From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:20:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In alt.individualism, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

> >> What do you mean by that? Are you an irrationalist or something?
> >> Identity exists.
> >
> >No, I am not an irrationalist, and in fact, your asking the
> >question in this manner and following it up with the identity
> >exists statement indicates that you are an acolyte of rand, and
> >hence you consider anyone who differs with your metaphysical
> >axioms and political thinking is an enemy of reason.
> >Rand is a very respectable thinker, and she has influenced me
> >a great deal, but some of her rhetoric is downright nauseating.
> >
> >doug
> 
> I have been quite influenced by Rand, it is true, but by deciding
> without asking me what my beliefs are, you commit the same mistake
> that the Objectivists commit--acceptance without verification.

Yes, well, then I can certainly dispense with the affected
rhetoric.

> use these terms, this is what I mean. Rationality is limited by 
> non-omniscience and the fallibility of human beings.

Among other things, but yes, I agree with your statement.

> However, I do
> agree that how rational a person is depends on his choice--to choose
> how far and how much thought you put into an action, idea or philosophy.

Not necessarily.  I had a friend give me an example of how the
exigencies of starvation made a man do somewhat irrational things.

> 
> Rand also loses me as far as her objective definitions of happiness, art,
> focus, and her belief in a total lack of emotivism except during sex. I 
> tend to think it is generally healthy to be emotional in some cases, but
> I think there is a time and place for it, rather than making important
> decisions based on emotion. In other words, know when to be emotional
> and when not to be.

Regardless of whether it ought to be or not, emotion is a big part
of the makeup of the human consciousness.  In fact, while I have
not reached a decisionon this, it is not clear to me that emotional
thought does not domintate rational thought in the general person.
That is not what we are discussing however.

> 
> On the other hand, I do agree with the Objectivist epistomology. The three
> axioms which need no proof and are self-evident are: existence, consciousness,
> and identity. As I have said before, ignorance does not imply non-identity.
> I know that there will always be facts out of reach of humanity, but that
> does not preclude their existence. Actually, I came to this conclusion 
> before I ever read any of Rand's material.

Actually, I have discovered an argument that, in my mind, adequately
subverts the axiomatic nature of existence.  I may or may not
post the argument, but before I do (or don't), I would like to
have you spell out PRECICELY and carefully what the axiom _existence
exists_ means to you.

For exampele, it may mean this:  Existence exists as my senses
percieve it, and by using my senses in combination with reason
and scientific method, I can learn undeniable truths about the nature
of the universe.

Is that an adequate statement, or do you wish to modify it.

> 
> Once again, please show me a case where A something other than A, in 
> the context of A.

Look, I do NOT deny the concept of identity.  My statement was 
a rhetorical trick meant to imply that even if objectivist epistemology
is adopted without question, it does not map itself over the complex
interaction of humans in social contact as easily as objectivists
and libertarians seem to think it does.  People here seem to imply
that A=A can be used as a proof that taxes are bad or that non-initiation
of force is good.  I am merely suggesting that the careful rationality
of statements like A=A do not bear that much weight in the world
of human social interaction.

doug
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5671 alt.activism.d:3562 talk.environment:4077