HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi ()
Subject: Different moralities (Was 'Love')
Organization: The Clam of Reason Ltd.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:29:39 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

RE articles <1992Sep11.180011.17209@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com 
(Peter Cash) and <vpvnc_c.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson 
Kennedy):

Anson Kennedy suggests that 'The Story of O' "demonstrates a different 
morality". In the discussion that follows Peter Cash writes:

> I doubt it, but I suppose you
>might find some weird isolated tribe somewhere where people stand around
>and cheer whenever a kid drowns. If I were to come across behavior like
>that, I'd call it "callous and cruel". Would you say I was not entitled to
>say this?

"...some weird isolated tribe somewhere where people stand around and cheer 
whenever a kid drowns.." Are we talking of kids drowning by accident, or of 
some ritual? If we are talking of accidents, our first thought would perhaps 
more naturally be that the tribe has a different way of expressing despair 
and sorrow. (We had a guest lecturer (one of the Big Names) here at the 
mythical Clam of Reason some years ago. After one of his lectures he asked 
if our students always disagreed with the lecturers so totally as they did 
with him. We were puzzled, because his lectures had been very good. After a 
while he realized that he had mistaken an affirmative 'native' sound to be 
an expression of disagreement. (The sound in question is a bit difficult to 
explain; a sort of short, breathless inwards whistle.))

How do you know that the tribe is cheering, Peter? Because it sounds like 
what you do when you cheer? Because these people show their teeth, clap their 
hands, etc? Well, in some cultures a nod is a shake, and a shake is a nod. 
Are you suggesting that cheering consists in making certain sounds with a 
certain face? (Of course you aren't. I'm just giving you some easy handles 
for your followup.)

By the way, notice that cheering can be cruel, ironical, etc. (I suppose 
these senses of 'cheering' are secondary.)

If we find that the tribe is indeed "making a joyous noise", we might wonder 
if there might be something in their religion that could explain their 
behaviour.  Ideas of eternal life? In that case we might have to ask 
ourselves if we know what they are happy about. Are they happy because
a child dies? Well, maybe it would be more proper to say that they are happy 
that a child is saved?

I take it that your idea was that the tribe is genuinely pleased when someone 
dies, suffers, etc.? It might be a tribe that has undergone some terrible 
things, so that the people have turned hard and unloving, ironical and cruel. 
But in that case their cheering would not be an expression of genuine pleasure.

Is it possible to imagine a people with a 'different morality'? I don't think 
so. As a matter of fact, I'll even go as far as to say that I don't know what 
all this talk of 'different moralities' means. You are on the right tracks, 
Peter, but God is in the details. Or so I'm told.


Chris Burman, cburman@abo.fi
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Objectivism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:09:48 GMT

Just for the record...

As the owner of the Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy
discussion group, I have met and talked with many people who call
themselves Objectivists.

I have been studying Rand's ideas for a number of years now.  I
have read virtually every book and article written about her and
her ideas.  I think that I am therefore well qualified to make
the following statement.

Stephen Grossman's ungrammatical and ill-mannered musings have almost
nothing to do with Objectivism or with Rand's thought.  Frankly, I
think he ought to cease using the label for himself; it does not fit.

Grossman's writing style is so astoundingly bad that it is difficult
to ascertain what his position actually IS.  I suspect that his
scattered writing style serves to reveal a rather scattered and
shallow understanding of the things about which he writes.

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Betsy Speicher)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philoso
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:34:48 GMT

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) concludes:
 
>In short, there is no reason to read Rand for her philosophy.
 
Many people downplay Ayn Rand as a serious philosopher, but the
situation is changing.
 
There are two very serious presentations of Objectivism available.  One
is _Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_ (ITOE) in which Rand
presents her theory of concepts and her answer to the problem of
induction.  The other is _Objectivism:_The_Philosophy_of_Ayn_Rand_
(OPAR) by Leonard Peikoff, the first systematic presentation of the
essentials of Rand's philosophy.  Peikoff intended this as a college
textbook and there is already a _Study_Guide_ to this book available
from the same publisher.
 
Recently the Ayn Rand Institute did a mailing to college and university
professors of philosophy, describing ITOE and OPAR and offering them
copies.  Thus far SEVERAL HUNDRED professional philosophers have
expressed interest and ACTUALLY ORDERED these books.  Peikoff has been
a featured speaker at the national conference of the American
Philosophical Association.  More and more people ARE taking Objectivism
seriously.
 
                                 Betsy Speicher
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: What is Internet?
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:22:00 +0000

Plagiarising Tom Lehrer

"The Internet is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what
you put into it"
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Request for intro's to philosophy
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:58:47 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <BuMGMM.82G@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
(Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.204306.11164@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>>Philosophy is about learning how to refute the enemy!

>Really?  That's not why *I* study philosophy!  Refuting the enemy is just a 
>means to an end.

[and Jussi Haukioja takes my quip just as matter-of-factly...]

Geez!  Where's your sense of humour guys?  It was a joke!
I'll remember to include smileys next time :) :)

-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy
From: jhaukioj@sara.cc.utu.fi (Jussi Haukioja)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Request for intro's to philosophy
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:15:34 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In article <1992Sep14.204306.11164@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
> 
> In the philosophy of science, don't miss Kuhn's _The Structure of
> Scientific Revolutions_.  Kuhn is confused and misleading but this is
> a classic.  In this group, I would add technical works by Van Fraassen,
> (The Scientific Image, Laws and Symmetry, Quantum Mechanics) 
> who is an anti-realist but all the better to read for a realist.
> Philosophy is about learning how to refute the enemy!

(I have to admit that if I were a dedicated realist, I wouldn't say this in
this context, but here we go:) Philosophy should also be about not having 
absolute enemies, but being ready to change your mind when you encounter 
a convincing argument or see inconsistencies in your own thought. Putnam is 
a good example of this.                          

> 
> In the philosophy of language, if this interests you, read Kripke's 
> _Naming and Necessity_.  This is a classic in the same way as Kuhn,
> and has stood the test of time (20 years) quite well.  There is a
> huge literature in this field, but Kripke's lectures are not too
> hard for a beginner to understand.
> 

For a better overall view of the philosophy of language, see Simon Blackburn's
book "Spreading the Word". Kripke's book is wonderful, but there's a lot more
to the philosophy of language than  the issues of reference and necessity.

		    	Jussi Haukioja
			JHAUKIOJ@SARA.UTU.FI
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:52:24 GMT

Torkel Franzen writes:
>  You make the common mistake among Rand sympathizers of assuming that
>comments like mine are intended as arguments.

Torkel,

I would like to thank you for your honesty.  Until you notify me
otherwise, I won't consider any of your comments as arguments.  I'll
just take them to be... what?  Babbling?  Strings of words with no
connection to reality?  Well, whatever... because if your words don't
constitute an _argument_, then there isn't much reason to listen to
you, is there?

--Jimbo
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Objectivism
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:31:05 GMT


In article <Bu320C.Cqn@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
writes:
>it is difficult
    
        Perhaps if you offered an example of your confusion about  existence
you might receive some wisdom. Of course, confusion and wisdom exist equally,
altho I  value wisdom. Why don't you value existence? Objectivism is overly
concerned with epistemology, albeit an excellent one. 
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Request for intro's to philosophy
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:57:49 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep15.115633.1@sara.cc.utu.fi>, jhaukioj@sara.cc.utu.fi (Jussi Haukioja) writes:
|> > 
|> > In the philosophy of language, if this interests you, read Kripke's 
|> > _Naming and Necessity_.  This is a classic in the same way as Kuhn,
|> > and has stood the test of time (20 years) quite well.  There is a
|> > huge literature in this field, but Kripke's lectures are not too
|> > hard for a beginner to understand.
|> > 
|> 
|> For a better overall view of the philosophy of language, see Simon Blackburn's
|> book "Spreading the Word". Kripke's book is wonderful, but there's a lot more
|> to the philosophy of language than  the issues of reference and necessity.

Everyone pays homage to "Naming and Necessity".  Certainly it is a
"classic".  However, I have always found it to be both confused and
confusing -- somewhat dark and mysterious.  It certainly is not the
first thing I would recommend someone read in the area of philosophy
of language.  However, "philosophy of language" is a bit of an odd
area. It is really (from my point of view) less a distinct area
of philosophy than it is a set of problems and issues involving
at least both logic (including semantics and pragmatics) and
metaphysics.  In order to understand some of the technical and
quasi-technical issues (and to get at least a leg up on what the
hell Kripke is talking about), it is probably best to start with
something like Quine's _Word_and_Object_.  It wouldn't hurt to look
a bit at Wittgenstein's _Philosophical_Investigations_ (particularly
given Kripke's bent).  And if you want to get technical, you need
to look at Montague's _Formal_Philosophy_ and some of the work of
Dana Scott and David Kaplan (unfortunately, a bunch of this is
unpublished).  Along the way you should probably read David Lewis's
_Convention_.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:23:04 GMT

    O'Connell [danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM], Sep.2
    asks about Objectivist thought and if it is objective.

    Objectivism continues the Parmenides-Aristotle-Aquinas line of reality un-
derstood by reason. It rejects the Heraclitus-Plato-Descartes-Kant-contemporary
line of chaos, irrationality, subjectivism, transcendentalism, and nihilism. 
Most philosophy is a rationalization of dishonesty, of faking reality.
    
    To be extremely brief:
    Objectivism is the following basics:
    Metaphysics: objective reality
    Epistemology: reason
    Philosophical Psychology: man is a rational animal
    Ethics: selfishness
    Politics: individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and scientific-industrial
civilization
    Art: romanticism

    Objectivism is a radical theory of epistemological objectivity, denying
that ideas are in reality (as in Plato & Aristotle) and affirming that ideas are
our mental processing of reality. (Kant & contemp. phil. hold ideas as subject-
ive).
    Also:
    Meta: Existence exists; existence is identity; existence is prior to cons-
ciousness
    Episte: philosophical system is necessary; empiricism & Pragmatism are dis-
asters. 
    
    Start with Rand's novels and then get a catalog from Second Renaissance
Books (110 Copperwood Way, Oceanside, CA 92052).
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Moral relativism  (was: What is Love?)
Date: 13 Sep 1992 12:48:52 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Is Randall Holmes a moral relativist? 
	 Or is he just confused?

-*----
In article <1992Sep11.211239.24930@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
> As the person who originally attracted the fury of moral relativism, ...

Evidence the first that Randall Holmes does not want to be called
a moral relativist.

> ...  I think that our position in ethics is like pre-scientific
> knowledge of the world of material objects; there are various
> basic things that we know or assume, but there hasn't yet been
> an effort to build "empirically testable" large theories ...
> ... I put "empirically testable" in quotes, because I don't know
> exactly what this would mean in ethics; ... But I do suspect that 
> systematic ethics, analogous to mathematics and natural science, 
> is possible. ...

I have heard better rationalizations of the notion that the moon
landing was a hoax.  

> ... When multiple sets of "acceptable" moral standards are
> arrived at, there are two possible answers ... : the two
> systems can be based on fundamentally different notions of 
> what human basic aims should be, in which case they may
> _both_ be "true" ...

Evidence the first that Randall Holmes *is* a moral relativist.
What is moral relativism if not the notion that (1) at best,
a person's morals are relative to some moral theory, and (2) 
that inconsistent moral theories can be equally valid?

> This is why the prevalence of relativism is a moral crisis.

Evidence the second that Randall Holmes does not want to be
called a moral relativist. 

So let's review.  (1) Randall Holmes does not want to be called 
a moral relativist.  (2) Randall Holmes will go to some lengths
to rationalize his hope that that there is some systematic,
objective method to determine moral truths, even though he doesn't
seem to have much idea what that might be.  (3) Randall Holmes 
admits the possibility of equally valid but conflicting moral
theories.

From this, I can only conclude that Randall Holmes is confused.
I will offer further evidence:

> ...  Analogously, I flatly assert, without caring in the least
> whether I offend anyone, that I will NOT, and you will NOT, find
> moral enlightenment on alt.sex.bondage.

Curiously enough, there is more sensible discussion of morality, 
more respect, and more care for fellow participants in 
alt.sex.bondage than in all the *.philosophy.* newsgroups 
combined.  If one wants to discuss "The Story of O," one will
also get there a deeper dialogue over its meaning and moral
implications.

Russell
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Validity of the Scientific Method
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:13:34 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com


Often in net.conversations one poster will challenge another to 
"site a reference" backing up their opinion. The underlying assumption
is of course that their opponent's opinions are not valid unless backed
by studies. Then, even if studies are presented, someone can counter
that the studies weren't well done, bad controls and all that. Even then
a statitician can look over many (if not most) studies as we did in our
stats classes and tear appart the statistical basis for the studies.

My question is has anyone done a study proving the validity of the
Scientific Method? If so, what method did they use to prove it? The
scientific method? Seems a bit recursive. The arguments I've heard
favoring the scientific method simply say we use it because it seems
to work. Then isn't "it seems to work" just as valid a justification for
asserting the "truth" of a "fact."
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:11:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.060406.21355@guinness.idbsu.edu>, 
holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes...
>In article <exukjb.119.715643911@exu.ericsson.se> 
>exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>
>>Also, imagine your parents, girlfriend or just friend, saying that he/
>>she loves you 'disinterestedly.' Not a very warm, personal thing, is it?  If 
>>that is how god loves humanity, I would feel rather slighted and alienated, 
>>instead of loved.
> 
>[theistic mode ON]
> 
>This is how God loves everything.  It _isn't_ very satisfying.
> 
>[theistic mode OFF]

   Whose god are we talking about here? There are many models of
god in the world, and many of them are not disinterested. The
hebrew god of the old testament is arbitrary, partial, and 
jealous by his own admission. 
   The vishnu aspect of the hindi god is deliriously passionate, 
and the practice of his worship, (and that of his conveniently 
female aspects), called bhakti, is deeply satisfying to its 
successful practitioners. Cf. the life of Ramakrishna. Also
the sufis, who call their god `the beloved', and speak of
an emotional relationship, they seem to regard as mutual. This 
type of impassioned relationship to a god is not wholly alien 
to the western tradition, either. The Dark Night of the Soul 
(what survives of it) indicates such a relationship on the 
part of St. John of the Cross, for instance. It is also present 
to some extent in the relationship between Jesus and god in 
the new testament.

===========================================================================
A cynic's world is comprised                          Pete Vincent
of fools and other cynics
From: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: What is Love?  _The Story of O_
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:53:15 GMT
Reply-To: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems  (Billerica, MA)

In article <1992Sep10.153356.20177@guinness.idbsu.edu>, holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
|> The _Story of O_ is a work of fiction.  It would be easier to accept
|> it as evidence if it were a piece of biography.  From the synopsis, I
|> would rule it out of court on the basis that it is not realistic
|> (although it might represent actual consequences of the adoption of a
|> false moral standard -- it could be rejected on these grounds even if
|> it were biography).
|> -- 
|> The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
|> above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
|> opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
|> or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu

"False moral standard?". Bad, maybe, but "false"? No such
thing.  Morever, what "court" are you ruling fiction out of?
Even if the story did not in fact happen as described can't it
be said that it describes something we know "could" happen?
Or perhaps we know of actual events that are similar or even
worse in character. It tells us something about real possibilities
in  the human circumstance, doesn't it? Are you rejecting this?
Are you saying that the story doesn't illustrate something about
what we know could occur, and thereby says nothing about
something worth knowing about?

fjc
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Request for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:39:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.204306.11164@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>Philosophy is about learning how to refute the enemy!

Really?  That's not why *I* study philosophy!  Refuting the enemy is just a 
means to an end.

>Stay clear of the new French philosophers like Derrida or Foucault,
>unless you read them in French.  Philosophy for the French is 90% style
>and rhetoric -- even the best translations are a silly attempt to
>distill non-existent ideas from their prose.  

That sounds like poetic justice to me since they deny that words
have menaings in the first place.

>And actually, if you really like reading French writers, read Sartre's
>novels (not _Being and Nothingness_ the most boring drivel ever
>written).  

Amen to that!

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: What is Love?  _The Story of O_
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:36:11 GMT

From article <1992Sep10.153356.20177@guinness.idbsu.edu>, by holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes):
> The _Story of O_ is a work of fiction.  It would be easier to accept
> it as evidence if it were a piece of biography.  From the synopsis, I
> would rule it out of court on the basis that it is not realistic
> (although it might represent actual consequences of the adoption of a
> false moral standard -- it could be rejected on these grounds even if
> it were biography).

You are making a grave mistake in this regard.  The sort of
violent sexual practices spoke of in _The Story of O_ is a well
documented phenomena.  It is not unrealistic.  It may be shocking,
but not unrealisitc.  Also, the phenomena of Satanism and its 
workings with love may also prove shocking--but they still remain 
realistic.    If you want to make serious ground on the issue of love,
these things must be accounted for--don't take the easy way out.
I think abusive relationships, sexual abuse within the family, etc
should also qualify as a problem with love.  

See _The Beloved Life of Henry Suso_ which
is not sexual in nature, but clearly reveals the degree to which an
individual will enslave themselves in the name of love.  This book,
by the way, is an autobiography.


> -- 
> The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
> above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
> opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
> or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
 
"N'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas, n'y pensez pas trop"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech