From: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc (Steve Rogers)
Subject: Re: A=A: My Beef with the Bull
Reply-To: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:05:40 GMT

In article 93Jan8120854@bugs.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.062030.18989@mcc.com> srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com 
> (Steve Rogers) writes:
> 
>    >I would suggest that you leave off the facetious stuff unless you are
>    >more interested in arguing down these people than you are in having a
>    >real discussion.
> 
>   You're suggesting, then, that the preposterous claims of hard-core believers
> should not be challenged. Instead we should take a charitable view of those
> claims and proceed to argue more substantial matters.

No, thats NOT what I'm saying.  I'm saying facetious arguments are not the way
to *really* challenge someone's claims or beliefs.  As I said:

"Instead of making facetious requests for proofs, why not ask them how
their philosophy can hope to explain the complexities of life and humanity
when it takes none of it into account. "

This is not asking that you ignore their claims.  I'm suggesting that there
is a way to make a much more profound challenge to their claims than just
demanding a proof.  I'll say again that philosophy is not math; a few other
people have prought this up too.  I'll grant that some people are claiming
that there is a "proof" of Objectivism, and that it is pretty annoying when
they won't produce it.  I'm not convinced that the people claiming that
they have a proof mean proof in the mathematical sense.  There is no proof
of Objectivism in the same sense that there is no proof of physics.  That
is not to say that physics is a religion, or a dream, or a cult; just that
it is not all deduced from a set of first premises.

I'm suggesting that a better way to attack this proof thing (rather than
demanding the proof) is to ask how *any* worthwhile philosophy can be
developed on the model of math.  An example of such philosophy is the
philo. of Leibnitz.  He starts with a few premises and deduces a bunch
of garbage because he never does a reality check.  Objectivism is not
that kind of philosophy.  For example, Mark Hayes, in a related discussion,
says the following about one of these 'proofs': 

>But then, without taking so much as a self-identical breath,
>Mr. G continues
>
>       consciousness is identification
>
>to which I can only respond, yow, where did *THAT* come from???

I can see how this looks pretty silly if you are expecting a proof in the
mathematical sense.  In Objectivism, the existence of consciousness is one
of the three basic axiomatic properties of the universe. (Existence,
consciousness, law of identity)  How do you get it?  It is observational data.
You don't need to know how it works, just that it IS.  More 'reality' data
is introduced into Objectivism at higher levels of abstraction.  For example,
if a philosophy is expected to make reasonable ethical assertions, you might
expect that it will need to take *some* aspect of humanity into account.
Since these people claiming to have a 'proof' have not even introduced
the existence of humanity as one of their axioms, how could their philosophy
ever have anything to do with humanity?  Are they going to deduce the
existence of humanity from the fact that existence exists?

So I'm suggesting that rather than demand a proof from the 'proof claimers'
you might ask them how a philosophy like that would be worth 2 cents.
I'm suggesting this because I don't think it does much of a service to
Objectivism or the readers for some to post synopses of Obj. posing as
a proof, while others pick them apart.  I think you will find that all these
'proofs' will have the same problem, which is they have to keep introducing
new information along the way.

---
| Steven Rogers  MCC/ESL  3500 West Balcones Drive
| Austin, Texas 78759-6509  (512) 338-3691 srogers@mcc.com

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism