From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Logic
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:47:23 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec14175418@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.055039.1798@hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk> chiwingkwok@cuhk.hk (Kwok Chi Wing) writes:

>Getting back to Ayn Rand, she feels it is rational to be concerned with
>ones own welfare/happiness. Agreed. However it is also rational(I believe)
>to be concerned with the welfare of others. 

So did Ayn Rand.  She just insisted that this concern has to be judged
according to whether the concern ultimately results in a benefit for yourself.
One example she uses is that is your neighbor through no fault of his own
has his house burned down, it might make sense for you (if you can afford it)
to lend of give him some money to rebuild.  On the other hand, if he burned 
it down himself, you would be a fool to help him.  He would probably just
burn it down again...or burn yours down too.  SOME others deserve your help.
Others do not.  The way to tell is to evaluate whether you IN THIS CASE
are going to benefit in the widest possible context.

>I do not wish to be
>compelled or coerced into being altruistic but I find it rational
>to feel altruistic. 

I think you need to understand what altruistic morality means.  If you think
that helping someone or being nice to them is ultimately good for you, then
you are acting egoistically.  If you think that your actions are on balance
HARMFUL to yourself, then to do so would be altruistic.  The two are
opposites, but only if you realize that altruism is not identical to "being
nice to people".  Another of Rand's examples is that helping to feed your
neighbor's starving child is not alrtuism.  Starving your own child to death
in order to do so is.  See the difference?

>Ayn Rand accepts the self interest part and then resorts
>to logic to reach conclusions based on this. This is a correct use
>of logic.

>Logic provides algorithims to reach a conclusion only after you have
>framed the problem and established the axioms. Goedel tells us
>we can never prove the axioms but rather we must accept them and
>continue from there. 

Have you read what Rand had to say about this?  Her axioms are not arbitrary.
They are self-evident from the fact you are considering them in the first place.
Godel merely proved that mathematical systems are not self-justifying.  That
is certainly true, but not all systems are mathematical.  We have ways
of connecting our ideas to reality (senses for one).

Actually, now that I think of it....Rand's method applies to Godel too.
What do you think about the premise that "Mathematical symbols exist."?
That is a self-evident premise of considering any mathematical system.
Have you ever read what Aristotle had to say about "Reaffirmation through
Denial"?

>Ayn Rand frames the problem incorrectly I
>feel by rejecting the value of altruism.(if I am altruistic
>and others are likewise this does benefit me.)

I think you should read what Rand actually wrote on this subject.  If it 
benefits you in the long run, then it isn't altruism.  Try reading 
"The Virtue of Selfishness".  She makes this quite clear.

--Brian

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy