HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Knowledge, Proof, and Beef
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:56:18 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz) types:
 
>     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.
 
One last time: the objection isn't to A=A and its friends, it's to the
allegation that they imply "objectivism". I don't think anyone here has
seriously questioned the axiom of identity. I certainly haven't.
 
It's worth noting that the tone of the above passage suggests that even
if you verbally dispute "objectivism", in your heart you "really know"
it's true. I'm more accustomed to hearing this line taken by theists in
debates over the existence of gods.
 
By the way, the claim that "it is pathological to require proof of that
which one knows" is quite revealing. In fact, seeking proof or
justification of what passes for common sense "knowledge" is one of the
primary functions of philosophy, isn't it?
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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 16:29:35 GMT

In article 93Jan12161724@bast.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <1993Jan12.140908.27210@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
> (Robert Baruch) writes:
> 
>    >(1) means, "if Santa Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists."
> 
>   You're still talking about the trivial argument that you read into the
> puzzle. Keith Ramsay was commenting on the non-trivial argument that
> you missed.
> 
>   If you want to talk about the trivial argument you should not use the
> statement (1), that is the sentence defined by
> 
>  (1)     If (1) is true, then Santa Claus exists
> 
> since this does not not mean "if Santa Claus exists then Santa Claus exists".


I have remained true to my original statement, that without using the law
of identity, you could not resolve the apparent paradox of the argument.  
Since I never saw an outright agreement to this statement, I continued to
argue the point.

Since I was reading all of the responses as responses to the "trivial" argument,
I am not aware of what the non-trivial argument is.  What is it that I missed?

--rob

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley)
Subject: Re: A=A: My Beef with the Bull
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:45:10 GMT

Of course one is not going to produce a complete logical derivation of all the 
consequences of Objectivism.  However, one has to show the sort of reasoning 
(NOT strict mathematical proof) that is done in the philosophy in order to 
evaluate it.  As the previous poster (sorry, I don't have the name; I'm still 
getting the Usenet thing down) said, one will always be introducing new 
concepts as premises... and one has to show the validity of the premises (in
objectivist terms, how the premises follow from reality).

However, to just bullshit around about what objectivism winds up saying, or 
discussing the claims it makes toward method, without actually applying them, 
is going to get nowhere, and defending objectivism is going to turn into a 
'tis/'tain't sort of debate.  Totally nonproductive.
-- 
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.
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:00:42 GMT
	<MERRITT.93Jan5132621@macro.bu.edu>
	<1993Jan5.215927.12379@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: leon@cs.weber.edu's message of 5 Jan 93 21:59:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.215927.12379@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.

How about this:

As a human you can never really `know' "A is A". You can come very
close to it, but your perecption of the fact that "A is A" is
imperfect by definition. As is your perception of `realtiy' in
sum total. In fact you(and I for that matter) as a human a can
never grasp the required amount of information to understand
the `true objective' reality.

Prove to me that this terminal I am using is itself. You cannot
unless you severly limit the time frame of the observation.
The approach in Special Relativity to say that "A is A" and
examine the consequences of the motion of `A' is to claim:

On a macroscopic level on object A is the sum of it's component
parts(down to atoms let's say), these occupy the "space of the
body of A". 

Most generally any "knowledge" of an object must be a function
of 4(at least) coordinates f[x123,t].

"The only justification for our concepts and system
of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex
of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy."

A. Einstein

You live in the real world and the laws of physics are influential
in your life on a daily basis. Any basis for knowledge (the
interpretation of your sensory input) must conform to the known
laws of physics. 

-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: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(3)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 19:28:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan3.011001.13209@netcom.com>, mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
|> Objectivism claims to be a rational approach to the world.  But the
|> world is a complex place, and human society is a complex system.  Like
|> all complex systems, societies evolve to reach a stable dynamic right
|> at the border between order and chaos.  Reason can somewhat handle the
|> orderly  part,  but fails when things slip over to the chaotic.  Even
|> in the orderly part, there are way too many variables to be rationally
|> handled.  While a free market is the best way we have yet found to
|> deal with the overwhelming complexity of an economy, experience has
|> taught us that some regulation is needed to keep that market from
|> plunging into chaos.  An ideology driven attempt to remove that
|> regulation could be disastrous.

	I disagree that "experience" has shown "us" that government abrogation of
the right to property is "necessary" to a working economy.  Certainly, in a
lassiez-faire economy, there will be ups and downs: these are unavoidable market
corrections.  But the Great Depression was not caused by the free market, but
rather by government intervention in that market.  Had the whole affair been left
to the free market, we would have had a much milder depression sooner, the
economy would have been corrected, and overall growth and prosperity would very
likely have continued.  This point has been fairly solidly proven in several
books; in particular, you might want to check out some of the works of Hazlitt.
	Second, while I agree that reason cannot solve ALL things, I don't think
that constitutes a reason for government to start injecting tons of UNreason into
economic matters.
	I am not for lassiez-faire primarily because it works (although it
does); I am for it because it is the only economic system that respects the right
to property, which, after all (at least in my opinion), is the foundation of all
rights.  Any economic system that does not respect the right to property
ultimately respects no human right at all.

Steve
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:42:33 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan10.215714.16390@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
>(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?)

Forget about "torts": would there be anything *wrong* with it, in
A Randian utopia of self-centered fountainheads?

Scenario: While contemplating his own glory aboard his private yacht,
Howard Roark sees someone drowning, going help-help-help and all that
(perhaps the drowner doesn't realize what kind of world he lives in).
All Roark has to do to save the person is walk across the deck, grab
a life preserver, and toss it in. But he doesn't bother - why should he?
He's too busy contemplating his own glory, and no-one else has a
claim on his actions. So the guy in the water drowns.

Has he behaved in a reprehensible way, Objectivists? As far as I can
gather, your answer must be "no".
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:29:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.211808.15982@news.nd.edu> fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
>Claiming that objectivism arrives at its conclusions by logic
>and reason leaves me wondering... what are the _premises_ from
>which the conclusions are logically derived?  Clearly, we ask
>more from a philosophy than that it be self-consistent.  We
>also require that its _axioms_, i.e. the statements which are
>accepted without proof are actually true.
>
>So let it be with objectivism.  What are its fundamental
>tenets of faith?  Furthermore, how might a skeptical, but
>intelligent and informed person be convinced that these
>tenets are correct?

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.

--
-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 02:58:27 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <1993Jan6.190000.23047@news2.cis.umn.edu>, rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes:
|> 
|> THe post I just read mentioned the Kantian mob.
|> 
|> I have heard Rand refer to Kant very negatively. I just
|> finished a philosophy course where he was briefly introduced.
|> 
|> We did not cover his work extensively, and I am
|> curious as to exactly where he contradicts
|> Objectivism.  I would also appreciate suggestions
|> on which specific works of his that I should
|> be familiar with.  He seems to be a favorite
|> of those who refute Objectivism.
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Robert C. Stephens		rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu		
|> 
|> Human Factors Research Lab
|> University of Minnesota
|> 

I believe it is because he is supposed to put consciousness before reality.
Ayn Rand believed those who do this do so in order to subject others to
their particular consciousness and thus classified them along with "witch
doctors". 

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.
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rand's Personality vs Objectivism
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:21:14 GMT
Organization: SCTC

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.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Just a few simple questions from a newcomer...
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:28:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <lewchuk.725917952@therien>, lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes...
>fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
>>What, exactly is the role of the "government" in an objectivist
>>system?  Does it extend beyond enforcing the law that one person
>>cannot infringe on another's rights?  That, it would seem, would
>>require the minimal assumptions, but some questions arise:
> 
>Government:
>1.  Provides military, police, and emergency services.  This includes
>    making laws or adjusting them as required, maintaining prisons, etc.

	Emergency services?  Why?  Shouldn't it be the responsibility
of citizens to plan for emergencies?  Would an Objectivist government
provide assistance to people who have been victimized by a hurricane?
How much in the way of taxes would such a government be entitled to
gather to prepare for such emergencies?


>2.  Provides basic education and standard of living to children.

	You're kidding, right?

	Did Ayn Rand come up with this, or is this a recent development?
I never suspected that Objectivists supported this.


>3.  Taxes people to provide for (1) and (2).

	I thought that Ayn Rand wanted 0% taxation.  How do Objectivists
currently justify taxation?

	How do O's reconcile taxation with the following statements.

>1.  You have the absolute right to your own property.  Your person is
>    considered your property.
>2.  Nobody has the right to interfere with your property unless you give
>    them permission to.
>3.  You have the right to act in any way which you deem reasonable when
>    not in violation of (1) and (2).

	You did say that tax evasion would be a crime...


	Objectivism really seems to have changed from what I have
read in Ayn Rand paperback philosophy books.  Did Ayn Rand evolve
these ideas herself over time, or did Peikoff change them, or are
these ideas supported by "heretic" Objectivists like David Kelley?

>					Michael Lewchuk
>					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA

Mark Sulkowski
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:18:57 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

I said:

>>Ah, the old "but the guy you help might be rich" maneuver. I'm familiar
>>with this kind of line often offered by "objectivists" to explain why
>>they generally act like decent human beings instead of the bastards
>>their theories would seem to make them.

To which cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) replies:

>now we're bastards again?

Try reading my last sentence again, slowly. Out loud, preferably.
You seem to be reacting to the word without its context.

I first observe that objectivists "generally act like decent
human beings", then contrast this with the observation that
"their theories would seem to make them" bastards. I would have
hoped that it would not become necessary to explain why this
does not constitute a charge that objectivists "are bastards". 

>he is within his rights to behave as evilly as he wants.
>as long as doing so violates no-one else's rights.

OK. So I take it you are saying there are no principled
objections to his non-action from an objectivist point of view.
That is what I have been trying to find out. Of course, there's
still that little problem of why his non-action is "evil".
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:29:46 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) submits:
 
>Given the value placed on individuals and minds capable of rationality, to
>save a drowning person would be an act of high virtue for an Objectivism
> provided
>it is an emrgency situation. If a person tries to blackmail another with a
>suicide threat and then jumps in water after the bluff is called, I do not thin
>would be worth saving at risk to one's life according to Objectivism.
 
I'm not sure why you feel it appropriate to mention this sort of
hypothetical situation, but it raises another question in my mind:
 
In my (painful!) reading of "Atlas Shrugged", I have learned that
Rand strongly disapproved of using force as a means by which
to control other people. But what about the withholding of
assistance in such emergencies? Is that acceptable as a means
by which to get what one wants? E.g. -
 
Drowning man:   Help, help! I am a drowning man!
                Please, throw me that life preserver!
 
Roark:          (hair blowing in the wind dramatically)
                Why should I? If I save you, will you
                build my buildings?
 
Drowning man:   Yes, yes, anything you say, just help me!
 
Roark:          Deal! Here you go...
                (tosses life preserver into water)
 
Comments, anyone?
 
>Personally, I would consider myself lucky if I was drowning and Mr. Roark was
>around rather than, say, a person who considers world as unreal.
 
Oh come *ON*, now... many non-"objectivists" do you really know who go
around claiming "the world is unreal?" Talk about straw men! A typical
"objectivist" false dichotomy.
 
Personally, I wouldn't care a helluva lot about their philosophical
convictions, as long as they threw me the life preserver.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Re: Unbreached Rationality
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:49:42 GMT

That would seem to be a desirable 'personality trait' for anyone, regardless
of what philosophy they subscribe to.   Anything else would seem to be self
destructive.  There should always be an answer to the question, "Why did
I do that?".   If not, our actions and reactions would have no central theme;
it would be like living life with emotions running amok.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden)
Subject: Re: Obj. Philosophy
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:01:39 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726031717@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.095453.28470@athena.mit.edu>, amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden) writes:
>>|> Powerful though this idea may be, I think some people in their zest
>>|> for idealism tend to carry it to extremes. ...What axioms does
>>|> Objectivism postulate as being proper? None! Axioms are axioms! Reason
>>|> is the logical interpretation of experience, but you can't take it any
>>|> deeper than experience.
>
>In my opinion, reason is logically correlating perceived facts with desired
>outcomes.  It requires an interpretation of reality, hence is flawed to the
>extent that reality cannot be truly perceived, if reality cannot be truly
>perceived.
>What do you mean by your statements after "None!"?

Hmm. I think I left a few sentences out in that paragraph. These
axioms are the most fundamental expressions of our values, and the way
we derive them is by experiencing existence. There is no reason before
experience, only as a result of it; therefore, we cannot base our
fundamentals upon reason, but must instead intuit them from what we
'know.'  Otherwise we are fooling ourselves.

We are very good at fooling ourselves, though, and a large part of
logical analysis (for me) is comparing supposed axioms for
inconsistencies and attempting to discard the ones I reject.

But as for the question of whether reality can truly be perceived... I
think that this is a matter for cognitive philosophers (I mean
philosophers of cognition, not philosophers who think :) like Daniel
Dennett or his ilk. (Have you read Consciousness Explained?
Interesting stuff.)

>>I am curious to know what method you used as a medium to conduct a debate.
>>The last time I tried such conversation, there was a deadlock when the
>>yoga guy insisted we can not be always logical.
>
>Uh, we can't.  Humanity is not a rational species.  If we were:
>a) we wouldn't have soap operas or the national enquirer
>b) we wouldn't need vacations
>c) we'd either be copies of Star Trek's Vulcans or androids.
>Humanity bases its action on logic and intuition, that is non-logical
>conclusions based on emotions and probabilities and past experience.
>Debating is an intellectual activity which usually involves either a lot
>of logic or a lot of flaming.

Well, yes, I agree to a certain extent. It would be difficult to live
your life entirely on the strength of reason, and I didn't approach
the discussion from that viewpoint.

On the other hand, I don't think it's a hopeless endeavor to have your
non-intellectual behavior reflect your rational conclusions; it's just
a matter of training.

-Bret Aarden.


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: dege@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:28:57 GMT

In <1993Jan04.230113.8022@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:

>In article dege@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) writes:
>|    By no right.  Like I said, the rights of the needy have nothing to do
>| with it.  The obligation is assumed because of the values of the giver
>| of aid.  It is, of course, possible that your wife's value system is such
>| that she doesn't recognize any such obligation.  But I know of no moral
>| or ethical system that teaches such.  

>The problem is the word obligation.  Basically, you are taking the
>position that they have no obligation (an enforceable requirement)
>but that *nice* people would feel a self imposed duty to help.

>Most people are relatively generous, at least to the 'deserving'
>needy.  That includes most objectivists.  But use the word 'obligation'
>and they will a) get very nasty and b) close their wallets.

>There is ethical system that teaches no such obligation: Objectivism.

    The obligation I speak of is imposed on each individual by that individual.
And I'm not really talking about altruism.  Most folks I know will help those
in need because of the damage to their own self-image if they don't.

    IMHO, rights can and should be enforced by compulsary government action.
I have grave problems with the idea of enforcing the obligation to help those
in need through government action, or through any non-governmental coercive
act.  But I have no problem with the idea of using non-coercive means to
enforce these obligations.  If members of society feel that an individual
is not fulfilling these social obligations, they have every right to
ostracize that individual until he changes his ways.

===========================
 

    
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism