you're serious about this "challenge", then please do what I have
>requested - quite reasonably, I believe:
>
>(1) PRESENT THE "AXIOMS", well-defined, and unambiguously worded
>
>(2) PRESENT THE CONCLUSIONS in a similar manner
>
>(3) PRESENT THE "LOGICAL" ARGUMENTS that get us from (1) to (2)

Again, I base my claims solely on the reasoning of John Galt's speech
in "Atlas Shrugged."  It is about 60 pages long.  Realistically, it
would be easier for you to read it than for me to reproduce it.  And,
if it is as full of holes as you claim, you shouldn't even have to
read the whole thing.  Pretty please?

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(8)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:03:38 GMT

In article <1ibdefINNfuu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cl836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Geoff Stark) writes:
>
>In a previous article, mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) says:
>
>>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.
>
>It has been made clear in earlier postings that you are not able
>to refute Rand's Objectivist concepts.  I wondered how long it
>would take for the personal attacks and slander to start.
>Cowardly indeed!
>
>By the way, I find your personal judgement of Ayn Rand highly inaccurate.

well said. i personally would like to see Mr. Ward respond to some of his
critics, who validly challenge his non-arguments, before continuing with
his next "sequel" in the so-far 8-part series of anti-Randian drivel.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: warn@newton.uvm.edu (Patrick D Warn)
Subject: Re: Plug for REASON
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:46:57 GMT

I whole heartedly second this plug. I've been reading Reason for six years
and it is *WONDERFUL*.


--
                     Wondering what it all means,
                                 Pat

******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: internet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:01:46 GMT

In article <C0CEpG.BLG@SSD.intel.com>, pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
|> 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.
|> 
 Chairity is totally consistant with Objectivism.  Anyone should have the right to 
give money to any individual or cause.  The important point is that such actions 
should be voluntary.  I think that homeless should be helped, let's say.  If I want
to give all I own to the homeless, become part of an organization to help them,  or
hire them  then that's ok.  It's only when I demand that the government take money from
you to solve what I see as a problem that it becomes inconsistant.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own and do not reflect those of my employeers....
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:52:21 GMT
	<1993Jan03.014433.15175@news.mentorg.com>
	<1993Jan4.015823.5252@tcsi.com>
	<1993Jan4.050437.29781@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1993Jan4.050437.29781@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.
umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:

   >Godel's theorem states, in a nutshell, "Any algebraic system strong enough
   >to include arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete." Note the
   >"either-or". Either inconsistent or incomplete; not both. Most are
   >incomplete."Incomplete" means that there are some statements which are 
   >true but cannot be proven... not that there are statements which are
   >undecidable.

  Just a pro forma comment: the above is not at all accurate. But Godel's
theorem is no more relevant to Objectivism than to atheism (it has
figured frequently in alt.atheism), so there is no reason to go into
any detail.
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
	<1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com> <106228@bu.edu>
	<lewchuk.726347503@therien> <MECH.93Jan7065809@mdis1.wdl>
	<MERRITT.93Jan7111116@macro.bu.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:50:45 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan7111116@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu 
(Sean Merritt) writes:

   >Even a certain person from Sweden will agree here.

  Well, actually I posted an article criticizing the passage you
quote. Specifically, Godel certainly did not prove that "no formal
system of logic can be both consistent and complete" (but did prove
the completeness of first order logic). Whether "mathematics in and of
itself" can be consistent and complete obviously depends on what the
term "mathematics" is taken to refer to.

  A note: different sense of "complete" are involved in Godel's
incompleteness theorem and Godel's completeness theorem (for first order
logic).

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(8)
Organization: SCTC
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:11:44 GMT

sbs9276@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:

>      Me too-- I don't disagree that Ayn Rand was not a good role
>model in her life. In fact she was quite an evil b;)ch. HOWEVER,
>you are right in saying that her personal life has NOTHING to do
>with her philosophy. 

Rand is a special case. She insisted on that herself.

Rand was explicit in tying her own behavior to her philosophy. In
particular, she claimed to apply the same premises and logical methods
to justify her personal behavior that she used to establish the truth
of her philosophical assertions. Given that the results were less than
perfect as exhibited in her personal life, doesn't this cast _some_
doubt on her philosophical conclusions?

It seems unrealistic to believe that the only errors in her logical
arguments occured when she reasoned about her personal behavior.
Furthermore, there are now several books by varions 'renegade'
objectivists that identify specific shortcomings in Rand's arguments
and recommend variants to some of her statements.

> Mozart was a womanizer. Does that negate his
>musical genius?

Mozart never asserted that womanizing was detrimental to the
composition of music.  Rand asserted that she could apply the logical
methods and standards of value she used to develop her philosophy to
the process of justifying her personal actions. The results as seen in
her personal life might not refute Objectivism overall, but they cast
doubt on Rand's skills at reasoning and logic. Rand remains
convincing, but that's not the same as being correct.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mleipe@bnr.ca (Mike Leipe)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand on Charity
Reply-To: mleipe@bnr.ca (Mike Leipe)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:41:28 GMT

In article <gmR0wB3w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Betsy Speicher) writes:
|> In her "Playboy" interview Rand stated --
|>  
|> >There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are
|> >worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.  I regard charity
|> >as a marginal issue.  What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a
|> >moral duty and a primary virtue.
|>  
|>                                  Betsy Speicher
|>  
|> Betsy_Speicher@mcimail.com

In one of her books (I *think* - I've been out of touch with this stuff for
a LONG time), Rand quotes Barbara Branden who, in response to the question
"What will happen to the poor in an objectivist society?" answered "If you
want to help them, you will not be stopped."

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.

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mike Leipe             | "This world is a comedy to those that think, a     |
| S/W Designer           |  tragedy to those that feel."                      |
| Bell-Northern Research |                              - Horace Walpole      |
| Ottawa, Canada         | ---------------------------------------------------
| (613) 765-3206         |             My opinions, not BNR's                 |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:16:56 GMT


   I think the only worthwhile point made in this discussion was that
we shouldn't confuse the Truth with the behaviour of those claiming to
possess it. Knowledge ot the Truth (or anything else) doesn't
guarantee anything. We can know the Truth and completely ignore it;
its power is directly proportional to our willingness to let it
affect our behaviour.

   To attack Ms. Rand for her inability live up to her ideals is a
variation of the argumentum ad hominum, a favorite tactic of those who
have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Yet it's also interesting that
the behaviour of Christians is used to condmen the doctrine of
Christianity. Here we have a problem.

   If we admit that Ms. Rand cannot be attacked for failing to
practice what she preached (to the extent that logic is important),
then we have to allow that same consideration to everyone else. The ad
hominum fallicy will be hard to give up, let's see who's really
interested in truth and fairness ...

Bill


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:04:08 GMT

In article <106616@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:

>Of course, let's bear in mind that what the "objectivist" considers
>slavery might not accord with the normal usage of the word. As I
>recall from my last night's viewing of the movie "The Fountainhead",
>slavery includes any instance of work without pay, including work
>done for charitable causes. Presumably, this would include such
>degrading spectacles as people rushing in to earthquake-striken
>areas to help their fellow humans.

Slavery includes any instance of work you are *forced* to do without
pay, including work done for "charitable" causes.  This would include
people being whipped or shot because they stayed home to care for
their children instead of flying to earthquake-striken areas.  This
would also include people being thrown in jail because they refused to
pay that part of their taxes that supported welfare.  Of course, if
*forced* to choose, most people would *prefer* the latter situation to
the former.

-- 
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: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:05:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.191700.5233@shearson.com> jredford@shearson.com (John Redford) writes:
>In article <jclarke.725767675@teal> jclarke@teal.csn.org (J Christopher Clarke) writes:
>   >I think that another thing that would happen in a free market is that
>   >there'd more more research into making medical care cheaper--my impression
>   >is that the incentives for doing so aren't that strong now. (I mean
>   >making care cheaper while maintaining quality.)
>
>Gee. More research! That'd be wonderful. That'd solve everything.
>Spend money on research. Spend Spend Spend. That'll make it cheap.

I hope you're not being sarcastic.  Isn't it obvious from the history
of the computer industry that research can find ways of producing
innovative, high-quality products more cheaply.  Yes, research requires
money, but a company takes a risk in assuming that the new products
will yield enough profit to more than cover the research expenses.

>In case you didnt know, all fair profits are based on exploiting
>ignorance. One person values a thing more accurately than another and
>can buy/sell at a profitable price.

Yes, profits can easily be made on ignorant people, AKA sheep.  Not
all profits are made that way.  The value to the producer is based on
the cost of researching, producing, and delivering the product.  The
value to the consumer is also based on other subjective factors,
including utility of the product, and emotional appeal.  Thus, the
buyer can know the cost accurately, and still purchase the product.
No exploitation of ignorance here.

--
-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism