HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:10:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department

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.

The difference between charity and slavery is quite simple: the former is
voluntary, the latter is coerced.  Choosing to help earthquake victims is
an act of charity -- and there is nothing incompatible between charity
and objectivism.  Slavery is doing things for others, not because you
want to, but because you have to (are being forced to) -- and this is
what objectivists so despise.

One of my least favorite things about much of Rand's writing is that she
is so angry with the effects of altruism that the casual reader might get
the impression that anything done for other people is necessarily bad. 
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
From: siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 04:17:47 EST
Reply-To: siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz)
Organization: Modem Madness BBS    1+516-295-9435

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

> 
> #In article <lewchuk.726183011@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewch
> 
>  
>  >merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>   
>  &In article <C0CB8s.8Jz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) 
> 
>     &  I believe from "Atlas Shrugged" that the fundamental axiom of
>     &  Objectivism is Aristotle's statement, "Existence exists."  In other
>     &  words, there is an objective reality independent of human perceptions
>     &  of it.
> 
>    >By this do you mean that what the human mind precieves as red is only
>    >an approximation of the `true' redness in Plato's world of forms?
>    >And do such absolutes exist? So that even abstarct ideas and concepts
>    >can be ultimatly `true' (although not provable within an axiomatic
>    >system of logic)?
>    >-sjm >--
> 
> #   I would think there would be several fundamental axioms.  I'd say these o
> #   are required.  Does anyone have the full list of fundamental axioms?
> 
> Yes, someone please post them.
> What is this list then?
> 
> #   1.  An objective reality exists.
> 
> This is a big leap of faith. I am willing to say it does exist, but
> the ability of humans to fully know this objective reality I strongly
> doubt. You are doomed to a subjective view of `truth', although
> it is noble and correct(IMHO) to strive to know objective reality
> more closely(as close as humanly possible).
> 
> 
> 

     To say that it is a leap of faith to accept that objective reality
exists is to commit a logical fallacy. This, of course, should not
bother anyone who is in doubt about whether existence exists, however.
If we are going to bother writing to each other, we should at least
accept that rational discourse is possible. If you do not at least
agree to this, stay true to your beliefs and keep silent.

     The term 'faith' is a concept that only has meaning in a specific
context. That context is epistemology, the study of what is knowledge
and how it is obtained. 'Faith' refers to a specific epistemological
method, namely acceptance without proof, reason, or even suggestion
from reality. If there were no reality, there would be no faith.

     This same fallacy is at the root of most of the objections to
Objectivism's premises. It is pathological to require proof of that
which one knows.

     Faith only has meaning in contradistinction to reason. One can
no more have faith in the power of reason than one can have reason to
use faith. They are alternate epistemological methods.

SJK

------------------------------------------------------------------
Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US
Stimpson J. Katz

     Subscribe to the Introduction to Objectivism Mailing List.
Send mail to "Server@Momad.LI.NY.US" containing the phrase
"Subscribe AYN-RAND" in the body of the message.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Where's the Beef?
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:49:06 GMT

In article <106289@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>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.

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

Sans Peur
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: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:00:17 GMT

In article 12379@fcom.cc.utah.edu, leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
> 
> |> "A is A" is not provable or disprovable.
> |>  
> 
> This is true.  Reality is not a theory, nor even an axiom.  It is a fact.
> Facts are neither proven or disproven, they simply are.  "I think, therefore
> I am" is a foolish statement.  And furthermore, existence exists independent
> of human perception which means that existence objective, not subjective.


Bravo!  Actually, I was looking at the dictionary definition of "axiom", and
it says "A self-evident or universally recognized truth, A self-evident or
accepted principle."

The "accepted" part of it sounds more like faith to me, but the "self-evident"
part seems to be what you are saying.

--Rob

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 21:10:56 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


|> I would agree that it is silly for people, including Ayn Rand, to
|> assume that Rand's thinking is, by definition, correct and
|> unassailable.  Perhaps I have not met enough Objectivists, but I would
|> disagree that it is characteristic of them, and that they
|> characteristically denounce as evil renegades people who don't hold
|> this assumption.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
|> Operating Systems Engineer		|
|> Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply


Rand coined the term Objectivism to refer to the exact sum total of her ideas
and that of her intellectual heirs (Dr. Peikoff). She did not tolerate any 
deviations from this sum total. Correctness of this stance of hers depends on
correctness of her ideas which are perhaps debatable. Her right to set this
terms can not be questioned IMO, however, regardless of what copyright & patent
law says. I believe she was afraid of someone basically using her ideas
to sell himslef or ideas that were not her own which according to her was an
evil practice.

I have never understood why people don't voluntarily give up their claim of 
being Objectivists when they wish to deviate from that philosopy which is by 
definition exclusive. Just call it something else and say it has nothing to do
with Objectivism and don't invoke the name Ayn Rand except in the acknowledgement
section somewhere if you feel like (it would not have been appreciated anyway).

The other day on TV, I saw a Muslim woman that was raped by a Serbian militant
and who gave birth to a daughter who she did not even want to see. Even the
nurses all hate this child which will probably die in such situation. I felt
really sorry for the child. I want to reconcile this feeling with rest of my
rational thought in which Objectivistic ideas figure prominently. If I am not
able to do this and thus have to include something else to my set of starting
axioms, I have two choices. Try to convince Dr. Peikoff to include the new 
reasoning in Objectivism or abandon claiming to be an Objectivist. (Actually
I don't make such claim; but this should illustrate the point.) I don't think
I would have a problem with either choice. It is my opinion that Miss Rand 
would not have any problem with this position though she would probably attack
my philosophy just like any other.
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:03:35 GMT
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5100742@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan5183723@lludd.sics.se>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5132621@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan5195646@bast.sics.se>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: torkel@sics.se's message of 5 Jan 93 18:56:46 GMT

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?

More to the point is "A is A" provable? If you believe that
you can prove it in any formalism do so.

So, now you accept that Godel's Theorem has applicability
with regards to Objectivism?

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.


-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: jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:58:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.181820.7736@fcom.cc.utah.edu> leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
>If something is right, it's right.  If you agree with Rand's arguments, then
>that is all you should need.  [...]  If you consider the actions of
>Objectivists when judging the validity of the philosophy, then I'd presume you
>are a pragmatisist.  You might as well come right out and say, "Well, it looks
>good on paper, but it just doesn't work in reality."  Nothing makes me more
>disgusted.

Is the Scientific Method considered to be a pragmatic philosophy in
objectivist terminology or not?
From: rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:57:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department

Michael Lewchuk writes:
> "Live would not be worth living without her" is a highly emotional statement,
> and I don't think every marriage is like this.  Personally I can accept the
> "loss" of a person and go on with my life.  Does this mean under Objectivism
> I should not be willing to risk my life simply because I can always get
> another wife because I have no apparent tendency to commit suicide if my
> wife dies?  Would the objective (unemotional and logical) knowledge that I
> can always remarry make this a "sacrifice" rather than "in my best interest"?

No, you're missing the point.  You're apparently looking for Objectivism to tell
you "save your wife" or "don't save your wife."  The basis of Objectivism is
individuality.  Each invidual person would have to assess the situation (weigh
the risk versus gain) and then chose whether to rescue the wife or not. 
Choosing your own actions based on your own interests is exactly what
Objectivism is all about.

(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?)


> "Coerced" is also a matter of opinion.

I find this a strange statement.  I, for one, certainly know when I'm choosing
to do something versus when I'm being forced to do it.  I thought this was true
for everyone.  Are there some folks who really don't know the difference?


> "In one's best interest" and "voluntary" are not the same.  I would try to
> save someone else (at least I hope I would) at the risk of my life.  This
> would be voluntary and not necessarily in my best interest.

You're right: in this world "voluntary" and "in one's best interest" are not the
same.  People often chose to do things (i.e. "volunteer") not because it's in
their interest, but because of whim, or a feeling of duty, etc.  One way of
looking at Objectivism is that, as a philosophy, it says that these two concepts
should be the same:  the actions you choose to make should be those which are in
your best interest.


Rob DeLine
Computer Science, University of Virginia
deline@Virginia.EDU
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:00:54 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan12.161855.27680@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>Mark never intended it to be the real Howard Roark.
>he is talking about his specific straw man.
>and despite his smart-ass remarks about "violating sacredness" in using
>Roark's name, your confusion of his straw man with Rand's Roark is the
>real reason why using Roark's name in his example is annoying -- it
>is needlessly confusing because it implies the conclusion you made above:
>that is he is talking about the "real" Roark.

"Who is Howard Roark?"

May I remind you that Howard Roark is a fictional character?

Rand made him up to illustrate and mouth certain positions of hers.
I use him in my example to do the same. He is no more made of
straw in my scenario than countless Randian villains are made of
straw in her fiction. To argue whether or not the "real" Roark
would have done this or that is a little silly, now, isn't it?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.93Jan8115503@bugs.sics.se> <C0Jr2E.4Dt@SSD.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:23:18 GMT

In article <C0Jr2E.4Dt@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
 writes:

   >Perhaps my "Randian" logic is woefully inadequate, but is there
   >something incoherent about accepting or not accepting that the
   >identity relation exists?

  No, the statement "the identity relation exists" is not incoherent. You
said that "A is A" denotes Identity - do you now wish to say rather that "the
identity relation exists" is yet another possible reading of "A is A"?

   >Sigh.  This doesn't answer my question.  If you are going to berate
   >me, please speak my language or teach me yours.  I am willing to learn
   >it, as (surprise surprise) I don't consider Rand (or myself or you) to
   >be the chief authority on logic.

  In that case I can only suggest that you study a good introduction to
logic.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:06:44 GMT


   Is an Objectivist one who objects to something or one who is the object of
something, perhaps ridcule? I sometimes marvel that seemingly
intelligent people trade what little discernment they may have for the
comfort of someone elses certainties. This seems especially morbid
when the person to whom they seek to emulate is dead. Why this
fascination with the wit and wisdom of dead people? The dead cannot
(or will not) react to reason, neither can they contradict or clarify.
They had their chance, they're gone, and now it's time for the living
to think for themselves. Pretty objective huh,

Bill


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: warn@newton.uvm.edu (Patrick D Warn)
Subject: What is Justice?
Summary: What is justice?
Keywords: justice, objectivism, 
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: default
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:20:07 GMT

I was asked what justice was tonight and came up short. Does anyone have
a good Objectivist concept of justice to share with me? I did not find a
reasonable definition in the dictionary or in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.
--
                     Wondering what it all means,
                                 Pat

******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: A=A
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:37:44 GMT

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

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

  No they wouldn't. But we people in alt.philosophy.objectivism are
most eager to learn about it.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 4 Jan 93 09:14:33 GMT
	<1993Jan03.014433.15175@news.mentorg.com>
	<1993Jan4.015823.5252@tcsi.com> <lewchuk.726123446@therien>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <lewchuk.726123446@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA 
(Michael Lewchuk) writes:

   >It does not deal with philosophies or reality structures per se except
   >to imply that you can't be omniscient without holding at least one set of
   >contradictory statements at the same time.

  Godel's theorem has no such implication. Generally speaking, there is
no particular reason why Rand aficionados should concern themselves
with Godel's theorem.
Xref: sparky alt.security:5289 comp.security.misc:2476 news.answers:5045
From: darrell@cse.ucsc.edu (Darrell Long)
Newsgroups: alt.security.ripem
Subject: Another bug in RIPEM?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 00:44:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.ucsc.edu

If I set the RIPEM_KEY_TO_PRIVATE_KEY environment variable, I can encrypt but
not decrypt.  For example,

sequoia [1]% printenv
HOME=/home/darrell
LOGNAME=darrell
USER=darrell
...
RIPEM_PUBLIC_KEY_FILE=/home/darrell/lib/keys/public
RIPEM_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE=/home/darrell/lib/keys/private
RIPEM_KEY_TO_PRIVATE_KEY=XYZZY
sequoia [2]% ripem -e -m encrypted -r darrell@sequoia | ripem -d
Hello world!
Private key could not be decrypted with this password.

But if I don't set it, and type the password each time, everything works fine:

sequoia [1]% ripem -e -m encrypted -r darrell@sequoia | ripem -d
Hello world!
Enter password to private key: 
Enter password to private key: 
Hello world!

Newsgroups: alt.security.ripem,sci.crypt
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: RSAREF and RIPEM now available via anonymous FTP
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:20:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.015245.3200@netcom.com>, kudzu@netcom (Michael Sierchio) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.224021.986@nntp.hut.fi> 
>	jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>Could someone please post the copyright notices of the RIPEM and
>>RSAREF packages (or possibly just the code) here?
>
>How about the RSAREF README file, with all the restrictions, notices, 
>license agreement, etc. (see below)

It doesn't mention much about the copyright status and distribution
terms of RSAREF, just claims that "RSA" owns "the Program" and the
copyrights thereof.  The license agreement does seem to have some
language that if you sign it you contract to not distribute RSAREF and
a dozen of other things, but I'm talking about a situation with no
such contract made.

>Is it true that there's no Suomi word for toilet paper?

vessapaperi (or WC-paperi in "book language")

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.security.ripem,sci.crypt
From: hamrick@convex.com (Ed Hamrick)
Subject: Re: RSAREF and RIPEM now available via anonymous FTP
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 22:45:26 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan7.123421.50@cobra.dra.com> sean@cobra.dra.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan07.075317.15435@convex.com>, hamrick@convex.com (Ed Hamrick) writes:
>> I've always been a little bit curious about the silliness of restricting
>> the "export" of information that's publicly available.  If our government
>> actually believed that there existed public information that wasn't
>> exportable/exported, I'd be quite surprised.
>
>It is much like the difference between exporting a journal that explains
>how to make gunpowder*, and exporting gunpowder.   The government isn't
>blocking the "knowledge" of how to make gunpowder from being exported,
>only its implmentation.

In this case the software is more like the journal, the computer running
the program is more like the raw materials needed to make the gunpowder.
The government does a great deal to limit the export of high-performance
computing required to do encryption of large amounts of data.

The government does it's best to prevent encryption information from
becoming public knowledge, but after the knowledge becomes public,
the government concentrates it's efforts on preventing high-performance
(bulk) encryption hardware implementations from being exported.


>Gunpowder wasn't invented in the U.S., and lots of people outside the U.S.
>are quite good at making it.  Some would say even better than those in
>the U.S.  [Continue to the point of absurdity.]

The best DES routines come from Finland, anyway.  I suspect the Russians
have excellent cryptographic technology, but inadequate computer power to
allow it's widespread use.  Obviously the Russians, along with every other
country that isn't allowed to import cryptographic equipment, have fully
functional DES and RSA source code.  The whole idea of preventing the export
of such widely available source code is just plain silly.

>*Gunpowder is just an example, replace it with any widely known thing on the
>munitions list.
>
>
>Software, and computers has made this distinction very fuzzy.  With computers
>the software is the implementation.  The computer is just a hunk of gold-plated
>junk without the software.  But then again, so is a chemical plant, until
>you type in the right formula.

Except that the export license clearly states that if source code is
publicly available, then then the object code is exportable.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick