Invitation
Ralph Hertle
This is an Objectivism study group. There is no interest in your
anti-fact and anti-reason concepts, here.
Please de-subscribe yourself from HPO and go away.
Ralph Hertle
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Dave Jara wrote:
> Hi humanities.philosophy.objectivism,
>
> About 8 months ago I heard a message that challenged the traditional
> view of hell: an eternal torture chamber managed by God for those who
> chose not to believe in Him. I was very upset that someone would
> undermine the truth as I understood it, especially in a church.
>
> After hearing the talk, I began to do intense biblical research in
> order to buttress my argument that hell was indeed eternal torment. In
> attempting to support my view, I learned that what I had been taught
> about hell was wrong.
>
[ clip ]
Charles Novins
get your brain out of your ass and join the living.
Allow me to apologize in advance if I have been offensive in any way.
"Dave Jara" <tohimare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de9fdad6.03050...@posting.google.com...
Acar
"Dave Jara" <tohimare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de9fdad6.03050...@posting.google.com...
> Hi humanities.philosophy.objectivism,
>
> About 8 months ago I heard a message that challenged the traditional
> view of hell: an eternal torture chamber managed by God for those who
> chose not to believe in Him. I was very upset that someone would
> undermine the truth as I understood it, especially in a church.
>
> order to buttress my argument that hell was indeed eternal torment. In
> attempting to support my view, I learned that what I had been taught
> about hell was wrong.
>
> are interested, send me an email at tohimare...@yahoo.com and I
> will sign you up for the comeasyouare1 yahoo newsgroup where I will be
> explaining that hell is not eternal torture, and that God's ultimate
> plan is to reconcile everyone unto himself, whether now or in the ages
> to come. This is GOOD NEWS. I will be sending messages ranging from
> one a week to one a month, depending on the length of the content. If
> you grow uninterested, you can easily unsubscribe at your own
> discretion.
Dear Dave,
Forgive these terrible people for telling you to go to hell. If what you
claim is true, they know not what they say.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Ralph Hertle
Since you are opposed to Objectivism, and since you intend to disrupt
Objectivism with your similar opposition to facts and reason, why don't
you also, please excuse yourself and exit HPO?
Ralph Hertle
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
[ text clip ]
>
> Dear Dave,
>
> Forgive these terrible people for telling you to go to hell. If what you
> claim is true, they know not what they say.
>
[ text clip ]
Bert Clanton
<ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Acar:
>
> Since you are opposed to Objectivism, and since you intend to disrupt
> Objectivism with your similar opposition to facts and reason, why don't
> you also, please excuse yourself and exit HPO?
>
> Ralph Hertle
Ralph:
Since you seem to confuse exposure of irrationalities in Objectivist
ideology with "opposition to facts and reason", why don't you give up
your own opposition to facts and reason and investigate some of the
criticism of Objectivist ideology with an open mind?
Best wishes,
Bert
Acar
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3EB5E3D8...@verizon.net...
> Acar:
>
> Since you are opposed to Objectivism, and since you intend to disrupt
> Objectivism with your similar opposition to facts and reason, why don't
> you also, please excuse yourself and exit HPO?
Hi Ralph,
How would you handle this situation if you were allowed to re-write the
charter of the newsgroup? This is not a rhetorical question. Please reply
with your characteristic honesty and integrity.
Bert Clanton
<jif...@supanet.com> wrote:
> > Since you seem to confuse exposure of irrationalities in Objectivist
> > ideology with "opposition to facts and reason", why don't you give up
> > your own opposition to facts and reason and investigate some of the
> > criticism of Objectivist ideology with an open mind?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Bert
>
> Probably because to the vast majority of those opposing objectivism,
> facts and reason are the last things that are on their mind.
In my view, that is certainly not the case for most people who oppose
Objectivism in this particular newsgroup. In this newsgroup, what I
seem to see is a few people whose support of Objectivism is reasoned
and measured, and a few people whose support of Objectivism is
fanatical and irrational, and a lot of people somewhere in between. It
seems to me that the great majority of people who oppose Objectivism
here oppose it on factual and rational grounds, which are seldom met
with factual and rational attempts at rebuttal by its supporters.
Best wishes,
Bert
Best wishes,
Bert
> I've
> heard utter insanity spoken about objectivism and it's advocates in my
> time. Whether it's one loony who called objectivism "hitler youth
> propaganda", or that other one (I forgot his name, Reverand
> something-or-other) who practically tried to claim that Ayn Rand was a
> communist because she wasn't a bible thumper.
>
> Who honestly cares what people like that "think" ?
Acar
"J. Hall" <jif...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:291db02.03050...@posting.google.com...
> ..... (Because they oppose Objectivism)
> facts and reason are the last things that are on their mind.
> ...to claim that Ayn Rand was a
> communist because she wasn't a bible thumper.
Does any one see a similarity between the above two statements?
..
..
David Schwartz
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:qizta.214356$JI.47...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Yes, they're both sensible deductions. A person who opposes a rational
theory most likely does not have facts and reasons in the forefront. But to
claim that a person advocates a particular political system because they
don't advocate a particular religious view is wholly unfounded.
Surely some claims of the form "believing X implies believing Y" are
true and some are false.
DS
Acar
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:b96v7u$mgo$1...@nntp.webmaster.com...
>
> "Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
> news:qizta.214356$JI.47...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> > "J. Hall" <jif...@supanet.com> wrote in message
> > news:291db02.03050...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > ..... (Because they oppose Objectivism)
> > > facts and reason are the last things that are on their mind.
>
> > > ...to claim that Ayn Rand was a
> > > communist because she wasn't a bible thumper.
>
> > Does any one see a similarity between the above two statements?
>
> Yes, they're both sensible deductions. A person who opposes a rational
> theory
But then you need to establish that Objectivism has a monopoly on
rationality. For example, I oppose Objectivism, but "facts and reason" are
not "the last thing on my mind". To equate "opposing Objectivism" with
"opposing facts and rationality" is the typical Objectivist propensity for
assuming the conclusion -- a rejection of logic and rationality.
> most likely does not have facts and reasons in the forefront. But to
> claim that a person advocates a particular political system because they
> don't advocate a particular religious view is wholly unfounded.
It is a similar fallacy.
> Surely some claims of the form "believing X implies believing Y" are
> true and some are false.
..
Acar
> > rationality.
>
> a monopoly on rationality to sucessfully argue against it ?
No, and that's the point. Logical thinkers of all persuasions are rational.
> > For example, I oppose Objectivism, but "facts and reason" are
> > not "the last thing on my mind". To equate "opposing Objectivism" with
> > "opposing facts and rationality" is the typical Objectivist propensity
for
> > assuming the conclusion -- a rejection of logic and rationality.
>
> Bible thumpers claim to champions of "facts and reason", as do
> Marxists etc. They are not, however. Those might not be the "last
> things on their mind" as such, but their actions, more importantly the
> results of those actions suggest otherwise.
I was not talking about Bible thumpers. My remark was about Objectivists if
you read it again. Addressing the subject in question is an important part
of "rationality".
..
..
..
..
Ralph Hertle
Bert Clanton wrote:
[ clip text ]
> Ralph:
>
> Since you seem to confuse exposure of irrationalities in Objectivist
> ideology with "opposition to facts and reason", why don't you give up
> your own opposition to facts and reason and investigate some of the
> criticism of Objectivist ideology with an open mind?
>
> Best wishes,
> Bert
...................
I'm sorry; however, I can't understand what you mean by your term,
"exposure of irrationalities". Please explain a little more.
Where do I advocate any "opposition to facts and reason"? If you can
point to a specific example, I would be happy to revise my ideas in
accordance with facts and reason.
Objectivism isn't an "ideology", its a philosophy that is based on facts
and reason, and also upon a concept of individual man's greatness.
I see a barrage of antagonism to Objectivism and many wrong ideas. The
purposes of the opposition to Objectivism range from the advocacy of its
destruction to mere misrepresentation and apple-polishing. There have
been almost no constructive posts on HPO that seriously advance new
developments of Objectivist philosophical thought. The flamers have been
successful in achieving a minimum of new Objectivist works. Most
Objectivist discussion occurs on the private email lists, private web
sites, and moderated news groups.
What is one example of a criticism of Objectivist philosophy that I may
dwell upon? If that is phrased as a question with some provided context,
may be able to come up with an answer.
Ralph Hertle
Acar
> > rationality.
>
> a monopoly on rationality to sucessfully argue against it ?
Re-sending.
No, and that's the point. Logical thinkers of all persuasions are rational.
> > For example, I oppose Objectivism, but "facts and reason" are
> > not "the last thing on my mind". To equate "opposing Objectivism" with
> > "opposing facts and rationality" is the typical Objectivist propensity
for
> > assuming the conclusion -- a rejection of logic and rationality.
>
Bert Clanton
<ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Bert:
>
> Bert Clanton wrote:
>
> [ clip text ]
>
> > Ralph:
> >
> > Since you seem to confuse exposure of irrationalities in Objectivist
> > ideology with "opposition to facts and reason", why don't you give up
> > your own opposition to facts and reason and investigate some of the
> > criticism of Objectivist ideology with an open mind?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Bert
>
> ...................
>
> I'm sorry; however, I can't understand what you mean by your term,
> "exposure of irrationalities". Please explain a little more.
>
I mean, for example, the almost universal practice among Objectivist
advocates on HPO of consistently avoiding the confrontation of specific
examples of contradictions and equivocations when we non-Objectivists
bring them up. I mean the consistent practice among Objectivist
advocates on HPO of responding to criticisms of Objectivism by personal
attacks on the critics. I could go on...
> Where do I advocate any "opposition to facts and reason"? If you can
> point to a specific example, I would be happy to revise my ideas in
> accordance with facts and reason.
>
You guys don't *advocate* "opposition to facts and reason". You just
ignore facts and respond to non-Objectivists criticism in irrational
ways (e.g., by ad hominem responses).
> Objectivism isn't an "ideology", its a philosophy that is based on facts
> and reason, and also upon a concept of individual man's greatness.
>
Polemics is not rational argument.
> I see a barrage of antagonism to Objectivism and many wrong ideas.
I see a barrage of antagonism to *critics* of Objectivism and many
wrong ideas.
> The
> purposes of the opposition to Objectivism range from the advocacy of its
> destruction to mere misrepresentation and apple-polishing.
My purpose in criticizing Objectivist ideology, when I do so, is to
exhibit what I think are factual and logical flaws in Objectivist
ideology.
> There have
> been almost no constructive posts on HPO that seriously advance new
> developments of Objectivist philosophical thought.
Maybe there aren't any such new developments?
> The flamers have been
> successful in achieving a minimum of new Objectivist works. Most
> Objectivist discussion occurs on the private email lists, private web
> sites, and moderated news groups.
>
> What is one example of a criticism of Objectivist philosophy that I may
> dwell upon? If that is phrased as a question with some provided context,
> may be able to come up with an answer.
>
> Ralph Hertle
See past discussions of Objectivist orthodoxy by Rob Bass, Chris
Cathcart, Gordon Sollars, Michael Huemer, etc. And I don't mean just
"read them". I mean confront and refute their criticisms instead of
just bad-mouthing the people themselves.
Best wishes,
Bert
Ralph Hertle
I see some of what you say, and judging from the tone of your writing I
see that it may be possible that you are disappointed in many of the
posts and their writers on HPO.
On that point I would agree.
What is an Objectivist?
I've been involved with Objectivism since 1961 when I started reading
Ayn Rand's books and taking courses in New York City at the Nathaniel
Branden Institute. I know only a two Objectivists from that time who
post on HPO, and these are Betsy Spiecher and Fred Weiss. My other
friends happily avoid the insults, and they stay away from HPO.
The Objectivists who write on HP0 are few in number. There are others,
and I haven't followed their writings to realize who they are. There may
be three or four that are more or less consistently knowledgeable
regarding Objectivism, and that think for themselves.
There are five times that number who are antagonistic to Objectivism,
who may be advocates of philosophies, such as Platonism, Kant, Post
Modernism, Surrealism, Nihilism, Subjectivism, or even some religions.
When you discuss ideas with persons, for example, Malenor, Cathcart,
Helen, Kolker, Acar, and some others, you are dealing with serious
antagonists of Objectivism.
Some of those writers have as their purpose the destruction of
Objectivism. That is dishonest.
You say that you try to find the logical contradictions in Objectivist
ideas. That is honest, and the best tools of logic should be used to
that end. We Objectivists pry at every syllogistic gap, and test every
inductive derivation. If you find any of these problems bring them to
the table for discussion. It is often by doing so that the writer brings
forth unique points of view that give rise to new extensions and
applications of Objectivism. Favorite discussion topics involve current
events and ethics, for example.
New developments cannot be discussed on HPO to to the prevalence of
flaming and outright Nihilism. For example, ideas that involve
psychology or esthetics cannot even be touched upon. The flamers have
taken the floor and have ruined intellectual progress in those areas.
Some of the so-called Objectivists, who may know something about the
philosophy, may also be juveniles with regard to the practice of proper
discussions, and they sometimes use more emotional epithets than correct
logic.
In summary, you may think that you are dealing with a lot of consistent
Objectivists, however, that isn't the case.
Subscribe to the Harry Binswanger List [HBL], or to the Objectivist
Study Group [OSG], TEWLIP [for advanced physics], and a number of others
for relatively disruption-free mostly moderated discussions. The
discussions deal with philosophical topics in far greater depth and
perceptivity than is found on HPO.
Concerning the bickering on HPO, I find that the people that I want to
hear from are not interested in what I have to say that much.
Additionally, the people who are totally antithetical to my ideas, e.g.,
the Platonists, probably have me blocked more often than not. I am
disappointed on both counts. If that is their best, I don't need them
either. As a result I tend to write for myself more than to a specific
person.
Good luck and practice a cool maturity of thought for your own sanity
and enjoyment. Discourse without bad words and insults makes possible
new ideas.
Ralph Hertle
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Larry Allen
03...@verizon.net>...
> Bert Clanton:
>
> I see some of what you say, and judging from the tone of your writing I
> see that it may be possible that you are disappointed in many of the
> posts and their writers on HPO.
>
> On that point I would agree.
>
> What is an Objectivist?
>
> I've been involved with Objectivism since 1961 when I started reading
> Ayn Rand's books and taking courses in New York City at the Nathaniel
> Branden Institute. I know only a two Objectivists from that time who
> post on HPO, and these are Betsy Spiecher and Fred Weiss. My other
> friends happily avoid the insults, and they stay away from HPO.
>
> The Objectivists who write on HP0 are few in number. There are others,
> and I haven't followed their writings to realize who they are. There may
> be three or four that are more or less consistently knowledgeable
> regarding Objectivism, and that think for themselves.
>
> There are five times that number who are antagonistic to Objectivism,
> who may be advocates of philosophies, such as Platonism, Kant, Post
> Modernism, Surrealism, Nihilism, Subjectivism, or even some religions.
>
> When you discuss ideas with persons, for example, Malenor, Cathcart,
> Helen, Kolker, Acar, and some others, you are dealing with serious
> antagonists of Objectivism.
>
> Some of those writers have as their purpose the destruction of
> Objectivism. That is dishonest.
Firstly may I say Fred, it must be nearly impossible to find one
single regular participant to this forum that can honestly deny that
you are one of the most (if not the most) intelligent and knowledgable
Objectivist here.
The operative word being: "honestly". Sometimes the essential
substance of honesty itself is buried beneath an individuals conscious
perception. That is to say, sometimes we are unaware of our own
self-deceit.
However, having said that, (as a confession of sorts), I cannot bring
myself to believe that Malenor, Cathcart, Helen, Bob, Acar, and or any
of the others that post here in opposition to your philosophical
convictions, have as their purpose, the destruction of Objectivism.
Perhaps I err. Perhaps not.
For we are like fighters that fight in a ring, strike for strike, blow
for blow, attempting to win?, indeed without question, but it is not
the intention of one fighter to destroy the life of the other.
Objectivism being the life I treat of.
When the bout is over we shake hands with our opponent, and
acknowledge the worthiness of the challenge they presented us. Both in
our victory, and our defeat.
Indeed, notwithstanding a few exceptions, your posts have done more
good for the development of your opponents psychological skill in the
ring of philosophy than a hundred sparing partners they may have had
in the past, whom enter the ring with benign intentions.
Ditto for you, if you understand what I mean. Which I cannot help but
trust you do.
You penned (to Bert):
> Concerning the bickering on HPO, I find that the people that I want to
> hear from are not interested in what I have to say that much.
> Additionally, the people who are totally antithetical to my ideas, e.g.,
> the Platonists, probably have me blocked more often than not. I am
> disappointed on both counts. If that is their best, I don't need them
> either. As a result I tend to write for myself more than to a specific
> person.
Now I cannot prove this coming assertion, nonetheless I assert that
Ayn Rand shared in your inclination to write more for herself than to
a specific person.
For the simple reason: greatness demands it. Witness history.
You finished with:
> Good luck and practice a cool maturity of thought for your own sanity
> and enjoyment. Discourse without bad words and insults makes possible
> new ideas.
>
>
> Ralph Hertle
To which I would add: a philosophical teflon-coating of the soul of
the one whom finds themselves in the fire, (so to speak), is a
property belonging to all great women (and men) throughout history.
For these are those that seek out the flames, bringing with
themselves, (as they do), much water.
For we live in an orchid, where trees are like men. And we discern the
health (or disease) of the tree, by the fruit that tree produces.
Were ones words are the fruit, ones thoughts the branches, and the
conviction of truth, the trunk of ones being.
Lastly then, the condition of the trunk of a tree is consequential to
the quality of the ground it is planted in. Its fruit being far
removed from change.
Thus I argue for the appreciation of the ground of stupidity.
For in its absence (firstly in me, and then in the garden), I have
nothing myself to tend to.
Life is boring in the arena of perfection.
Long live Ayn Rand.
Long live Ralph Hertle.
And long live the challengers to the both of your Being.
Larry Allen
HPO JURY = Malenor
<ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>Bert Clanton:
>
>I see some of what you say, and judging from the tone of your writing I
>see that it may be possible that you are disappointed in many of the
>posts and their writers on HPO.
>
>On that point I would agree.
>
>What is an Objectivist?
A hypocrite.
>I've been involved with Objectivism since 1961 when I started reading
>Ayn Rand's books and taking courses in New York City at the Nathaniel
>Branden Institute. I know only a two Objectivists from that time who
>post on HPO, and these are Betsy Spiecher and Fred Weiss. My other
>friends happily avoid the insults, and they stay away from HPO.
>
>The Objectivists who write on HP0 are few in number. There are others,
>and I haven't followed their writings to realize who they are. There may
>be three or four that are more or less consistently knowledgeable
>regarding Objectivism, and that think for themselves.
Objectivists who think for themselves? Give me just one example.
>There are five times that number who are antagonistic to Objectivism,
>who may be advocates of philosophies, such as Platonism, Kant, Post
>Modernism, Surrealism, Nihilism, Subjectivism, or even some religions.
>When you discuss ideas with persons, for example, Malenor, Cathcart,
>Helen, Kolker, Acar, and some others, you are dealing with serious
>antagonists of Objectivism.
Cathcart is not antagonistic toward Objectivism, only toward the
destructive, dogmatic wing dominated by Peikoff's autocratic reign.
>Some of those writers have as their purpose the destruction of
>Objectivism. That is dishonest.
You're lying again, Hertle.
>You say that you try to find the logical contradictions in Objectivist
>ideas. That is honest, and the best tools of logic should be used to
>that end.
But you also have to understand general philosophical tools, Hertle,
and not just the ones that Rand invented out of thin air by a wave of
her magic quill.
For example, for Rand to state that man's life is an end in itself,
and then to recommend suicide in certain circumstances, is clearly
contradictory and incoherent. But in order to understand this, you
first have to understand the concept of "end-in-itself," which you
don't.
> We Objectivists pry at every syllogistic gap, and test every
>inductive derivation. If you find any of these problems bring them to
>the table for discussion. It is often by doing so that the writer brings
>forth unique points of view that give rise to new extensions and
>applications of Objectivism. Favorite discussion topics involve current
>events and ethics, for example.
Topical discussions have nothing to do with Objectivism's
contradictions unless they are used to illustrate them.
>New developments cannot be discussed on HPO to to the prevalence of
>flaming and outright Nihilism.
Both of which you are a leading proponent here, as you demonstrate
consistently and prolifically.
>For example, ideas that involve
>psychology or esthetics cannot even be touched upon. The flamers have
>taken the floor and have ruined intellectual progress in those areas.
And yet your goddess Rand was known as a psychologist-philosopher, in
the light of such psychologistic terms she used such as "subconscious
sense-of-life," and including "pride" as a virtue (which doesn't even
make sense any way), along with self-esteem as a value, both
psychological terms. From your own rules, Objectivist discussion
should be banned from this forum.
Your reference to censoring aesthetics is more puzzling and needs some
explanation. However, it is not the case that Rand considered
aesthetics to be purely personal and subjective.
>Some of the so-called Objectivists, who may know something about the
>philosophy, may also be juveniles with regard to the practice of proper
>discussions, and they sometimes use more emotional epithets than correct
>logic.
So what's your excuse?
>In summary, you may think that you are dealing with a lot of consistent
>Objectivists, however, that isn't the case.
>
>Subscribe to the Harry Binswanger List [HBL], or to the Objectivist
>Study Group [OSG], TEWLIP [for advanced physics], and a number of others
>for relatively disruption-free mostly moderated discussions. The
>discussions deal with philosophical topics in far greater depth and
>perceptivity than is found on HPO.
And they are often so overly-moderated that hardly any posts get
through to the forum.
>Concerning the bickering on HPO, I find that the people that I want to
>hear from are not interested in what I have to say that much.
You don't have anything to say of interest, just long, rambling,
self-contradicting posts beginning with Re:.
>Additionally, the people who are totally antithetical to my ideas, e.g.,
>the Platonists, probably have me blocked more often than not. I am
>disappointed on both counts. If that is their best, I don't need them
>either. As a result I tend to write for myself more than to a specific
>person.
And yet Rand used Platonism, not as an ontology, but as a methodology.
Go figure.
>Good luck and practice a cool maturity of thought for your own sanity
>and enjoyment. Discourse without bad words and insults makes possible
>new ideas.
Do a google search in this group on the terms "Hertle" and "liar." You
are the one doing most of the insulting, Hertle.
---------------
"I want you to know that this will go down on your permanent record!"
"Oh yeahhhh? Well don't get so distressed. Did I happen to mention
that I am impressed?"
Violent Femmes
Acar
> Bert Clanton:
>
> I see some of what you say, and judging from the tone of your writing I
> see that it may be possible that you are disappointed in many of the
> posts and their writers on HPO.
I am too.
> On that point I would agree.
>
> What is an Objectivist?
Good question. I notice that you didn't answer.
> I've been involved with Objectivism since 1961 when I started reading
> Ayn Rand's books and taking courses in New York City at the Nathaniel
> Branden Institute. I know only a two Objectivists from that time who
> post on HPO, and these are Betsy Spiecher and Fred Weiss. My other
> friends happily avoid the insults, and they stay away from HPO.
>
> The Objectivists who write on HP0 are few in number. There are others,
> and I haven't followed their writings to realize who they are. There may
> be three or four that are more or less consistently knowledgeable
> regarding Objectivism, and that think for themselves.
>
> There are five times that number who are antagonistic to Objectivism,
> who may be advocates of philosophies, such as Platonism, Kant, Post
> Modernism, Surrealism, Nihilism, Subjectivism, or even some religions.
>
> When you discuss ideas with persons, for example, Malenor, Cathcart,
> Helen, Kolker, Acar, and some others, you are dealing with serious
> antagonists of Objectivism.
As I understand it this group was organized by Objectivists for the purpose
of having serious discussions about Objectivism. Dealing with challenges to
Objectivism was a legitimate component of the original intention. What
happened was that in response to the frequent challenges, the exponents of
Objectivism have chosen to drop out, allegedly exhausted by having to deal
with "irrationality" rather than their preferred practice of looking deeper
into the teachings of Objectivism. The challengers however do not appear to
be persuaded by what Objectivists consider to be obvious arguments, so they
hang around hoping for opportunities to measure their arguments against the
opposition one more time. I continue to be ready and willing to test out the
validity of my arguments.
> Some of those writers have as their purpose the destruction of
> Objectivism. That is dishonest.
I do not consider myself capable of destroying Objectivism, nor do I think
that the combined talents of all the challengers here can realistically
expect to achieve that objective. About Objectivism I can paraphrase what
was (wrongly) said about the Saddam regime: If it dies it can only die from
within. BUT if that were indeed the purpose, why would it be dishonest?.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
> Discourse without bad words and insults makes possible
> new ideas.
That is not true. Your calling me a liar does not keep me from having new
ideas.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Helen
03...@verizon.net>...
> Some of those writers have as their purpose the destruction of
> Objectivism. That is dishonest.
Why would that be dishonest? In any case, at least for me, that silly
little fringe-ideology of yours never even reaches a level of
significance where I would be particularly interested in its fate.
Believe it or not.
> You say that you try to find the logical contradictions in Objectivist
> ideas. That is honest, and the best tools of logic should be used to
> that end. We Objectivists pry at every syllogistic gap, and test every
> inductive derivation.
[Laughing...] That's a good one...
> Concerning the bickering on HPO, I find that the people that I want to
> hear from are not interested in what I have to say that much.
You got that oen right. Just about *nobody* is interested in the
streams of confused gibberish you are prone to posting.
> Additionally, the people who are totally antithetical to my ideas, e.g.,
> the Platonists, probably have me blocked more often than not. I am
> disappointed on both counts. If that is their best, I don't need them
> either. As a result I tend to write for myself more than to a specific
> person.
I hope we can read that as a promise to stop your silly spamming of
this group with your nonsense.
Best -- Helen.
Acar
> upon "facts and reason" and still claim to have "facts and reason" on
> your side.
Your logical problems continue. Assuming the conclusion is a logical no-no.
When both claim to have "facts and reason" on their side you try to resolve
the issue by addressing specific arguments; not by arguing that facts and
reason are on your side.
> Some people want to have "facts and reason" and eat them
> too. If you have some real criticism, let's hear it.
The only criticism that I hear from you is that facts and reason are on your
side. Actually they are on my side. :-))
> Did you say you were a Kantian, or was that someone else ?
Whether it's me or someone else answers nothing. Kantians feel very strongly
that facts and reason are on their side. They put down arguments. You need
to claim adequate understanding of those arguments before you lay down your
counter-arguments.
> I'm going to have to stop visiting so many discussion groups.
Chris Cathcart
> When you discuss ideas with persons, for example, [...] Cathcart,
> [...] you are dealing with serious antagonists of Objectivism.
I'm interested to know on what basis you've concluded that I am a
"serious antagonist" of Objectivism.
Ralph Hertle
I surmise from numerous posts that you have made over the months that
you are opposed to the fundamental tenets of Objectivism, and that you
probably also have a low self esteem problem.
The extreme sensitivity of the anti-Objectivist crowd on HPO to any
constructive criticism is one of the major symptoms. Also, there is the
tendency to view any constructive criticism as destructive criticism,
and to view same as a threat to one's evaluation of one's self in a
relationship to reality. The viscious back-talk that results from a
simple identification of a fact or a helpful suggestion is often
disproportionate in its irrational vehemency to the initial comment.
The more activist types among the anti-Objectivists on HPO have a
remarkably similar type of defensive reaction and counter-accusatory
style. They may also have the same type of problem.
Ralph Hertle
Acar
no-no.
>
> on six, then you would not assume logically, as I would, that the dice
> was loaded, but you would insist instead that "Assuming a conclusion
> is a logical no-no." and still give equal weight to the possibility of
> the million-and-first throw being different to six.
>
> I am not the one with the "logical problem", Acar.
When the conclusion is based on experiment, it has not been assumed.
"Assuming the conclusion" means that in a syllogism, a premise already
assumes the conclusion. It means assuming that the dice is loaded before you
throw them. I'm here to help.
..
..
..
Chris Cathcart
09...@verizon.net>...
> Chris Cathcart:
> > I'm interested to know on what basis you've concluded that I am a
> > "serious antagonist" of Objectivism.
>
> I surmise from numerous posts that you have made over the months that
> you are opposed to the fundamental tenets of Objectivism, [...]
Well, you're just re-stating the claim that I was responding to. So,
you surmise this claim on the basis of . . .
[rest mercifully snipped]
Michael Bernstein
03...@verizon.net>...
>
> I've been involved with Objectivism since 1961 when I started reading
> B****** Institute.
The individual named above engaged in acts of gross immorality towards
Miss Rand and must be regarded as a dangerous enemy of Objectivism, as
must any person associating with him, reading his works, or mentioning
his name in public. So Ayn Rand has written. So let it be done.
> The Objectivists who write on HP0 are few in number. There are others,
> and I haven't followed their writings to realize who they are. There may
> be three or four that are more or less consistently knowledgeable
> regarding Objectivism, and that think for themselves.
>
Yes. Thank you very much.
> There are five times that number who are antagonistic to Objectivism,
> who may be advocates of philosophies, such as Platonism, Kant, Post
> Modernism, Surrealism, Nihilism, Subjectivism, or even some religions.
>
They must be destroyed.
> When you discuss ideas with persons, for example, Malenor, Cathcart,
> Helen, Kolker, Acar, and some others, you are dealing with serious
> antagonists of Objectivism.
>
> Some of those writers have as their purpose the destruction of
> Objectivism. That is dishonest.
>
Objectivism is the only hope for Rational Man's Survival on Earth. If
Rational Man is to have a Future, then the philosophies that seek his
undoing must be flushed down the memory hole.
> In summary, you may think that you are dealing with a lot of consistent
> Objectivists, however, that isn't the case.
>
No, and you are a prime example.
> Concerning the bickering on HPO, I find that the people that I want to
> hear from are not interested in what I have to say that much.
Surprise, surprise!
_____________
Michael Bernstein, M.A. candidate in philosophy, recently read the
complete works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM and also recently attended a
campus seminar sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute.
____
___
__
_
__
___
____
tom neville
> and enjoyment. Discourse without bad words and insults makes possible
> new ideas.
Honestly though Ralph, could it not be that Ayn rand's notions,
as expressed by you and other disciples, along with the agression
she espouses could be the real reason for your rejection by HPO?
My experience is that most "bad words and insults" are a trait of
Objectivists.
Farewell.
Tom-N
Tom S.
> > Objectivists.
>
And he probably thinks anyone who calls himself an "Objectivist" really is
one.
Tom
--
"Stroke of the pen; law of the land. Pretty cool, huh?" Klintoon Aide Paul
Begala
tom neville
st.net>...
> "J. Hall" <jif...@supanet.com> wrote in message
> news:291db02.03050...@posting.google.com...
> > > My experience is that most "bad words and insults" are a trait of
> > > Objectivists.
> >
> > You haven't read many posts lately, have you ?
>
> And he probably thinks anyone who calls himself an "Objectivist" really is
> one.
Talking to the "third person" is another objectivist trait used by
R.lawrence and F.Weiss. Are they Objectivists?
Question:
What is the difference between an objectivist and a normal person?
Answer:
An objectivist will tell everybody else about you.
A normal person will not only tell YOU that your stupid,
but will spend an hour telling you why!
Cant spend the time at the moment! :-D
Fred Gibson, Architect
05081428...@posting.google.com>...
> Ralph Hertle <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3EB8A3D4.307
> 03...@verizon.net>...
> > What is an Objectivist?
> >
> > I've been involved with Objectivism since 1961 when I started reading
> > Ayn Rand's books and taking courses in New York City at the N********
> > B****** Institute.
>
> The individual named above engaged in acts of gross immorality towards
> Miss Rand and must be regarded as a dangerous enemy of Objectivism, as
> must any person associating with him, reading his works, or mentioning
> his name in public. So Ayn Rand has written. So let it be done.
Michael, I read the above paragraph and my first response was laugher.
Why? Well, because your expression sounded like something I heard as
a child in a Catholic church - so don't take offense.
I am certainly no fan of Nathaniel Brandon for which I have a host of
my own reasons, but the idea that you would dismiss out of hand and
evade the reality of a person because someone else said so does not
sound very "Objectivist" to me. How is your approach in the above
statement not a pure example of second-handedness similar to the
fictional Peter Keating?
> Objectivism is the only hope for Rational Man's Survival on Earth. If
> Rational Man is to have a Future, then the philosophies that seek his
> undoing must be flushed down the memory hole.
To be rational, you first have to think for *yourself*. The moment
you substitute someone else's conclusions and ideas for your own, your
chance of success in the world is quite limited, and being rational
will never be possible. Induction is the key - no one else can do
that for you.
Fred Gibson, Architect
Fred...@gibson-design.com Architecture Designed With
Integrity
===========================-------------------------------||||||||||||||
Frederick Clifford Gibson Architect & Associates
679 Harrison Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
415.227.1684 |tel| 415.227.1685 |fax|
ul. Micinskiego 8
91-160 Lodz, Poland
48.42.656.0752 |tel/fax|
(c)2003 http://www.gibson-design.com
Ralph Hertle
You seem to have made a most interesting discovery regarding induction.
It is true that induction is an individual matter.
Please permit some rambling thoughts on the matter:
When deduction is substituted for induction intellectual progress stops.
New concepts of art and design, scientific discoveries, and inventions
no longer come into existence.
Totalitarian countries and companies are noted for their adaptations of
the products of free countries or minds. They are always catching up.
The PRC is a good example. Others, e.g., politicians or religionists can
require deduction by others in the application or execution of ideas,
however, induction can never be forced. The very principle of induction
is anti-totalitarian and anti-mystical. Induction will likely be found
in the places, e.g., countries or companies, that have the highest
quality of protected liberty, I suspect. In places such as Nazi Germany
many creative people were given circumscribed protections, which may
explain some of their many product and weapons innovations, however,
induction was banned in the social arena where deduction was mandated.
In architecture Philip Johnson was Mr. Me-Too in his adaptations of the
designs, esthetic principles, and engineering construction theories of
Mies van der Rohe. It is said that Johnson designed more buildings in
Mies's style than Mies did in his entire career. Johnson was a
specialist in the use of other people's designs and styles, notably
Mies's. Johnson had no original styles or designs of his own. Why? He
failed to use induction. The consequence was that he had to use
deduction, and he was limited to the application of other's ideas to his
own projects. It is no surprise that he endorsed Post Modernism which
denies universals and induction, and also De-Construction. He applied
those philosophies to his firm's own highly successful public relations
program. On the esthetics and design application front his lackies
refined the designs, however, some really bad architectural and
engineering development work took place when the Johnson Post Modernism
bandwagon got going.
I wonder if the closed nature of Objectivism has limited the
advancements possible to the philosophy (in the extended sense of
meaning that Objectivism is also a philosophical movement that involves
many persons) to applications, and, hence, to deduction. Except, of
course, where the re-validation of principles using induction is
involved. I happen to agree with the definition of the term, "closed,"
in the principled scientific sense, and not in the social sense, which
is the erroneous meaning that is too popular in some Objectivist
circles. "Closed" in the scientific sense means evidence-based,
well-defined, and causal, and it is not at all a social prescription.
I think that you have something there regarding the individual nature of
induction. Please say some more about that.
Ralph Hertle
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Fred wrote:
[ text omitted ]
bobk...@attbi.com
> Helen, Kolker, Acar, and some others, you are dealing with serious
> antagonists of Objectivism.
I dig Ayn Rand. I dig the truth even more.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
Don't you also dig Kant?
Ralph Hertle
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
> Fred:
>
> You seem to have made a most interesting discovery regarding induction.
>
> It is true that induction is an individual matter.
Since all thinking is an individual process, an identification made by
others long ago and discussed by Rand very well, I don't think I can take
any credit for pointing this out.
> Please permit some rambling thoughts on the matter:
>
> When deduction is substituted for induction intellectual progress stops.
> New concepts of art and design, scientific discoveries, and inventions
> no longer come into existence.
Both deduction and induction involve the creation of new knowledge *if* both
are done correctly. With induction, however, entirely new and original
identifications and integrations can be made. With induction you are "on
your own" in the sense that it is just the individual observing and
thinking about reality directly in creating new knowledge vs. the individual
working from other people's inductions. Also, with deduction, if the
information from which the deduction is made is false, so is the resulting
deduction.
In Architecture school, long before I had even heard of Rand, I made a
focused conscious effort of removing all pre-conceptions from my design. It
was a very difficult process, but one I am so glad I went through back then.
In basing my designs on the context of each individual project, I am in the
fortunate position of inducing new identifications in my work on a daily
basis. Also, my work on definitions lead me to realize that to properly
define, you have to induce the cause of the definition. There is a reason
why work in epistemology has completely stopped among the more famous
Objectivists. To get past the _Introduction_ to Epistemolgy, you have to
use induction. Trying to deduce from what Rand said to make new discoveries
dosen't work.
> Totalitarian countries and companies are noted for their adaptations of
> the products of free countries or minds. They are always catching up.
> The PRC is a good example. Others, e.g., politicians or religionists can
> require deduction by others in the application or execution of ideas,
> however, induction can never be forced. The very principle of induction
> is anti-totalitarian and anti-mystical. Induction will likely be found
> in the places, e.g., countries or companies, that have the highest
> quality of protected liberty, I suspect. In places such as Nazi Germany
> many creative people were given circumscribed protections, which may
> explain some of their many product and weapons innovations, however,
> induction was banned in the social arena where deduction was mandated.
Well, I don't think deduction can be forced either. Deduction is
dramatically easier than induction, though, so it may be valid to claim that
a more free environment is required for induction.
> In architecture Philip Johnson was Mr. Me-Too in his adaptations of the
> designs, esthetic principles, and engineering construction theories of
> Mies van der Rohe. It is said that Johnson designed more buildings in
> Mies's style than Mies did in his entire career. Johnson was a
> specialist in the use of other people's designs and styles, notably
> Mies's. Johnson had no original styles or designs of his own. Why? He
> failed to use induction. The consequence was that he had to use
> deduction, and he was limited to the application of other's ideas to his
> own projects. It is no surprise that he endorsed Post Modernism which
> denies universals and induction, and also De-Construction. He applied
> those philosophies to his firm's own highly successful public relations
> program. On the esthetics and design application front his lackies
> refined the designs, however, some really bad architectural and
> engineering development work took place when the Johnson Post Modernism
> bandwagon got going.
I think you underestimate Johnson. Mies was just his first manifestation -
he copied many other famous architects as well with just as much
throroughness. Again, it is a lot easier to use other peoples ideas
(deduction) than to make new ideas for yourself.
> I wonder if the closed nature of Objectivism has limited the
> advancements possible to the philosophy (in the extended sense of
> meaning that Objectivism is also a philosophical movement that involves
> many persons) to applications, and, hence, to deduction. Except, of
> course, where the re-validation of principles using induction is
> involved. I happen to agree with the definition of the term, "closed,"
> in the principled scientific sense, and not in the social sense, which
> is the erroneous meaning that is too popular in some Objectivist
> circles. "Closed" in the scientific sense means evidence-based,
> well-defined, and causal, and it is not at all a social prescription.
What "Objectivism" is exactly is a contentious issue. I believe that to
hold a fully integrated philosophy individually, that you have to ultimately
form it entirely from your own observation, experience and thinking.
Reading everything Rand wrote does not an integrated personal philosphy
make. The idea that a person is an "Objectivist" because they can quote the
many conclusions of Rand is quite silly. Michael Bernstein seems to be a
good current example of this approach. Based on what I've heard Nathaniel
Brandon say, especially in his dangers of Objectivism tape and a book or two
of his, he is a classic example of someone with a very good memory who tried
to take someone elses ideas and "use" them as his own philosophy without
doing all of the individual work necessary to reach those conclusions
himself. The result of that approach is not very pleasant.
My best,
Fred Gibson, Architect
Fred...@gibson-design.com Architecture Designed With Integrity
===========================-----------------------------------||||||||||||||
Ralph Hertle
Thanks for your thoughts. I will need to re-read what you say, and at
first glance, you have outlined in some interesting observations
regarding induction.
I am not surprised that the anti-Objectivists haven't come up with an
immediate reply. Not knowing what to think next, they were probably stunned.
Ralph Hertle
..........................
Frederick C. Gibson wrote:
[ text omitted ]
> Both deduction and induction involve the creation of new knowledge *if* both
> are done correctly. With induction, however, entirely new and original
> identifications and integrations can be made. . . . . .
[ text omitted ]
harkyl
0...@verizon.net>...
> Fred :
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I will need to re-read what you say, and at
> first glance, you have outlined in some interesting observations
> regarding induction.
>
> Frederick C. Gibson wrote:
>
> [ text omitted ]
>
> > Both deduction and induction involve the creation of new knowledge *if*
> > both
> > are done correctly. With induction, however, entirely new and original
> > identifications and integrations can be made. . . . . .
>
> [ text omitted ]
Here is something else to chew on--from Popper's "Objective Knowledge"
Common sense induction:
How can expectation and beliefs have arisen? (Cs)
We do have expectations and strongly believe in some regularities
(laws of nature). Beliefs are justified by those repeated observations
that are responsible for its genesis. (Sure, maybe for cavemen).
Humes logical inductive principle:
Are we justified in reasoning from (repeated) instances of which we
have experience to other instances (conclusions) of which we have no
experience? No (HL)
Humes psychological induction:
Why nevertheless do all reasonable people expect and believe that
instances of which they have no exp will conform to those of which
they have experienced? Habit (HP)
Popper restates (HL) in an objective or logical mode of speech by
replacing 'instances of which we have experience' by 'test statements'
(singular statements describing observable events), and 'instances of
which we have no experience' by 'explanatory universal theories':
Can the claim that an explanatory universal theory is true be
justified by 'empirical reasons', that is by assuming the truth of
certain test statements or observation statements? (PL1) The answer
is still no at this point.
Popper replaces 'is true' by words 'is true or false':
Can the claim that an explanatory universal theory is true or that it
is false be justified by 'empirical reasons', that is, can the
assumption of the truth of test statements justify either the claim
that a universal theory is true or the claim that it is false? Yes
(PL2).
Popper salvages reason for the time being. I have read somewhere that
Quine had something contrary to say about Poppers reformulation but do
not know of it at this time.
Kyle
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
"harkyl" <khar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a678be79.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
> Popper replaces 'is true' by words 'is true or false':
> Can the claim that an explanatory universal theory is true or that it
> is false be justified by 'empirical reasons', that is, can the
> assumption of the truth of test statements justify either the claim
> that a universal theory is true or the claim that it is false? Yes
> (PL2).
>
> Popper salvages reason for the time being. I have read somewhere that
> Quine had something contrary to say about Poppers reformulation but do
> not know of it at this time.
>
Actually, that sounds like an attempt to replace induction with
generalization. Generalization cannot give us scientific knowledge as the
cause of the generalization is not considered, only patterns of recurrence
are looked at. I would say that Popper is undermining induction rather
than salvaging reason as you suggest.
--
harkyl
ws:<eGSxa.1546$Us5.14...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> "harkyl" <khar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a678be79.03051...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Popper replaces 'is true' by words 'is true or false':
> > Can the claim that an explanatory universal theory is true or that it
> > is false be justified by 'empirical reasons', that is, can the
> > assumption of the truth of test statements justify either the claim
> > that a universal theory is true or the claim that it is false? Yes
> > (PL2).
> >
> > Popper salvages reason for the time being. I have read somewhere that
> > Quine had something contrary to say about Poppers reformulation but do
> > not know of it at this time.
> >
>
> Actually, that sounds like an attempt to replace induction with
> generalization.
He replaces Humes logical formulation with a more objective form of
speech. I find it actually more scientific, more of a framework of
how it is that science and knowledge builds upon itself (test
statements can corroborate or refute general statements).
>Generalization cannot give us scientific knowledge if the
> cause of the generalization is not considered, only patterns of recurrence
> are looked at.
William Harvey first conjectured about blood circulation. No one had
seen (repeatedly) circulation before. He noted in animals that when an
artery is cut, the blood left in a pulsatile fashion. So it was
generalized that there was some sort of blood flow going on but the
details had yet been verified. Harvey then questioned how it was that
the blood flowed in the body. He conducted a simple test on the
venous side of the circulation. He occluded distal venous flow and
physically pushed the blood through the veins toward the upper
extremity (toward the heart) When he released distal pressure, the
vein again became full. Harvey posited that veins acted as one way
valves because he noted this much experimentally. The details of
blood flow were ironed out by experimental data. Generalization does
not give us the gritty details, testing does.
There is a great deal more to science than repetition. Take chaos
theory (fractals, assymetrical crystals formation, clouds, fluid
flow): these entities lack repetetive patterns of recurrence. Would
a Humean say then, it is the commonality of their lack of pattern that
causes their repeated pattern observation?
>I would say that Popper is undermining induction rather
> than salvaging reason as you suggest.
I am suggesting he reformulates it into a much more objective and
scientific explanation. Indeed, I think he does undermine Hume's
formulation and in doing so salvages reason.
Kyle
Gordon Sollars
@hotmail.com says...
> William Harvey first conjectured about blood circulation. No one had
> seen (repeatedly) circulation before[...]Generalization does
> not give us the gritty details, testing does.
>
> There is a great deal more to science than repetition.
Good example. As I remarked here recently, the notion that science
begins with generalizations from sets of instances is highly overrated.
For instance, what James and Betsy call "induction" is the conjecturing
of an explanation which, if true, would account for what is observed.
This need not involve any set of instances beyond one.
Science begins with a problem, puzzle, dashed expectation, etc. IOW, it
begins not with observations to be generalized into a theory, but with a
broken theory that needs to be replaced.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@pobox.com
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
> "Frederick C. Gibson, Architect" <gibs...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
ne
> ws:<eGSxa.1546$Us5.14...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "harkyl" <khar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a678be79.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Popper replaces 'is true' by words 'is true or false':
> > > Can the claim that an explanatory universal theory is true or that it
> > > is false be justified by 'empirical reasons', that is, can the
> > > assumption of the truth of test statements justify either the claim
> > > that a universal theory is true or the claim that it is false? Yes
> > > (PL2).
> > >
> > > Popper salvages reason for the time being. I have read somewhere that
> > > Quine had something contrary to say about Poppers reformulation but do
> > > not know of it at this time.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, that sounds like an attempt to replace induction with
> > generalization.
>
> He replaces Humes logical formulation with a more objective form of
> speech. I find it actually more scientific, more of a framework of
> how it is that science and knowledge builds upon itself (test
> statements can corroborate or refute general statements).
Does Popper talk about facts at all, or just "test statements". How could
"test statements" prove anything? Why would you assume a test statement is
true? How could an assumption prove anything? Is Popper redefining an
empirical approach to one that focuses on statements (consciousness) rather
than reality? This quote sounds like a disaster for reason rather than
helpful. (Of course, it is out of context, but I'm not sure I'm all that
interested in the missing context given the summary you've offered.)
Here are two other ideas: 1. Lets blow up Iran. 2. Lets blow up Tehran.
Now, #2 is better than #1, but I find both of them beyond bad. Yes, its
true these quotes have nothing to do with the topic, but they point out how
useless a standard of "being better than some other idea" really is.
Here is a very old and world altering quote on the product of induction:
"We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a
thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist
knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as
the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could
not be other than it is." Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Book 1, Chapter
2
Why settle for less?
Michael Bernstein
<d60e52c5.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> Michael Bernstein <objec...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<b5511a6c.03
> 05081428...@posting.google.com>...
> > Ralph Hertle <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3EB8A3D4.307
> > 03...@verizon.net>...
> > > What is an Objectivist?
> > >
> > > I've been involved with Objectivism since 1961 when I started reading
> > > Ayn Rand's books and taking courses in New York City at the N********
> > > B****** Institute.
> >
> > The individual named above engaged in acts of gross immorality towards
> > Miss Rand and must be regarded as a dangerous enemy of Objectivism, as
> > must any person associating with him, reading his works, or mentioning
> > his name in public. So Ayn Rand has written. So let it be done.
>
> Michael, I read the above paragraph and my first response was laugher.
> Why? Well, because your expression sounded like something I heard as
> a child in a Catholic church - so don't take offense.
>
Bah. I doubt very seriously that a Catholic church would be dicussing
a policy issued by Ayn Rand.
> I am certainly no fan of N******** B****** for which I have a host of
> my own reasons, but the idea that you would dismiss out of hand and
> evade the reality of a person because someone else said so does not
> sound very "Objectivist" to me.
Giving the sanction of the victim to a notorious enemy of Objectvism
can never be a moral act. I choose to believe Miss Rand's version of
the conflict because she has never been proven wrong in the past.
> How is your approach in the above
> statement not a pure example of second-handedness similar to the
> fictional Peter Keating?
>
If Howard Roark said to Dominique, "Wynand has betrayed me," should
Dominique's response be, "Why should I believe you? It's only your
word against his"?
> > Objectivism is the only hope for Rational Man's Survival on Earth. If
> > Rational Man is to have a Future, then the philosophies that seek his
> > undoing must be flushed down the memory hole.
>
> To be rational, you first have to think for *yourself*.
It is because I think for myself that I am able to recognize Ayn Rand
as the world's greatest philosopher, and see that N******** B******
was nothing more than an insincere, opportunistic hanger-on.
> The moment
> you substitute someone else's conclusions and ideas for your own, your
> chance of success in the world is quite limited, and being rational
> will never be possible. Induction is the key - no one else can do
> that for you.
>
The moment one begins engaging in commerce with those who seek the
destruction of the only set of ideas that makes Rational Man's
Survival on Earth possible, one begins digging one's own grave. A is
A. Existence Exists. The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is Civilization's
Last Hope. Those Who Would Destroy Ayn Rand Are the Enemies of
Mankind.
harkyl
A disaster of reason already occurred when Hume concluded the
following: 'we cannot deduce things of which we have no experience
from things of which we have had repeated experience'. This coupled
by the principle of transference to his psychological induction
saying: 'we continue to due so because of our wiring using custom and
habit'. This conclusion is irrational.
Popper says that test statements are used to corroborate or refute
theories. Theories are the best we have (closest approximation to the
truth) but not necessarily true. We may reasonably conclude from a
counterinstance the falsity of the corresponding law and go on from
there---So basically true until proven otherwise by falsification from
test statements. Repetition is an illusion due to your psychological
reliance on habit.
> Here are two other ideas: 1. Lets blow up Iran. 2. Lets blow up Tehran.
> Now, #2 is better than #1, but I find both of them beyond bad. Yes, its
> true these quotes have nothing to do with the topic, but they point out how
> useless a standard of "being better than some other idea" really is.
I am not certain how inductive reasoning or Popper's solution would
apply to what you have written. Your scenario looks to be an moral
dilema and not science. I thought we were talking about standards of
science and knowledge progression.
If we are talking science, a better *theory* would be our choice. GTR
and STR account for particular states of affairs more accurately than
Newton's celestial mechanics. Thus we use GTR since is is *better*
for our purposes. If repeated observation was all that was necessary
for success of a theory, than orders of magnitude of bandwith at HPO
would not be used debating it (Newton and Einstein). Although I
believe Newton's theories was true in its context (and /certain/
conclusions can be made from his contribution to knowledge) GTR has
superseded Newton's work as being more precise for many applications.
As an aside, to be clear Popper doesnt believe in something being
'true in its context'.
Kyle
Gordon Sollars
gibs...@pacbell.net says...
> Does Popper talk about facts at all, or just "test statements".
A "test statement" is a description of a fact.
> How could
> "test statements" prove anything?
If you have a theory that, e.g., "All the marbles in this bag are
white", the observation of a black marble from the bag (as described by
a "test statement") would show that the theory is false.
> Why would you assume a test statement is
> true?
Many reasons, e.g., because you made the observation or you trust the
person who did.
....
> Here is a very old and world altering quote on the product of induction:
>
> "We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a
> thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist
> knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as
> the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could
> not be other than it is." Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Book 1, Chapter
> 2
Perhaps you can help me by explaining why you think the quote you
provided has anything to do with "induction". It seems to be a common
view here, but I have no idea why.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@pobox.com