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 17:17:50 GMT

In article <106332@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) 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," ... What difference does it make?
>
>It makes a great deal of difference.
>
>They might well constitute total bullshit, passing themselves off as
>"philosophy" to try to cash in on the intellectual legitimacy that such
>an aegis provides. Saying that this is "just semantics" is to
>trivialize the magnitude of the great fraud being perpetrated by
>this spurious claim to legitimacy. Responsible thinkers have as
>much responsibility to call Rand's bluff as they did to call
>Hitler's when he tried to pass off his genocidal theories as "science".

It is ridiculous to think that calling something a philosophy
immediately provides it with an aegis of intellectual legitimacy.
Many things are called philosophies which, IMHO, have little
intellectual legitimacy, e.g. Dianetics.  We are discussing what gives
Objectivism greater intellectual legitimacy than other philosophies.
It is obvious that my use of the word "philosophy" is looser than yours.
Perhaps, stated in your terms, we are discussing what makes
Objectivism a philosophy.  

>>You seem to be denying that any conclusions can be logically drawn
>>from the Objectivist axioms.
>
>Wrong. What he is doing is denying that these are genuine "axioms"
>at all, in any philosophically respectable sense of the term, lacking
>as they do any consistency of definition or application. "A=A"
>appears to mean whatever a particular Randroid wants it to mean on
>any given occasion, as does the notion of "logical conclusion".

I have yet to see "A=A" given the variety of definitions you claim it
has.  It is the law of identity.  Perhaps, since you can accept it or
reject it, it should be called the axiom of identity.  What it means
to your reasoning is that you cannot change a thing into something
else.  When attempting to understand reality at the human level, it
must be accepted.  (When attempting to understand reality at the
quantum level, it must be rejected, and you are allowed to say, "A
photon is a particle.  Also, a photon is a wave.")

>So again I say: give us your axioms, give us your rules of
>inference, and give us your conclusions, and then we'll see
>whether your arguments are valid. Just don't change your definitions
>according to whatever rhetorical mood you happen to be in at the time,
>and don't castigate us for irresponsibly rejecting these allegedly
>"conclusive proofs" when you refuse to present them to anyone who
>doesn't already agree with you.

Sigh.  I should have brought "Atlas Shrugged" with me today...  Ayn
Rand has already presented these proofs.  Are you sure you aren't
refusing to read them because you don't agree with us?  They are based
on the axiom of identity, the assumption of the existence of an
objective reality, and perhaps a couple more axioms which I cannot
remember from the book.  I believe her reasoning has the rigor of
logical syllogisms.  As the conclusions are numerous, the reasoning is
lengthy.  Can some one who has the book handy turn to John Galt's
speech and critique her reasoning?


-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism