HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A=A
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:44:38 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan04.231731.12783@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
>"A=A" should be read as "contradictions
>do not exist". Are you saying that it is false ? If so how do you propose to
>show that it is false without using it ? Or are you saying that it is
>too obviously true ? 

Yes and no.

What I'm saying is please, don't purport to be able to derive
social theories from the principle of self-identity.

By they way, "contradictions do not exist" is perhaps not the best
way of interpreting the logical axiom "A=A". A better way would be,
"for any object A, A is identical with A". Less sexy, I know,
but much less likely to invite argument or misuse.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorem ....(Re: Where's
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:35:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.232815.14733@athena.mit.edu> tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:

   >If GT is a conclusion based on a formal system, then can we apply GT on the
   >"formal system GT is based on." That is to say, if we consider GT's "proof"
   >and "premises"  - can these be subject to GT. 

  Godel's theorem is an ordinary theorem of mathematics (mathematical logic).
It's formalizable in standard formal systems, which are subject to Godel's
theorem.
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:53:51 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes...

>>The first problem anarchism always runs into is that of social
>>stability, especially when dealing with large enough systems
>>that iterated prisoner's dilemmas become inapplicable.  When
>>combined with an ethical system based on selfishness, it becomes
>>incumbent to show why many people in the society wouldn't turn
>>to use of force; there would be no external constraints, and
>>few internal ones (you can't guarantee everyone would want to
>>have the same non-coercive goals as yourself).

>>I haven't seen this done, though that doesn't mean it can't be.

>Perhaps it's in your best interest to leave other people alone.
>This way, they won't band together to resist you (and then tear you
>apart limb by limb...or maybe just lock you up).

Or perhaps it's in my best interest to get a sharp knife and
hang out in dark alleys, waiting to pounce.  This has been known
to happen, both in places with strong governments and places
without them.

>>Sanitary regulations were introduced for a reason...

>True enough.  If there were no govt, you'd be a fool to shop at a
>messy, smelly store that didn't have an "A" from the whatever
>private organization(s) that monitor the stores for a fee (and profit).
>Any store that chooses to save money by opting out of inspections
>will lose money to a lack of customers.

Ah, this explains why there were no problems with sanitation
way back when, and why even with regulations there are salmonella
scares.  The problem is that enough people are willing to save
money by buying cheaper, that the private organization monitoring
things would be catering to a luxury niche market.  At least,
this is what happened in the past (where dealing with "reputable"
dealers was the equivalent).  But cholera epidemics don't respect
the boundaries of the rich.

>A good example of this is Underwriters Laboratories (UL).  They are a private
>company that certifies electrical equipment.  I don't think you can buy
>anything that isn't UL listed (if you can, don't...unless you need to save
>money so badly as to risk electric shock/death).

>This analogy can be applied to everything (in the marketplace).

Only if you think everything found in the marketplace has the
properties of electrical appliances, in terms of determining
quality.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:07:29 GMT
	<MERRITT.93Jan7100008@macro.bu.edu>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <MERRITT.93Jan7100008@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu 
(Sean Merritt) writes:

   >Agreed, so what?

   You seem to have forgotten the context of this exchange. I said that
"logic", "axiom", "theorem" have a different meaning in Objectivism than
they do in (the subject of) logic. The "so what" in this case is the
following: so Rand's pronouncement that "logic has a single law, the Law
of Identity, and its various corollaries" does not refer to logic as the
subject is understood in logic, mathematics, or philosophy, or tell us
anything about that subject.

   >Do you deny the "a priori" nature of axioms as they are used in
   >Objectivism? 

  The so-called "axioms" of Objectivism are no more than slogans. In
particular, they are not axioms in the sense in which that term is used
in logic.

   >You seem to be trying to prove that since axioms and theorems have
   >no real meaning to Randians, that the foundations of Objectivism
   >have crumbled away.

  Surely your attention span is not really this short? I am making the
observation that "logic", "axiom", "theorem" as these terms are used
in Objectivism do not have the sense that they have in logic. Again,
in the case of theorems, since no Objectivist language, axioms, or rules
of inference have been defined.
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Anarcho-objectivism (was Re: Thoughts on the group)
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:31:50 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>
>>[anarchism vis a vis objectivism]
>>The first problem anarchism always runs into is that of social
>>stability, especially when dealing with large enough systems
>>that iterated prisoner's dilemmas become inapplicable.  When
>>combined with an ethical system based on selfishness, it becomes
>>incumbent to show why many people in the society wouldn't turn
>>to use of force; there would be no external constraints, and
>>few internal ones (you can't guarantee everyone would want to
>>have the same non-coercive goals as yourself).
>>
>>I haven't seen this done, though that doesn't mean it can't be.

>Iceland, 900AD to 1252AD. Three hundred fifty two years seems stable
>enough for me.

I don't think it satisfies the size constraint.  A seller of
snake oil in one part of the island couldn't make a profitable
living moving from one village to another for very long, I would
think (what was the population of Iceland then, anyway?).

>Now, here we have a really interesting question. For some reason, Mr.
>Holt believes that although a free market vendor of protection
>services would have "no external constraints", a government purveyor
>of those services would.

Do you really think that a protection agency is subject to the
same kinds of constraints and accountability as a government?
To be sure, there are mafia-style governments, but they don't
seem to work very well in industrialized nations.  Who would
a mafia-style protection agency be accountable to?  I assume
the shareholders (not the customers); so what motive would it
have to "release" customers to go to another company?
Actually, what I meant w.r.t. internal and external
constraints was for individuals; you have to assume a similar
propensity for violence as we have today, and I was wondering
if assuming non-coercion was not rather optimistic.  But never mind.

>If a government starts turning on its people, those people have
>virtually no where to turn without overthrowing the system through
>violent revolution.

You mean you can't vote them out?  Okay, so you're talking about
a coup...

>If, on the other hand, your security company
>starts trying to shake you down, you can go to a competitor down the
>street, who will then protect you from your original company.

A lot of people got killed in gang wars, especially people who
tried to switch from one "security company" to another.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
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 04:42:26 GMT

   Is altruism the act or the motive behind the act? Can you condemn
it or those who believe they practice it without knowing the soul of
the Altruist? Maybe this is something to accpet at face value ...


Bill
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Date: 7 Jan 1993 06:50:53 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: gauss.math.ubc.ca

In article <1993Jan6.172400.1060@shearson.com> 
pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

|Objectivism is NOT a formal system like mathematics -- you can't just
|apply typographical transformations in order to do your logic.

As an aside, mathematics is not a formal system either, although in
some loose sense it is much closer to being so than almost any other
subject.

Keith Ramsay            "Being a computer means not having 
ramsay@math.ubc.ca       to say you're sorry."
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Unbreached Rationality
Organization: SCTC
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:59:23 GMT

In Rand's writings, both fiction and nonfiction, she said that one's
every act should be consistent with their philosophy. If one claims to
be a rational person, then their every act should be justifiable
through an appropriate process of reason following from their personal
premises.  She claimed that no excuses should be made for "human
weakness" or weariness or anything else. This style of "unbreached
rationality" was the ideal to which all rational people should aspire.
Anything less was a moral lapse.

Is there a consensus on whether this is a key part of objectivism, or
simply a peculiarity of Rand's personality?
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
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com>
	<TORKEL.93Jan6002412@bast.sics.se> <MERRITT.93Jan6131932@macro.bu.edu>
	<TORKEL.93Jan6213150@bugs.sics.se> <MERRITT.93Jan6162020@macro.bu.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:18:09 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan6162020@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu 
(Sean Merritt) writes:

   >You say that there is no mathematical consequences of
   >applying Objectivism, but this patently false.

  I haven't said this, and in fact I can't even make any obvious sense of
it. What I have said is that "Objectivism" is not a formal system, that
there is no formally definable set of consequences or theorems of
"Objectivism".
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:52:26 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <11498@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>Unfortunately, people today have forgotten what the real (dictionary) 
>meaning of the word "selfish" is.

There is no such thing as "the real dictionary meaning" of "selfish".
My American Heritage defines it as, "concerned chiefly or only with
oneself without regard for the well-being of others". I'm sure
objectivists have their own favorite dictionary which defines
the word differently. Appeal to dictionaries is generally not
a good way of settling philosophical disputes.

>It is only when my selfishness causes
>deliberate harm to others that it becomes evil.

I don't see why the harm has to be deliberate.

>If he did in fact let the man drown, that would be reprehensible.
>But not because the man drowned, because based on what we know of Roark
>he would have betrayed his own way of life.  And that is reprehensible.

This I don't follow. What if his own "way of life" entailed such
(non-) action? Consistency by itself is hardly a virtue.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorm ....(Re: Where's
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:38:02 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <lewchuk.726691282@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA 
(Michael Lewchuk) writes:

   >Goedel's theorem implies that the incompleteness theorem is a provable
   >theorem of predicate logic, by our definition of predicate logic.

  What do you mean by this?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:55:42 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>Well, I'd say first and foremost, Kant refutes the idea of objective reality.
>
>I don't think this is strictly true.  He does say that we can have
>no direct perception of such a reality if it exists, since all
>perception is moderated by our senses.  Actually, I'm surprised that
>this annoys objectivists, since they are perfectly happy with
>perceptual errors (optical illusions, hallucinations).  If you
>can't get a direct handle on reality, and you know you can't, why
>bother insisting that it must exist?  It smacks of multiplying
>objects unnecessarily.

Lets just say that regardless of whether an objective reality exists,
assuming the existance of such a reality in one's cognitive model of
the world seems necessary in order to survive. Assuming that one aims
at self preservation, once one has denied the existance of reality,
the need to take any action to further that preservation becomes
questionable. Failing to multiply objects unnecessarily, that is,
following Occam's Razor, one is happiest ASSUMING the existance of
reality, rather than dealing with the consequence of cluttering up
one's model with possible explanations for one's sensory inputs that
both don't assume the reality of the world and that permit survival.


--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden)
Subject: Re: Obj. Economics
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:30:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.190146.797@athena.mit.edu> tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:
> Which naturally brings us to compare historical performance of socialist and
> free market economies (political systems).
>
> What we need to study, to answer your question, is the
> environmental/health/etc. record of the "former east bloc (Romania et al.)" 
> and the free market economies. Study of China/India/Brazil/etc. 
> (communism/socialism) with free economies would be of interest too.
>
> Another way to proceed would be to study particular industries - those that
> govt interferes with and those that are somewhat free market. For example,
> education/health industry vs. telecommunications industry.
> 
> What do you think?

Well, what is a 'free market'? I don't think there is a major one in
existence today (in a pure sense), and America certainly isn't one. But
according to my limited understanding, at one point the U.S. was
pretty close to laissez-faire capitalism. Would that be a good place
to start?

And how much regulation does it take before an industry is no longer
'free'? It seems that every regulation has its antonymic twin to keep
it in 'balance'; would a single regulation wreak havoc, and does that
mean the addition of a second regulation which irons out the
difficulties with the first mask the fact that the first has already
destroyed the natural functioning of the system? Or does the balancing
pair of rules indeed merely tweak the system in the direction it was
intended?

No American industry exists independent of blanket regulations
such as the Sherman Antitrust Laws, so I doubt any present-day
domestic markets would be suitable for such a study (unless we were to
use to it as the socialist example... ;) ...no, no, please, no
flames).

But here's a question tangential to my original one: have there been
any studies of the use of chaos theory in economics, and more
precisely, the effects of perturbances such as regulations on chaotic
dynamic systems such as economic markets?

-Bret Aarden.


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:11:43 GMT

ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>Well, sorry, but you're wrong. (Such are the hazards of relying on
>popular interpretations of technical work.) The proof demonstrates
>that NO FORMAL SYSTEM OF ***ARITHMETIC*** CAN BE COMPLETE. That is *all*.

Not entirely correct.  The proof was much stronger than this.  It was that no
formal system of *logic* could be both consistent and complete.  Mathematics
can be shown to be a subset of logic.  Thus, mathematics in and of itself
cannot be both consistent and complete.

For example, if we had an infinite number of computers working over an
infinite time, we still could not prove all true logical theorems.

I believe what this means is that rationality is a more poweful system
than logic since logic cannot prove all possibly true statements but
rationality can account for them in some fashion.

It would also mean that to be able to claim completeness at least in part,
Objectivism would either have to be a rational system or use some other
method not entirely involving logic.  The theorem is rather inflexible on
this: you cannot logically deduce everything in a consistent logic system.
Thus, some non-logical method of deduction must be practiced in a system
claiming completeness.  

By the way, a logician would tell you that axioms and logic do constitute
a formal system, no matter whether you call it a "philosophy" or "religion".
If logic is the only tool by which things are proven or disproven, then the
system cannot be "complete" and "consistent".

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: A=A
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:28:17 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

>>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?  ...
 
>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.
 
Funny, I was going to "answer" the above question with a sarcastic
"don't you know? - it's 'A=A!'", but someone else got the jump on me.
Unfortunately, their answer appears to have been presented in earnest.
 
Professional philosophers in general regard "objectivism" as something
of a bad joke, and with claims like this - that one can derive an entire
system of "ethics" from the premise that "existence exists" - it's easy
to see why. Here's a person looking for a rational justification of this
rather grotesque social doctrine, and what does he get? "A=A". Yeesh.
No wonder this is an "alt" group.
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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:54:13 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan8115503@bugs.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <C0ICo0.7Iz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) 
>writes:
>
>   >Have you never heard anyone
>   >explain the role of "A is A" in such a way that conclusions can be
>   >drawn?  It has been stated that the phrase "A is A" denotes Identity.
>   >Does the acceptance of Identity, along with other axioms, not allow
>   >conclusions to be drawn?
>
>  From an ordinary logical point of view, your remarks are incoherent,
>since identity is a relation, not a statement, and "accepting
>identity" has no obvious meaning.

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

> Of course for somebody who takes
>Rand to be the chief authority on logic, there is nothing
>unsatisfactory about variously explaining "A is A" as expressing "a
>thing is itself" or "existence exists" or a demand of some kind, or as
>denoting identity or existence, and presenting various assertions as
>"consequences" of this formula. Instead this kind of intellectual sloppiness
>is regarded as - by definition - the epitome of logical thinking. I have
>no objection to this as long as it is understood that what Rand means by
>"logic" and "logical reasoning" has little to do with what is usually
>understood by those terms in philosophy.

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.

If it has not been made clear before that "A is A" is a different
statement from "Existence exists" let me make it clear now that one is
not derived from or implied by the other.  At least, I do not claim
so.


-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Objectivism vs Libertarianism vs Anarchism
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:26:23 GMT

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>In article <1hvme3INNk4o@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cl836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Geoff Stark) writes:
>|> The ideal political/economic system of objectivism is _full_ capitalism....
>|> The government should exist by the will of individuals, as the
>|> servant of individuals, and _not_ as an elected social conscious. 

I believe you mean "conscience" here, but I will acknowledge that government
at times seems to take on a consciousness of its own, much to the detriment
of the people.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism