From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:45:12 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan7101537@isis.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <C0GMJK.1Hz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) 
>writes:
>
>   >This is just semantics.  If conclusions regarding human behavior, good
>   >and evil, morality and values, based on certain assumptions, do not
>   >constitute a "philosophy," then what do they constitute?
>
>  You misunderstand my comment. I said that the idea that philosophy
>consists of "philosophies" resting on "axioms" has little to do with
>how philosophy is understood outside Objectivism and similar sects.
>Philosophy, as it is understood and practiced by philosophers, is
>largely considered part of the search for knowledge and understanding
>in general.  It is not a battle of competing "systems" of whatever
>kind. Nor is it "axiomatic", any more than science is, but uses many
>different types of argument, sources of knowledge, and modes of
>reasoning and investigation.

If this is true, then I admit that my use of the word "philosophy" is
incompatible with its use by the people you call philosophers.  I am
satisfied with the idea that Objectivism, as a search for knowledge
and understanding, is a part of philosophy that uses certain types of
argument, sources of knowledge, and modes of reasoning and
investigation, and that does not use others.

>   >You seem to be denying that any conclusions can be logically drawn
>   >from the Objectivist axioms.
>
>  I am saying that the supposed "axioms" are merely flexible slogans, and
>that the arguments are not logical deductions at all. Generally speaking,
>Rand's knowledge and understanding of logic is poor indeed.

Then what would make these "slogans" into "real axioms"?  Can you give
examples of "real axioms," so that Objectivists can adopt instances of
"real axioms" instead of "slogans"?

I was under the impression that Rand's reasoning in John Galt's speech
has the rigor of logical syllogisms, and that therefore, her
conclusions can be considered logical deductions.  I have asked
another person to please point out failures on this lengthy speech,
and I would ask you to do the same.

>  It is characteristic of Objectivists - the eager, hard-core kind,
>including of course Rand herself - that they go on in a very silly way
>about how rational and logical and unassailable Rand's thinking is and
>how it is the epitome of philosophy. The first step towards discussing
>selfishness, capitalism, romanticism, and whatever ideals Rand would
>promote, is to drop this silly business. And indeed there are people
>who sympathize with Rand's general outlook and do take this approach.
>They are of course denounced as evil renegades or worse by the
>faithful.

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
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism