Ayn Rand's Crude Epistemology
Pistol
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 06:34:01 GMT, tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom
Asquith) wrote:
>On 26 Apr 1998 13:21:52 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>
>>In article
>><4F609CE62C6A6692.D8B642BB...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
>>, lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net says...
>
>>Rand's philosophy is bunk -- few if any real philosophers take her seriously
Fallacy of apeal to authority.
>>because she to be as blunt as possible,
Irrelevant.
>>simply builds a rationalization for
>>her own particular beliefs.
Baseless asertion.
>>It's based on a tautology and has no support.
Blatant contradiction.
>>Its pull on a few folk (usually young males who reject it when they reach 35)
Baseless assertion.
>>is emotional, since she does strike an emotional chord in urging
>>self-reliance.
Non sequitor.
>>Indeed, that inspirational aspect of her writing is a positive
>>factor. But as a philosopher, she is minor league at best.
Baseless assertion.
>>And her "believers" tend to act like cultists it seems.
Now THAT is true, but only of some. And the same can be said for some
Republicans and some Democrats, as well as some Christians and Elk
Lodgers.
>I think you are correct here, Scott, on a number of your points.
No, only on the last one, and then only partially. But what can you
expect from someone who criticizes something he's never read?
But enough of the preliminaries, let's get to something worth
discussing.
>First, her objectivism is tautological (but then again, so is Marx in some
>places--call it the curse of adapting master-servant dialectics to the real
>world.
What would you have her begin with? An arbitrary assertion?
>It is amusing though that she backed herself into the same corner--by
>trying to avoid Hegel. This is perhaps because (and if you've read her "For the
>New Intellectual" you'd know this) she didn't really understand the Prussian
>philosopher in the first place. But I digress.).
I'll say. Vague ramblings such as this serve little purpose, except
perhaps to make the speaker feel smug.
>Second, she is a minor league philosopher
This is, apparently, the title given to anyone who skips all that
useless bullshit ("do I exist?", "Is there a reality?") that
philosophers wasted hundreds of years on and got to the stuff a person
could actually use.
>-still, you do find she creeps into
>college classrooms via the English department.
Is there any relevance to any of this? Patiently, I wade on.
>Third, it is emotional
A gratuitous assertion, and nothing more.
>--in fact,
>it was the stuff that kept a number of the soldiers in a couple of wars contented
>enough to shoot the odd "gook" (think of it as being akin to the rather weak stuff
>that was fed to the Bolsheviks during the Revolution and the Second World War--it's
>roughly of the same ilk). It helped good old American boys fight off the nasty
>commies. Unfortunately, it is emotional stuff without morality (as Nathaniel
>Branden, former disciple as pointed out). At least Marx had a moral side.
Uh... whatever. You've written a great number of words, and made
exactly zero arguments.
>Third, it does work best as a religion...for realistically speaking, it
>is no more than irrationalism disguised in rationalist clothes. And it was
>poorly done at that.
(sigh) More baseless assertions. Didn't it occur to you that some of
us might have been bored to tears by this? You sound like an
intelligent guy - surely you are capable of better.
>[Basically her technique was to establish the simple
>objectivist statement
In other words, she recognized basic truths about reality...
>-sidestepping the problems posed by Berkeley,
>Hume and Descartes
...without wasting a lot of valuable time on pseudointellectual
rantings. Berkeley and Descartes are refuted with a simple punch in
the nose. Upset? At what? There is no reality, remember? Mad?
Who's mad? You don't exist, remember?
If a theory cannot be held consistently, then it should be rejected,
not treated as great scholorship. Descartes and Berkely are akin to
the psychic who mysteriously never goes to Vegas to clean house, or
the gambler who claims he can accurately predict the winners of games,
but rather than wagering his own money, wants to get you to pay him
for his predictions. The minute Berkeley began to write his theories
down to share with others, he proved them false.
Now Hume, on the other hand, was brilliant, and made great
contributions to philosophy. His dismantling of the design theory for
God is still a thorn in theistic sides. His only mistake was getting
stuck trying to understand why the universe was consistent instead of
just recognizing that it was and moving on. Rand did, and therein
lies her value.
And yes, I'm a pretty unusual objectivist. I don't think Kant was the
antichrist either.
>--and then layer on systematically belief after
>belief...with very little to back up or found each successive step.]
Given the number of baseless assertions you've made here, I'd think
you'd be a fan of such a style. :)
But the bottom line is that unless you can construct and consistently
maintain an argument that does not make the assumptions Rand did, then
your objections, what little substance there is to them here, like so
much of what I've seen of Rand's critics, are just so much meaningless
chatter.
It is truly renarkable me how often someone stands up to criticize
Rand and says next to nothing. One would think that if her philosophy
were so flawed that someone would have devised a coherent refutation
of it. And the fact that this has been done with the likes of Josh
McDowell should be all the proof one needs to see that the lame excuse
of "she's not worth it" is just a dodge.
>>>> I interpret the causes of my perceptions as being outside my mind
>>>>because they have a certain independence from my thoughts -- although a
>>>>hallucination might have those properties also.
>>>
>>>Thank God your affliction can be safely vented on the net. I
>>>sincerely hope you get help.
>>
>>He's talking basic epistemology here. Perhaps you haven't read much in
>>philosophy of science and cognitive psychology. Oh well, your ignorance can
>>be safely vented on the net.
>>
>>You certainly didn't give any response to his post. Loren beat you on this
>>one hands down.
>
>Go easy on him, Scott. He's only a Randoid ("If it didn't come from
>Rand, it can't be true."
Well, let's hope you will find me more to your liking, since I
certainly don't fit that mode. She got the basics right, but
definitely fouled up some of the later theories (everything she has to
say about sex, and much of her commentary on music, for example)
However, I can hardly engage in debate with someone who doesn't make
an argument. And you should realize that such only makes those who
believe in her theories believe them all the more, since you look like
you have nothing substative to say against her.
>--she never did like free thinkers unless they
>agreed with her.
True. But the fact that a person is a bitch doesn't make her theories
wrong.
LQuest
Pistol -- thank you for your response to tasquith. It made my day.
--Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Erb
In article
<DC8D27E7855FFA13.0BEBDF8C...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net says...
>
>Pistol -- thank you for your response to tasquith. It made my day.
His response, however, was a number of baseless accusations and
philosophically naive statements.
My own view is one of philosophical pragmatism. The epistemological and
ontological issues involved make pure objectivism at best an article of faith
for those who want to believe it. It's as provable as is belief in a God,
and as unfalsifiable.
Where Rand fails is her attempt (or the attempt of her followers) to try to
turn a belief in "objectivism" to an ethical school of thought. That's when
it looks more like a religion, since you have to accept some basic unprovable
precepts about morality before you can go anywhere. That is why Rand's
"philosophy" is so disrespected. While argument from authority is certainly
not proof, it can be used as evidence that when experts think something is
wrong, there is a good chance it is.
However, I tell you what. Explain clearly exactly what you believe the
philosophy to be, starting with a few basic issues. I'll put aside any
ridicule of Rand's ideas, and deal with whatever you write in a fair,
friendly, and factual manner, hopefully avoiding flamewars. You'll have to
put aside dislike for me for insulting Rand's ideas in order to do that. If
we can do that, then we can follow reason and rationality to go through these
issues. It's up to you if you want to do that.
cheers, scott
http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/
LQuest
On Wed, 29 Apr 98 13:17:45 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
wrote:
>In article
><DC8D27E7855FFA13.0BEBDF8C...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>>, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net says...
>>
>>Pistol -- thank you for your response to tasquith. It made my day.
>
>His response, however, was a number of baseless accusations and
>philosophically naive statements.
>
>My own view is one of philosophical pragmatism. The epistemological and
>ontological issues involved make pure objectivism at best an article of faith
>for those who want to believe it. It's as provable as is belief in a God,
>and as unfalsifiable.
>
>Where Rand fails is her attempt (or the attempt of her followers) to try to
>turn a belief in "objectivism" to an ethical school of thought. That's when
>it looks more like a religion, since you have to accept some basic unprovable
>precepts about morality before you can go anywhere. That is why Rand's
>"philosophy" is so disrespected.
...among the very people she held responsible for the crime of
intellectual treason against the masses. Of course they disrespect
her -- their fragile little egos were hurt and they had no substantive
refutation to her principles other than various versions of "ain't
so". So far that's all you've offered.
>While argument from authority is certainly
>not proof, it can be used as evidence that when experts think something is
>wrong, there is a good chance it is.
Bull shit!
You see, dear fellow, it does not matter what you say. Until you can
PROVE that the tree falling in the forest is NOT a physically
identical phenomena regardless of the presence of any human witness,
then you are wasting your time. I assure you I DO exist. Reality IS
separate from human perception and when the tree falls in the forest
the event is identical even if no human is there to witness it.
Now go away son! I must press on with pursuing my highest moral
purpose: the achievement of MY OWN happiness at MY OWN expense using
MY OWN mind, hands and heart and without expecting anyone else to
sacrifice themselves for any part of my happiness. If you wish to do
the same, perhaps we can trade some value.
--Mike
Pistol
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:44:35 GMT, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest)
wrote:
>Pistol -- thank you for your response to tasquith. It made my day.
>
>--Mike
Tell you what - I'll play with Tom, you play with Erb. I just put on
a new set of debating clothes, and I don't feel like being dragged
into the mud.
Scott Erb
In article
<883B074A1A664CE1.794EBB12...@library-proxy.airnews.
net>, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net says...
>
>...among the very people she held responsible for the crime of
>intellectual treason against the masses. Of course they disrespect
>her -- their fragile little egos were hurt and they had no substantive
>refutation to her principles other than various versions of "ain't
>so". So far that's all you've offered.
You are simply making baseless assertions, much in the way religious folk
attack science and philosophy. Unless you offer something more, there is
no reason for any of us to take Randism seriously.
>You see, dear fellow, it does not matter what you say. Until you can
>PROVE that the tree falling in the forest is NOT a physically
>identical phenomena regardless of the presence of any human witness,
>then you are wasting your time.
You can prove neither that it is or it isn't.
> I assure you I DO exist. Reality IS
>separate from human perception and when the tree falls in the forest
>the event is identical even if no human is there to witness it.
That is a statement of belief. As a pragmatist I will work with it
because assuming it to be true is useful. However, what we're dealing
with here are issues of epistemology, and philosophy of science. There is
a lot written about that from various points of view, and you seem to be
sort of at the pre-philosophy state with your comments. Furthermore,
where Rand really goes off the wall is when she tries to turn this into an
ethical philosophy.
>Now go away son! I must press on with pursuing my highest moral
>purpose: the achievement of MY OWN happiness at MY OWN expense using
>MY OWN mind, hands and heart and without expecting anyone else to
>sacrifice themselves for any part of my happiness. If you wish to do
>the same, perhaps we can trade some value.
I'm simply interested in learning and having fun, and trying to figure out
truth as well as I can. For me, that means accepting limitations that
exist living in a world where all we sense is a limited band of
electromagnetic energy, turned into an image in our minds which we take to
be reality. We communicate, assuming others exist, to try to check and
see if our interpretations of reality "work" in the world (if we perceive
that they allow us to function to achieve our goals). I don't need a
religious belief that they must be true to get on with my life. You're
the one with the crutch.
cheers, scott
John Parker
>turn a belief in "objectivism" to an ethical school of thought. That's when
>it looks more like a religion, since you have to accept some basic unprovable
>precepts about morality before you can go anywhere. That is why Rand's
>wrong, there is a good chance it is.
So Erb has trouble accepting Rand's precepts about morality because
they are unprovable.. I'd like to see what kind of precepts about
morality Erb thinks are provable.
To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
confusion. Remove the E from my Email address.
-John Parker
LQuest
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:14:41 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Apr 98 13:17:45 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>wrote:
>
>>Where Rand fails is her attempt (or the attempt of her followers) to try to
>>turn a belief in "objectivism" to an ethical school of thought. That's when
>>it looks more like a religion, since you have to accept some basic unprovable
>>precepts about morality before you can go anywhere. That is why Rand's
>>"philosophy" is so disrespected. While argument from authority is certainly
>>not proof, it can be used as evidence that when experts think something is
>>wrong, there is a good chance it is.
>
>So Erb has trouble accepting Rand's precepts about morality because
>they are unprovable.. I'd like to see what kind of precepts about
>morality Erb thinks are provable.
He THINKS they are unprovable because he dare not think otherwise. To
do so would expose him to objective scrutiny. We can't have that can
we? :-) Actually, I am convinced that Objectivist morality is closer
to "provable" than ANY other moral cosmology. It is logically
bulletproof. I sounds arrogant to weak minded leftists but I thing
Ayn was absolutely correct when she asserted that anyone who insists
her system of morality is not valid is either stupid or dishonest.
The naked, un-euphemized truth often sounds arrogant to modern day
Americans who have been "dumbed down" by a the pop-cultural murder of
our language -- e.g. A is NOT equal to A if it's politically
incorrect for it to be so; Bill Clinton's military does not "kill the
enemy", they "service the target"!
--Mike
John Parker
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:19:56 GMT, lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net
(LQuest) wrote:
>
>He THINKS they are unprovable because he dare not think otherwise. To
>do so would expose him to objective scrutiny. We can't have that can
>we? :-) Actually, I am convinced that Objectivist morality is closer
>to "provable" than ANY other moral cosmology. It is logically
>bulletproof. I sounds arrogant to weak minded leftists but I thing
>Ayn was absolutely correct when she asserted that anyone who insists
>her system of morality is not valid is either stupid or dishonest.
>The naked, un-euphemized truth often sounds arrogant to modern day
>Americans who have been "dumbed down" by a the pop-cultural murder of
>our language -- e.g. A is NOT equal to A if it's politically
>incorrect for it to be so; Bill Clinton's military does not "kill the
>enemy", they "service the target"!
>
Yes, but Erb's philosophy goes beyond "A is NOT equal to A if it's
politically incorrect for it to be so," it goes all the way to "if it
is politically correct for A to equal B, it must be truth."
Dan Clore
LQuest wrote:
> You see, dear fellow, it does not matter what you say. Until you can
> PROVE that the tree falling in the forest is NOT a physically
> identical phenomena regardless of the presence of any human witness,
> then you are wasting your time. I assure you I DO exist. Reality IS
> separate from human perception and when the tree falls in the forest
> the event is identical even if no human is there to witness it.
I suggest you investigate quantum physics. Try to find out what
"Schroedinger's cat" refers to.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Danette & Murray Root
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:36:19 GMT, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote
in talk.politics.libertarian:
=> LQuest wrote:
=>
=> > You see, dear fellow, it does not matter what you say. Until you can
=> > PROVE that the tree falling in the forest is NOT a physically
=> > identical phenomena regardless of the presence of any human witness,
=> > then you are wasting your time. I assure you I DO exist. Reality IS
=> > separate from human perception and when the tree falls in the forest
=> > the event is identical even if no human is there to witness it.
=>
=> I suggest you investigate quantum physics. Try to find out what
=> "Schroedinger's cat" refers to.
It'll never sink in. Spent many an hour in student union trying to explain
that one. Decided some people just can't grasp it (or are afraid to - it can
lead to some unsettling insights).
__________________________________________________________________
Copyright 1998, Murray J. Root
I do not admit to saying, posting, or writing anything.
You may copy, reprint, repost, or otherwise disseminate
any of this information in any format you desire, as long
as you do not attempt to attach any blame to me.
__________________________________________________________________
Dan Clore
Danette & Murray Root wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:36:19 GMT, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote
> in talk.politics.libertarian:
> => I suggest you investigate quantum physics. Try to find out what
> => "Schroedinger's cat" refers to.
> It'll never sink in. Spent many an hour in student union trying to explain
> that one. Decided some people just can't grasp it (or are afraid to - it can
> lead to some unsettling insights).
Yeah, I know. But there's always a bunch of lurkers, some of whom might
benefit. One can only hope.
Charles Cawley
Danette & Murray Root wrote in message
<35482012...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:36:19 GMT, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>
wrote
>in talk.politics.libertarian:
>
>=> LQuest wrote:
>=>
>=> > You see, dear fellow, it does not matter what you say. Until you can
>=> > PROVE that the tree falling in the forest is NOT a physically
>=> > identical phenomena regardless of the presence of any human witness,
>=> > then you are wasting your time. I assure you I DO exist. Reality IS
>=> > separate from human perception and when the tree falls in the forest
>=> > the event is identical even if no human is there to witness it.
>=>
>=> I suggest you investigate quantum physics. Try to find out what
>=> "Schroedinger's cat" refers to.
>
>It'll never sink in. Spent many an hour in student union trying to explain
>that one. Decided some people just can't grasp it (or are afraid to - it
can
>lead to some unsettling insights).
This reminded me of some useless verse.
There was a young man who said God,
Must find it exceedingly odd,
That this tree continues to be,
When there is no one about in the Quod
Dear Sir, your astonishments odd.
I am about in the quod.
That is why that tree continues to be,
Since it is observed by yours faithfully, God
Bishop Berkeley.
Has Schroedingers cat got stuck up Berkleys tree??
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com.
How do I turn off this blue??
J. Sasha Stewart
Yep, I'm back from the dead....
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:15:07 GMT, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest)
wrote:
>>While argument from authority is certainly
>>not proof, it can be used as evidence that when experts think something is
>>wrong, there is a good chance it is.
>
>Bull shit!
Really? Do you recognize your own contradiction here?
Scott essentially makes the comment that although there are
exceptions, the opinions of the formally, specifically-educated, and
trained expert, are more likely to be correct than those of the
uneducated opinion.
You call that bullshit?
If you were truely thinking objectively, you would have no choice but
to agree with that assertion. It's obvious, logical, and most
probable. Your rebuttal is baseless, illogical, and quite frankly,
illustrates the notion that many Objectivists have turned their
beliefs into a religion. Shame, shame...
>You see, dear fellow, it does not matter what you say. Until you can
>PROVE that the tree falling in the forest is NOT a physically
>identical phenomena regardless of the presence of any human witness,
>then you are wasting your time. I assure you I DO exist. Reality IS
>separate from human perception and when the tree falls in the forest
>the event is identical even if no human is there to witness it.
Interesting example. Realize that a great deal of the "truths" we
cling to are not discovered through DIRECT human observation.
As far as the old "Do I EXIST?" question...of course you do. I've
never understood why people keep asking that stupid question over and
over again. Perhaps that is my own failing, yes?
But I pose this question to you: You exist in your world and to the
people who interact with you in one way or another.
But...do you exist in the mind of little Jean-Marie Doreau, who lives
in the South of France and has no contact to anyone outside the
village?
Does it matter? No? Exactly!
>Now go away son! I must press on with pursuing my highest moral
>purpose: the achievement of MY OWN happiness at MY OWN expense using
>MY OWN mind, hands and heart and without expecting anyone else to
>sacrifice themselves for any part of my happiness.
And if you reach this high point, I can almost guarantee you that
you'll be quite alone...isolated from the rest of the world.
This illustrates another flaw I've discovered in this philosophy.
Taking your comment above, how do you factor in offspring, marriage,
family, etc.? One of the defining traits of human beings is their
ability and tendency to sacrifice for others, through love, a sense
of duty, etc. Study other animals and you'll see that this
practically never happens.
If you make a basic assumption that reason is one of man's traits that
distinguishes him from other animals, you also have to take in other
distinguishing traits that, when combined, form a more complete
picture. If you say that reason is THE distinguishing trait, then you
are simply doing "subjective editing" . You can't simply take one
trait, ignoring the rest because they may be "inconvenient", then base
an entire philosphy on that one trait...AND THEN include morality.
There are some specific points made in Objectivist philosophy that
indeed make sense (which is what got me interested in it), but the
overall picture has just too many flaws, in my opinion, to merit any
real consideration.
JSS
J. Sasha Stewart
>we? :-) Actually, I am convinced that Objectivist morality is closer
>to "provable" than ANY other moral cosmology. It is logically
>bulletproof. I sounds arrogant to weak minded leftists but I thing
The nature of objectivity does indeed make "objective morality" closer
to being proven than others, but that is only if the followers are
thinking logically. But, I ask you, how can one objectively quantify
philosophy, psychology, and morality when all three of these things
change over time? We have yet to find a philosophy that is indeed
"bullet-proof", that can stand the test of time.
Except for, perhaps, the old philosphy "shit happens". :)
I do think that Objectivism is a good start, but there are way too
many things that need to be taken into account before it can become a
"heavyweight" contender.
>Ayn was absolutely correct when she asserted that anyone who insists
>her system of morality is not valid is either stupid or dishonest.
Are you really using that statement as an argument to prove a point?
LOL!
JSS
Scott D Erb
Check here for philosophical ideas contrary to objectivism.
I've only started this page, but will be building it over time. If anyone
has any reactions, let me know.
http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/antimaterialist.htm
Scott Erb
In article <3547bb9b....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com
says...
>So Erb has trouble accepting Rand's precepts about morality because
>they are unprovable.. I'd like to see what kind of precepts about
>morality Erb thinks are provable.
That's the point, John. Randians claim that their morality is objectively
true and can be proven so. I say that is impossible.
Scott Erb
In article
<44BE9F6E1034A92D.933204A0...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>He THINKS they are unprovable because he dare not think otherwise. To
On the contrary, I would welcome being able to be certain about a morality,
to be able to see it proven. Alas, I like most others who investigate Rand
with an open mind, have found her work sorely lacking. Her fiction isn't so
bad though, as long as one doesn't take it too seriously or try to turn it
into a secular religion.
>do so would expose him to objective scrutiny. We can't have that can
>we? :-) Actually, I am convinced that Objectivist morality is closer
>to "provable" than ANY other moral cosmology. It is logically
>bulletproof.
I disagree completely. Your assertion is baseless. It is only bulletproof
if you buy its assumptions and definitions, many if not most of which are
questionable.
> I sounds arrogant to weak minded leftists but I thing
Typical of someone promoting a pseudo-religion -- simply insult those who
disagree. In this case its most of the academic and philosophical community,
so you gotta accuse of them personally being afraid of this "true and
logically infallible" position. Yawn. Just another cult.
>Ayn was absolutely correct when she asserted that anyone who insists
>her system of morality is not valid is either stupid or dishonest.
(snicker) Typical of a cultist. Assert that only the true believers are
honest and intelligent, all who do not follow the way of the truth are stupid
or dishonest. You see it with Marxists (remember Guy Marsh awhile back),
Christian Fundies, Randians. Luckily, few people get suckered by that
pseudo-religion.
>The naked, un-euphemized truth often sounds arrogant to modern day
>Americans who have been "dumbed down" by a the pop-cultural murder of
>our language -- e.g. A is NOT equal to A if it's politically
>incorrect for it to be so; Bill Clinton's military does not "kill the
>enemy", they "service the target"!
Go on believing everyone else is dumb, its a grand conspiracy by the powers
that be, and you and a few of your elite cohorts know the truth...cults and
terrorists organizations all have such belief systems (for the tie to
terrorism see Cindy Coombs, "Terrorism in the 21st Century" and the belief
systems and psychology of terrorists. It's similar to cultists, and Mike's
post here reflects that kind of thinking. That does NOT mean that all
cultists, Randians and the like are prone to terrorism -- terrorism is only a
small subset of such cultlike belief systems)
cheers, scott
http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/
Wolf Str8
<<So Erb has trouble accepting Rand's precepts about morality because they are
unprovable.. I'd like to see what kind of precepts about morality Erb thinks
are provable>>
No precepts about morality or any system of ethics are 'provable'. At the
heart of any system of ethics(and ethics are ultimately at the heart of
politcal philosophy) is FAITH, faith as to what is good or desirable. I don't
know anything about Erb and what his ethics are, but my problem with Rand is
that while she holds man's life and freedom as 'the good', she tries to prove
that those premises are something other than sheer faith. It can't be done, to
my knowledge. Rand was a mystic, just as I freely admit to being, in that we
both accept ON FAITH, that man qua man and freedom are GOOD. Her writings
grate on me because of her condescending use of the words 'mystic' and 'evil',
as though her ethical premises are somehow superior to people's that are
admittedly based on faith when she herself was as faith-ridden as anyone. Prove
Rand wrong by playing the farcical 'Objectivist Vertibird Role-Playing
Adventure' here: http://members.aol.com/Panchovya/obj.html
E. Tracy Tucciarone
Curator, Museum of Psychiatric Anomalies
== Wolf...@aol.com ==
Website: http://members.aol.com/WolfStr8/set.html
'This is the strangest life I've ever known'
Scott D. Erb
In article <gio+van+no+ni+8-...@dialup108.tlh.talstar.com>,
gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com says...
>It all goes back to the axioms. Existence exists. It has
>always existed, and will always exist. Consciousness exists.
>And things are what they are rather than what they are not
>(the law of identity). All 3 are unchanging.
Existence and consciousness are unchanging? Existence exists is an irrelevant
definition (like runners run). I would say that existence is experience, and
experience is what "exists".
For that, see; http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/antimaterialist.htm
It's only the start of my discussion, however.
>And they determine epistemology, which in turn determines
>ethics.
Explain. That seems a bit bizarre.
To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
cheers, scott
Loren Petrich
[Scott Erb's anti-materialist web page...]
Nice start, but the next question is whether the existence of
other minds can be inferred at all; the only thing we know directly is
our thoughts.
One does not directly perceive other minds (there is no positive
evidence that suggests that it happens). And even if one could read
others minds, this would only constitute another kind of perception, with
the same inference problems as other perceptions face.
If anyone wishes to dismiss this problem as trivial, let them
consider the work of Alan Turing on the question of Artificial
Intelligence, notably his Turing Test.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
John Parker
On Thu, 30 Apr 98 13:08:01 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D Erb)
wrote:
>Check here for philosophical ideas contrary to objectivism.
>
>I've only started this page, but will be building it over time. If anyone
>has any reactions, let me know.
My reaction is that Scott has an over active imagination.
John Parker
On Thu, 30 Apr 98 08:12:55 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
wrote:
>In article <3547bb9b....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com
>says...
>
>>So Erb has trouble accepting Rand's precepts about morality because
>>they are unprovable.. I'd like to see what kind of precepts about
>>morality Erb thinks are provable.
>
>That's the point, John. Randians claim that their morality is objectively
>true and can be proven so. I say that is impossible.
>
Well, I can't speak for "Randians", because I haven't read enough of
Rand to know what a Randian really is, although I suspect, based on
what I have read, that I have unknowingly been one all my life. As
for the matter of proving something to be objectively true, I've
never bothered to wonder if something was objectively true or not, and
it seems to me that that is really what Rand's "philosophy" is all
about. I think that there is nothing sillier than two people arguing
about what "truth" is, it's rather like arguing about how to describe
a color. Truth and morality are very personal issues, and they vary
from individual to individual. How you perceive them might be of some
interest to me as a curiosity, or even supplemental, but I would think
it absolutely inane to wonder if your perceptions were better, or more
truthful than mine, and I have no time nor reason to question my own,
nor defend them, for that matter. This does not mean that my
perceptions cannot change, they often do due to the continuing input
of data, but as soon as the data is interpreted into perceptions, it
becomes, for me, the truth, and there is no difference between
objective truth and subjective truth.
I don't think anyone says that Rand's morality can be proven to be
true or otherwise, and I don't think that Rand professed a morality, I
think she said that whatever an individual perceived their own
morality to be, was the truth to them, and nothing mattered beyond
that.....at least that's my philosophy.
John Parker
On Thu, 30 Apr 98 08:19:27 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
wrote:
>On the contrary, I would welcome being able to be certain about a morality,
>to be able to see it proven.
I think it's ridiculous that you think you are not certain about your
morality, I am about mine. Why would anyone ever question their
morality?
Scott Erb
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
> [Scott Erb's anti-materialist web page...]
>
> Nice start, but the next question is whether the existence of
>other minds can be inferred at all; the only thing we know directly is
>our thoughts.
I agree. That's why I put the example of dreams in there. When dreaming we
experience a reality that seems as real in many ways as the waking reality,
and it certainly seems we are separate from others, even though once we awake
(or become lucid inside the dream) we can decide its just a creation of the
mind. The same could be true about waking reality on another level. The
reason why I would make the unprovable assumption that other minds exist and
that this is a shared reality (though the relationship between minds may not
be one of complete separation, but even connections at different levels) is
pragmatic. That kind of assumption seems to "work" in waking experience
(even if dream experience is a bit different.)
> One does not directly perceive other minds (there is no positive
>evidence that suggests that it happens). And even if one could read
>others minds, this would only constitute another kind of perception, with
>the same inference problems as other perceptions face.
Of course -- indeed if you could read other minds, that would seem to suggest
that the "other" minds aren't really so other, but perhaps a part of your
own.
> If anyone wishes to dismiss this problem as trivial, let them
>consider the work of Alan Turing on the question of Artificial
>Intelligence, notably his Turing Test.
It's not trivial, I agree. As I get time to work on my amateur philosophy
page I work back to that. I start with pragmatic "how to operate in the
world of experience we perceive as existing" assumptions, but then work back,
taking into account the importance of such problems and uncertainties in
developing ethical, moral, and political beliefs (not to mention philosophy
of science).
Thanks for the response!
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
In article <3551bad9....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>On Thu, 30 Apr 98 08:19:27 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>wrote:
>
>>On the contrary, I would welcome being able to be certain about a morality,
>>to be able to see it proven.
>
>I think it's ridiculous that you think you are not certain about your
>morality, I am about mine. Why would anyone ever question their
>morality?
John, you're over your head here. We're talking about objective proof of one
morality as superior to another, not about subjective certainty.
I do think people can and do question their morality. One thing that is a
goal in higher education is to get people to question what they've been
programmed to believe and learn to think for themselves, perhaps rejecting
some views they once held on morality. It is very satisfying to observe that
process. If one is locked in their views due to a false certainty, then one
basically shows oneself to be ignorant and unable to learn and grow.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
In article <3552bc94....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>Well, I can't speak for "Randians", because I haven't read enough of
>Rand to know what a Randian really is, although I suspect, based on
>what I have read, that I have unknowingly been one all my life.
(deletions)
>Truth and morality are very personal issues, and they vary
>from individual to individual.
Guess what, John, the above shows very clearly that you are not a Randian. I
congratulate you on that.
>I don't think anyone says that Rand's morality can be proven to be
>true or otherwise, and I don't think that Rand professed a morality, I
>think she said that whatever an individual perceived their own
>morality to be, was the truth to them, and nothing mattered beyond
>that.....at least that's my philosophy.
John, you really don't know much about what the Randians think, do you? They
do claim that they have an objectively provable morality which is not
subjective, and not dependent upon an individuals own perceptions. Your
position is one I find much more compatible with my own, and very contrary to
that of Rand's.
cheers, scott
Pistol
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:26:05 GMT, sa...@mdc.net (J. Sasha Stewart)
wrote:
CRUDE
>Yep, I'm back from the dead....
>
>On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:15:07 GMT, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest)
>wrote:
>>>While argument from authority is certainly
>>>not proof, it can be used as evidence that when experts think something is
>>>wrong, there is a good chance it is.
>>
>>Bull shit!
>
>Really? Do you recognize your own contradiction here?
>
>Scott essentially makes the comment that although there are
>exceptions, the opinions of the formally, specifically-educated, and
>trained expert, are more likely to be correct than those of the
>uneducated opinion.
>
>You call that bullshit?
>If you were truely thinking objectively, you would have no choice but
>to agree with that assertion. It's obvious, logical, and most
>probable. Your rebuttal is baseless, illogical, and quite frankly,
>illustrates the notion that many Objectivists have turned their
>beliefs into a religion. Shame, shame...
Let me try a more complete approach. It is true that the
opinions of formally educated experts on subjects where we'd
expect little personal bias are unlikely to result in erroneous
conclusions. Unlikely, not impossible. There will, no doubt,
be such cases, as there have been throughout history with
breakthroughs in all areas of human endeavors.
Further, when an entire school of thought is criticized from
the outside, it is not reasonable to consider the members of the
group, who are defending themselves in a very personal
conflict, to be the ultimate authority on the subject. We do
not turn to astrologers to be the final authority of the
validity of astrology. They are, understandably, biased.
I see the situation between Rand and modern philosophers to be
an example of both. Modern philosophy has seemed to degenerate
into meaningless semantic games, with little relevance to the
average person, or other professions, for that matter. When was
the last time anyone saw a philosopher as an expert witness on
anything?
Rand attacked modern philosophy, in no uncertain terms, on this
basis. And philosophers are people, after all, so OF COURSE
they shunned her! How could they be expected to react any
other way? When an astrologer, chiropractor, or theologin is
challenged as to the validity of the discipline to which they
have dedicated their life, they do not respond with "Oh,
really? Hey, you might be onto something!" They respond,
understandably, defensively. Philosophers are no different,
and for that reason, their opinion of Rand should not be given
too much credibility.
Now if they, or anyone for that matter, presents an ARGUMENT
against Rand's theories, rather than the usual gratuitous
dismissal, THAT should be taken seriously. The fact that the
literature is almost completely devoid of such efforts is
further evidence (IMO) that modern philosophers refuse to take
objectivism seriously for reasons that go far beyond philosophy.
Just examine the criticisms of Objectivism that appear here.
One after another, they are nothing more than unsubstantiated vague
generalities and personal attacks. There is often little
evidence that the critic even knows what objecivism is, much
less that he has identified its shortcomings. Rarely is there
actually a specific reference to something Rand or other
objectivists had to say. And when objectivist opposition to
these claims appears, the critic often just disappears. I
think this is telling.
>>You see, dear fellow, it does not matter what you say. Until you can
>>PROVE that the tree falling in the forest is NOT a physically
>>identical phenomena regardless of the presence of any human witness,
>>then you are wasting your time. I assure you I DO exist. Reality IS
>>separate from human perception and when the tree falls in the forest
>>the event is identical even if no human is there to witness it.
>
>Interesting example. Realize that a great deal of the "truths" we
>cling to are not discovered through DIRECT human observation.
I don't think he'd disagree. I sure don't.
>As far as the old "Do I EXIST?" question...of course you do. I've
>never understood why people keep asking that stupid question over and
>over again. Perhaps that is my own failing, yes?
No, it is your virtue. Someone who questions his own existence
doesn't deserve accolades, or a teaching position. He deserves
to be institutionalized.
The question usually is posed by someone who does not wish to
acknowledge a particular aspect of reality. They hope by
playing this game they can convince themselves that nothing can
be proved or disproved, thereby opening up the possibility for
whatever it is they wish were different to be so.
>But I pose this question to you: You exist in your world and to the
>people who interact with you in one way or another.
>But...do you exist in the mind of little Jean-Marie Doreau, who lives
>in the South of France and has no contact to anyone outside the
>village?
>
>Does it matter? No? Exactly!
You are just playing a semantic game with the word "exist".
Its meaning in "do I exist?" is very different than its meaning
in "Do you exist in the mind of so-and-so?".
>>Now go away son! I must press on with pursuing my highest moral
>>purpose: the achievement of MY OWN happiness at MY OWN expense using
>>MY OWN mind, hands and heart and without expecting anyone else to
>>sacrifice themselves for any part of my happiness.
>
>And if you reach this high point, I can almost guarantee you that
>you'll be quite alone...isolated from the rest of the world.
Well, I'll assure him that he won't. I implement this
principle in my life with great success. I have many friends,
who are, to varying degrees, like-minded. Most of the
knee-jerk platitudes that people spout about what must be done
to sustain meaningful relationships with others are just myths.
I've broken them all, and am none the worse for wear. I've
dated who I wish, regardless of their relationships to my
friends or family (unless they are taken). I rid my life of
people who have nothing to offer me. I've told people they
cannot bring to my house their kids, and their parents, when I
determined that to conflict with my interests. And you know
what happened? Nothing!
Such things are necessary to have relationships with flawed
individuals who think you owe them something. But with
self-sufficient people who do not look for handouts, there is
no problem.
>This illustrates another flaw I've discovered in this philosophy.
>Taking your comment above, how do you factor in offspring, marriage,
>family, etc.? One of the defining traits of human beings is their
>ability and tendency to sacrifice for others, through love, a sense
>of duty, etc. Study other animals and you'll see that this
>practically never happens.
What are you talking about? This happens in the animal kingdon
all the time. Worker ants sacrifice themselves for the benefit
of the mound (obviously not consciously) all the time. A mother
bird will risk being eaten by a wolf (by pretending to be
injured) to protect her young, and this is typical of many
mother animals. Practically every animal that is social does this.
>If you make a basic assumption that reason is one of man's traits that
>distinguishes him from other animals, you also have to take in other
>distinguishing traits that, when combined, form a more complete
>picture. If you say that reason is THE distinguishing trait, then you
>are simply doing "subjective editing" . You can't simply take one
>trait, ignoring the rest because they may be "inconvenient", then base
>an entire philosphy on that one trait...AND THEN include morality.
If you think you have other traits to offer as uniquely human,
I eagerly await your list. I don't see any others. Other
animals feel love, anger, and sadness.
And be careful to not miscategorize actions for traits. The
fact that many people choose to murder does not make murdering
an inherent trait of humanity.
>There are some specific points made in Objectivist philosophy that
>indeed make sense (which is what got me interested in it), but the
>overall picture has just too many flaws, in my opinion, to merit any
>real consideration.
We've had this discussion before, haven't we? If we begin
again, one thing needs to be made clear - the definition of
"objectivism". I do not think the definition too many people
use of "anything Ayn Rand claims is objectivism" is valid. It
sure isn't very usefull. I consider myself an objectivist, but
I disagree with a great deal (by O'st standards :)) of what
Rand had to say.
What I think distinguishes objectivism, and what attracted me
to it initially is the idea that moral truths can be determined
by an objective analysis of the nature of mankind (vs a divine
source, or subjectivity). If you agree with this premise, I'd
call you an objectivist. If you happen to disagree with some
conclusion Rand drew about morality, I don't think that means
you disagree with objectivism. It means that you disagree with
HER. After all, when Einstein introduced relativistic physics,
no one said he disagreed with physics. He merely disagreed
with Newton.
Tim Starr
In article <6i8gpa$1kqs$4...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article
><883B074A1A664CE1.794EBB12...@library-proxy.airnews.
>net>, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net says...
>>
>
>>...among the very people she held responsible for the crime of
>>intellectual treason against the masses. Of course they disrespect
>>her -- their fragile little egos were hurt and they had no substantive
>>refutation to her principles other than various versions of "ain't
>>so". So far that's all you've offered.
>
>You are simply making baseless assertions, much in the way religious folk
>attack science and philosophy.
Or the way you denied Italy's responsibility for the troubles of Somalia:
Scott Erb on Somalia:
4/9/98:
Starr: "Don't forget the Italian Socialist Party, which made Somalia the proving
ground for all their socialist development schemes."
Erb: "No, the US and the Soviets are what screwed up the area. Trying to blame
Italy is as bizarre as trying to claim Koresh was just a victim."
- Message-ID <6gjudf$750$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
4/18/98:
Starr: "Oh, BTW, remember your claim that I was wrong when I blamed the Italian
Socialist Party for the problems of Somalia? Read and weep:"
Erb: "No, I don't recall saying you were wrong on that particular issue,
though I do remember noting that the US and USSR ruined the recent situation
in Somalia.
"Given your penchant to lie about my claims, it might be nice if you post the
claim you are referring too."
- Message-ID: <6h96q5$22c8$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
4/28/98:
Starr: "[Erb] denies that he ever denied that the Italian Socialist Party
bore any responsibility for the civil war of the Barre regime, & tries to
redefine his original claim to weasel out of his mistake."
Erb: "I never even mentioned the Barre regime, let allowed denied any party
was involved (how could I if I didn't mention it). Geez, your lies are
getting more weird by the post!
"...
"I guess that if the facts don't jive with your religious faith in your
ideology, you deny the facts with lies.
"I find that disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
"Now, stop dealing with trivialities. I'm sure the Italian socialists did
nasty things that contributed to Somalia's decline."
- Message-ID: <6i3dak$fao$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
--
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Pistol
On Fri, 01 May 1998 12:28:12 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>I don't think anyone says that Rand's morality can be proven to be
>true or otherwise, and I don't think that Rand professed a morality, I
>think she said that whatever an individual perceived their own
>morality to be, was the truth to them, and nothing mattered beyond
>that.....at least that's my philosophy.
What you describe above is almost the exact opposite of what Rand
thought. You should have stuck with your own advice and not tried to
describe something you haven't read (I can see Erb's influencing you).
Eric von Weasel
In article <3551bad9....@news.binc.net>,
John Parker <jhpa...@Emailbag.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Apr 98 08:19:27 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>wrote:
>
>>On the contrary, I would welcome being able to be certain about a morality,
>>to be able to see it proven.
>I think it's ridiculous that you think you are not certain about your
>morality, I am about mine.
Certainty is not a difficult state to acquire. Pick some plausible
beliefs from the intellectual landscape; steadfastly refuse to
acknowledge exceptions, qualifications, and counter-examples; and
surround yourself with people who will energetically reinforce your
beliefs.
Informed certainty is another matter entirely, and much more difficult
to achieve.
I think that the value of certainty is overrated, anyway.
>Why would anyone ever question their
>morality?
As I said, ...
--
Dialogue Of The Week:
JP: Laugh about the $85000 boat I'm negotiating on, Hall.
AH: Why? Is it a funny boat?
-----
Eric von Weasel
In article <6ibiuj$1ea8$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <gio+van+no+ni+8-...@dialup108.tlh.talstar.com>,
>gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com says...
>>It all goes back to the axioms. Existence exists. It has
>>always existed, and will always exist. Consciousness exists.
>>And things are what they are rather than what they are not
>>(the law of identity). All 3 are unchanging.
>Existence and consciousness are unchanging? Existence exists is an irrelevant
>definition (like runners run).
"things are what they are" never seemed an especially valuable
observation, either. It also needs to be conditioned by the fact that
what constitutes a "thing" is not always obvious.
>I would say that existence is experience, and
>experience is what "exists".
That's one answer.
>For that, see; http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/antimaterialist.htm
>
>It's only the start of my discussion, however.
>>And they determine epistemology, which in turn determines
>>ethics.
>Explain. That seems a bit bizarre.
It's another one of those sneaky Randian axioms on which her entire
philosophy depends.
>To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
Her philosophy can be a helpful introduction to some major themes in
Western thought for teenagers who have spent too much time watching
television (don't ask me how I came to this conclusion). Fortunately,
most teenages so exposed manage to grow beyond Randism.
Scott D. Erb
In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>Scott Erb on Somalia:
Note again Tim's essential dishonesty as he deletes my post and reposts
something I've debunked in a pathetic effort at personal attacks.
But again: Somalia was an issue we agreed upon, we just disagree on who bares
most of the blame. Tim blamed Italy, which I said was silly, I blamed the US
and USSR. Tim later gave some details about some bad things Italy supposedly
did, and since (at least at that time) I had little reason to doubt Tim, I
accepted that Italy probably had some role. His entire attack is based on one
line, my "I didn't deny Italy had any blame," saying I'm lying because I said
blaming Italy was silly. One line. The reason I say those things as two
different things is that I thought Tim was saying Italy was only to blame,
which would be silly.
I've repeated this (and continue to do so, since I think patient honesty will
frustrate Tim's repeated attacks, and hurt Tim's credibility in the meantime),
and will continue to do so for as long as Tim continues his dishonest attack
posts. I'll also increasingly deconstruct his posts and show how his abuse of
rhetoric makes him a poster whose credibility should be questioned.
cheers, scott
Hokey Wolf
In article <354a4b24...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
(Pistol) wrote:
snippage
?Now if they, or anyone for that matter, presents an ARGUMENT
?against Rand's theories, rather than the usual gratuitous
?dismissal, THAT should be taken seriously. The fact that the
?literature is almost completely devoid of such efforts is
?further evidence (IMO) that modern philosophers refuse to take
?objectivism seriously for reasons that go far beyond philosophy.
I'm no philosopher, but it's easy to see Rand was a dualist. She posited
binary paradigms. Even young children are able to ascertain reality is
complex and divergent.
?No, it is your virtue. Someone who questions his own existence
?doesn't deserve accolades, or a teaching position. He deserves
?to be institutionalized.
And I always see Objectivists adopting Rand's authoritarianism (dualism).
John Parker
On Fri, 01 May 98 11:14:47 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
wrote:
>In article <3552bc94....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>>Well, I can't speak for "Randians", because I haven't read enough of
>>Rand to know what a Randian really is, although I suspect, based on
>>what I have read, that I have unknowingly been one all my life.
>
>(deletions)
>
>>Truth and morality are very personal issues, and they vary
>>from individual to individual.
>
>Guess what, John, the above shows very clearly that you are not a Randian. I
>congratulate you on that.
I don't think so, Scott. I don't think either you or Pistol
understand objectivism.
>>I don't think anyone says that Rand's morality can be proven to be
>>true or otherwise, and I don't think that Rand professed a morality, I
>>think she said that whatever an individual perceived their own
>>morality to be, was the truth to them, and nothing mattered beyond
>>that.....at least that's my philosophy.
>
>John, you really don't know much about what the Randians think, do you? They
>do claim that they have an objectively provable morality which is not
>subjective, and not dependent upon an individuals own perceptions.
No, I haven't seen that in Rand's writings. What I have seen is that
she claims that there is an absolute morality, but that each
individual should rely absolutely upon his perception of it, because
his perceptions are accurate. His perception of it, and his ability
to reason out a course of action based upon that perception and the
use of logic is for him, absolute truth. She doesn't say that such is
provable in the sense that one can document to someone else, she says
that anything other than your own ability to reason through your
perceptions, which can only be someone else's opinion, is guaranteed
to be faulty, because it will tainted by their motivations.
> Your
>position is one I find much more compatible with my own, and very contrary to
>that of Rand's.
It's not likely that my position would ever be compatible with yours,
Scott, but then who cares. See my reply to Pistol, who also thinks I
am not a Randite, for more of my philosophy.
>cheers, scott
John Parker
On Fri, 01 May 98 11:11:37 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
wrote:
>In article <3551bad9....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>>
>>On Thu, 30 Apr 98 08:19:27 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On the contrary, I would welcome being able to be certain about a morality,
>>>to be able to see it proven.
>>
>>I think it's ridiculous that you think you are not certain about your
>>morality, I am about mine. Why would anyone ever question their
>>morality?
>
>John, you're over your head here. We're talking about objective proof of one
>morality as superior to another, not about subjective certainty.
....and I'm telling you that I believe that anybody who questions
their own interpretation of morality is a damned fool. My morality is
superior over yours, in fact everything I believe is superior over
what you believe. Since I have absolutely no reason to want to prove
that to you, and you have absolutely no chance of disproving it to me,
what would be the sense of discussing it?
>I do think people can and do question their morality.
Sure, but only fools like you.
> One thing that is a
>goal in higher education is to get people to question what they've been
>programmed to believe and learn to think for themselves, perhaps rejecting
>some views they once held on morality.
...and anybody who allowed their morality to be programmed into them
in the first place is already a fool, so why wouldn't he still be a
big enough fool to ask your opinion? ....and I must note the irony of
your implication about how the goal of higher education is to get
people to think for themselves. The exact opposite is true. You
educator's goals is to program people to think your way. It often
works for a few years until the progammee spends a few years in the
real world and discovers what a bozo the professor was.
John Parker
On Fri, 01 May 1998 23:26:10 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>On Fri, 01 May 1998 12:28:12 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think anyone says that Rand's morality can be proven to be
>>true or otherwise, and I don't think that Rand professed a morality, I
>>think she said that whatever an individual perceived their own
>>morality to be, was the truth to them, and nothing mattered beyond
>>that.....at least that's my philosophy.
>
>What you describe above is almost the exact opposite of what Rand
>thought. You should have stuck with your own advice and not tried to
>describe something you haven't read (I can see Erb's influencing you).
>
hehehehe, I seriously doubt that Erb could have any influence on me,
and since I admit that I haven't read too much Rand, I have nothing to
be ashamed of if I have misrepresented her, but I don't think I have.
Like Rand, I believe that truth and fact are absolute, but since any
two individuals might perceive truth and fact dis similarly, and since
the accuracy of each man's perception of truth and fact is not
documentable, I don't think my statement above is contrary to Rand's
objectivism. In short, I think both pistol and Erb are mistaken and
are reading more into Rand's philosophy than is there. She professes
that you should rely on your own ability to analyse your perceptions,
indeed, there is nothing else that you can rely on. Although I have
not read Rand extensively, I have read bits and pieces, and nowhere
have I seen or heard of her heros arguing with their counterparts over
the validity of each other's perceptions of truth and fact, as Erb and
Pistol are doing. Rather, Howard Roark politely tells Keating that
Keating is a fool for even asking Roark's opinion. What Roark is
saying, is "trust your own power of reason, for it is the only place
you can find the truth" In my mind, although Erb is probably kind of
like Rand's Keating, Pistol is a long way from Roark. Roark wouldn't
care enough about Erb's opinion of objective morality to argue with
him about it. I think Roark would be more like me and simply laugh at
him. I just can't see Howard Roark trying to convince Scott Erb of
anything.
Tom Asquith
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:08:15 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 06:34:01 GMT, tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom
>Asquith) wrote:
>>On 26 Apr 1998 13:21:52 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>>>In article
>>><4F609CE62C6A6692.D8B642BB...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
>>>, lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net says...
I will grant that you are a most atypical but very
interesting objectivist, Mr. Pistol--otherwise
I wouldn't have responded to your weak allegations,
attempts at sidestepping my points and half-hearted
evasions of my comments (gee, I'm glad that you
introduced me to this manner of degrading opponents.
It's most enlightening--but not objective.)
But you nor I am here to just hurl insults at fellow net denizens (that is if
you in fact exist ;-) ), so let's stop the backhanded backslaps and actually
get down to business.
For the impatient, here's the abstract: (1) Rand doesn't follow
her own philosophy--often descending into subjectivity, often using value
statements on which to base her arguments; (2) Rand's rationalism
doesn't survive Hume's fork; (3) she is hypocritical with regards to freewill
as it relates to her objectivists; (4) she is hypocritical in her use of
history (in short she can be accused a number of times of not practicing
what she preached to her Randbots); (5) her philosophy lacks ethics and
confuses individualism with selfishness; and (6) it is proposed that she
lacked familiarity with those philosophers whom she has criticized (particularly
Hegel and Kant).
[Note: (5) is hinted at earlier--but is analyzed further down. Lack of computer
memory forbade me from delving further.]
***
[some trimming]
>But enough of the preliminaries, let's get to something worth
>discussing.
Odd that you found Mr. Erb's comments to be preliminary. He did raise
a few interesting points that you just dismissed out of hand (a couple
of his non-sequiturs--as you labelled them--were connected further
down in his argument). Ah well, who am I to criticize such a
skilled mind, who is willing to just dismiss out of hand another person's
thoughts with but a few sentences? :^)
>>First, her objectivism is tautological (but then again, so is Marx in some
>>places--call it the curse of adapting master-servant dialectics to the real
>>world.
>
>What would you have her begin with? An arbitrary assertion?
You are assuming that by taking an egoistic stand that she
is not taking an arbitrary assertion.
My primary criticism was that the foundations of Her
objectivism were constructed post hoc--basically making
it up as She went along. This has meant that her work
has been in fact arbitrary, leading to points where her
philosophy is decidedly vague (dare you throw down the
gauntlet here? If so, pick the topic :-).)
At least, if she actually had sat down and decided that
she was going to base her philosophy from a single
starting point, a number of the weaknesses and
inconsistencies in her philosophy might have been avoided.
An additional consequence of her inability to do this has been the
result of her former followers (Branden, Machon, Peikoff etc.)
each claiming that they understood her best. Really Rand only
knew Rand (or so we think).
>>It is amusing though that she backed herself into the same corner--by
>>trying to avoid Hegel. This is perhaps because (and if you've read her "For the
>>New Intellectual" you'd know this) she didn't really understand the Prussian
>>philosopher in the first place. But I digress.).
>
>I'll say. Vague ramblings such as this serve little purpose, except
>perhaps to make the speaker feel smug.
But considering that she has made both Kant and Hegel sources of
scorn, one would necessarily assume that she had at least a
solid understanding of the works on which she was criticizing.
Then again, I suppose she was only human...despite the belief
of some to the contrary.
Call it being unique or individualistic. Oh, that's right, being
an objectivist you can't tell the difference between being selfish
and being an individualist.
Then again, you are a unique objectivist, aren't you? :-)
>>Second, she is a minor league philosopher
>
>This is, apparently, the title given to anyone who skips all that
>useless bullshit ("do I exist?", "Is there a reality?") that
>philosophers wasted hundreds of years on and got to the stuff a person
>could actually use.
It is both a simple statement..."she is a philosopher"...and
a value statement (and a comparative one at that), i.e., she
stands in relation to other philosophers). The other philosophers
have been tested by history--and she even used them to come
up with her "own" brand of thought (though often without
acknowledging the sources).
BTW, a true objectivist should be able to acknowledge the
significance of history. Rand actually claimed that
the objectivist lived in the here-and-now, not
in the past. (Source--American Authors, Vol.26,
"Ayn Rand", 45).
Odd though that she liked to use historical
references when they suited her (e.g., "Cashing-In" has
references to the Second World War, the Communist Fronts
of the 1930s). Hypocrisy. (Source: The Unknown Capitalism,
236, 240). Still more evidence of this inability to
remain firm to Her philosophy's tenets is found in "Notes on
the History of American Free Enterprise"--a history (!) on
the development of the American railroads.
Consequently, it should be argued that the Randian objectivist
who is to remain true to her ideals (as opposed to being one
who is capable of freewill and able to come up with their own
ideas) would reject any possible lessons that could be learned
from the past. (Little wonder William F. Buckley Jr. after his
interview with her claimed that when he heard her voice, he heard
echoes of the order "To the Gas Chamber. Go!". See Martin Gardner's
"The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener")
>>-still, you do find she creeps into
>>college classrooms via the English department.
>
>Is there any relevance to any of this? Patiently, I wade on.
Yes. It implies that Rand has been more influential as a
novelist than a serious philosopher.
>>Third, it is emotional
>
>A gratuitous assertion, and nothing more.
Well, yes and no. She uses a number of rhetorical techniques that
are used to persuade as opposed to merely argue objectively. Also,
she tends to contradict herself--for example, currently at
http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/Q&A.html, there is a Q&A where
for Question#1 it is respectfully submitted by Rand that only she
can speak with authority about her philosophy, yet leaves it to the
readers to decide. BUT for question#5, she urges people to not
join the wrong ideological group--in other words, it is not for
the reader to decide as to whether other ideological groups can
be objective. In short, she cannot make her mind as to whether
she ought to be able to make up the minds of her followers. She
seems to want it both ways.
Considering that someone has added a.p.o to the headers, perhaps
someone is able to resolve this paradox. (And in case anyone was
wondering this struggle between Rand's dictates on objectivism
and what she believes her followers should have per freewill
is echoed in "FNI").
>>--in fact,
>>it was the stuff that kept a number of the soldiers in a couple of wars contented
>>enough to shoot the odd "gook" (think of it as being akin to the rather weak stuff
>>that was fed to the Bolsheviks during the Revolution and the Second World War--it's
>>roughly of the same ilk). It helped good old American boys fight off the nasty
>>commies. Unfortunately, it is emotional stuff without morality (as Nathaniel
>>Branden, former disciple as pointed out). At least Marx had a moral side.
>
>Uh... whatever. You've written a great number of words, and made
>exactly zero arguments.
Summary: Rand writes capitalist propaganda that is aimed at appealing
to the ignorant masses just like the Marxist Bolsheviks did--this
is the point (not quite a zero argument). Obviously you didn't bother to
read the argument (or were waiting for the Cliff's Notes translation).
[Additional point follows (and pay attention to the last sentence):]
Moreover, you won't deny that one of her goals was to romanticize
capitalism--careful, there is a significant amount of literature
that backs this up! And surely you wouldn't deny that any attempt
at romanticizing is a less than objective or logical endeavour.
>>Third, it does work best as a religion...for realistically speaking, it
>>is no more than irrationalism disguised in rationalist clothes. And it was
>>poorly done at that.
>
>(sigh) More baseless assertions. Didn't it occur to you that some of
>us might have been bored to tears by this? You sound like an
>intelligent guy - surely you are capable of better.
Odd, I only find one assertion here. Can't count? :-) Seems you
are becoming as unobjective as me, mon ami.
Besides you already ceded this point in your response to Mr. Erb...that
Randian objectivists act like cult members. And below you admit that you are
a very unique objectivist (and probably not Randian).
>>[Basically her technique was to establish the simple
>>objectivist statement
>
>In other words, she recognized basic truths about reality...
Interesting word: "recognized". So here, it is being said that
her knowledge is coming forth from an 'a posteriori' position. (Elsewhere,
particularly in association with her A=A argument, she appears to take
an 'a priori' position. In short, her form of rationalism gets shafted
on both prongs of Hume's fork.)
>>-sidestepping the problems posed by Berkeley,
>>Hume and Descartes
>
>...without wasting a lot of valuable time on pseudointellectual
>rantings. Berkeley and Descartes are refuted with a simple punch in
>the nose. Upset? At what? There is no reality, remember? Mad?
>Who's mad? You don't exist, remember?
Although you may be critical of Berkeley and Descartes, they were
taking the baby steps necessary towards the establishment of
certainty in knowledge (scientific, religious and otherwise).
Without them, science would probably have got nowhere. And
without science, there would have been no progress--capitalism
would have stalled--and Rand would have had very little to
talk about, let alone, praise.
>If a theory cannot be held consistently, then it should be rejected,
>not treated as great scholorship. Descartes and Berkely are akin to
>the psychic who mysteriously never goes to Vegas to clean house, or
>the gambler who claims he can accurately predict the winners of games,
>but rather than wagering his own money, wants to get you to pay him
>for his predictions. The minute Berkeley began to write his theories
>down to share with others, he proved them false.
Descartes' technique is the foundation for the hypothetical-deductive
method--if you've bothered to work your way through his Meditations
(or read any treatise on his work). Descartes would say that one
should be able to hold a theory consistently until it is proven
wrong--it started with him. (Rand of course would never be able
to admit that she made a wrong decision--and if it was wrong,
it was Nathaniel's fault. :-) )
Berkeley's work was similarly necessary for the establishment of
any understanding of ideas (particularly as they are linked with those
entities which they represent). Berkeley was able to know that
the representation of an idea was not necessarily the same as that
which existed in reality. If you dropped Berkeley and Rand in
the middle of the desert and both saw a mirage of an oasis,
the good Bishop would have known that it was but an illusion.
Rand on the other hand would take mouthful after mouthful of
sand satisfied in knowing that she had satiated her thirst with
water.
>Now Hume, on the other hand, was brilliant, and made great
>contributions to philosophy. His dismantling of the design theory for
>God is still a thorn in theistic sides. His only mistake was getting
>stuck trying to understand why the universe was consistent instead of
>just recognizing that it was and moving on. Rand did, and therein
>lies her value.
You obviously never really read Hume. For you see, Randian rationalism
--actually all forms of rationalism--tend(s) to suffer under Humean analysis.
He never got stuck in trying to explain why the universe was consistent.
He just realized that any attempt at feigning a rational explanation
of "why the universe is" and "why one should expect it to be" was destined
to fail--for the only grounds upon which one might base his/her
explanation is either to be grounded on inference or intuition. Rand
never got past Hume's criticism--instead she said it is, and so it
shall come to be. In short, her solution was to elect herself "Gott".
Moreover, as noted above, she didn't get past Hume's challenge to
formalism.
Finally, if you are willing to accept Hume, you would quickly realize
that objectivism and Pyrrhonic skepticism are necessarily incompatible.
For objectivism presumes monism, certainty, deductive logic and
objectivity (natch!). Skepticism presumes dualism, uncertainty,
inductive logic/intuition and subjectivity. You can't be both,
hon!
>And yes, I'm a pretty unusual objectivist. I don't think Kant was the
>antichrist either.
Well, there is some hope for you. But remember my criticism wasn't
with objectivism in general (for I still think the "Great Bull" was an
outstanding philosopher and more deserving of the title "Founder of
Objectivism" than some pompous twisted Russian emigre). It was only
Rand's objectivism that I found defective.
>>--and then layer on systematically belief after
>>belief...with very little to back up or found each successive step.]
>
>Given the number of baseless assertions you've made here, I'd think
>you'd be a fan of such a style. :)
Cute. But the question is as to how long you wish to stay in your
own privately constructed cave. And whether you wish to see something
other than those figures dancing in the shadows. :-)
>But the bottom line is that unless you can construct and consistently
>maintain an argument that does not make the assumptions Rand did, then
>your objections, what little substance there is to them here, like so
>much of what I've seen of Rand's critics, are just so much meaningless
>chatter.
Odd. That's what echoes I've said about the Randbots. But I do dare
to confront their arguments--just like you have evaded mine. ;-)
>It is truly renarkable me how often someone stands up to criticize
>Rand and says next to nothing. One would think that if her philosophy
>were so flawed that someone would have devised a coherent refutation
>of it. And the fact that this has been done with the likes of Josh
>McDowell should be all the proof one needs to see that the lame excuse
>of "she's not worth it" is just a dodge.
It is impossible to criticize coherently when the argument which one
is criticizing is neither coherent nor consistent (I guess I can see
where JM was coming from).
>>Go easy on him, Scott. He's only a Randoid ("If it didn't come from
>>Rand, it can't be true."
>
>Well, let's hope you will find me more to your liking, since I
>certainly don't fit that mode. She got the basics right, but
>definitely fouled up some of the later theories (everything she has to
>say about sex, and much of her commentary on music, for example)
You mean her attempt at introducing romanticism and aesthetics
into her philosophy. Odd--I found those portions a little more
interesting. (There has been some suspicion that she was suffering
from general pareisis and depression later in life--I guess that
would explain why her later work is not quite the same quality
as her earlier stuff.)
But personally I found it was her ethics that was to be lacking--
at least Aristotle (whom she tried to emulate) had the decency to
introduce his virtue theory. Her ethical system consisted of
a rather weak egoist base (for example, in one of her lectures
she cited the evasive answer given by one of her followers, Barb
Brandon with great approval:
Question: "What will happen to the poor if...?"
Randbot Answer: "If you want to help them, you will not be
stopped."
In essence, her system had no ethics--which is a frightening
prospect, if one stops to think about it. Moreover, her concept
of altruism was a tad troublesome (i.e., one's interests have no
value). That is contradictory for an ethical egoist
theory--for inevitably for the person to follow such a system,
there must be some identification with that which is to be done
with that which is in the person's self-interest--even if only
self-preservation in response to force.
>However, I can hardly engage in debate with someone who doesn't make
>an argument. And you should realize that such only makes those who
>believe in her theories believe them all the more, since you look like
>you have nothing substative to say against her.
Well hopefully you find a little more substance this time around--for
I have replied to what you posted as opposed to what you have alleged. ;-)
Criticisms exist if you wish to find them.
>>--she never did like free thinkers unless they
>>agreed with her.
>
>True. But the fact that a person is a bitch doesn't make her theories
>wrong.
True. But it doesn't help her case--particularly if the person
preaching objectivity is being subjective. QED.
--
----
Tom Asquith
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, Canada
tasquith-@-gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
---------------------------------------------------------
"The Rightists are conducting their own private
battle. They are against Communism without being
for freedom. They are against ignorance without
being for education. They are against sin without
being for God." -- J.Edgar Hoover
---------------------------------------------------------
Pistol
On Sat, 02 May 1998 00:00:47 -0400, ye...@yeah.net (Hokey Wolf ) wrote:
>In article <354a4b24...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
>(Pistol) wrote:
>
>snippage
>
>?Now if they, or anyone for that matter, presents an ARGUMENT
>?against Rand's theories, rather than the usual gratuitous
>?dismissal, THAT should be taken seriously. The fact that the
>?literature is almost completely devoid of such efforts is
>?further evidence (IMO) that modern philosophers refuse to take
>?objectivism seriously for reasons that go far beyond philosophy.
>
>I'm no philosopher, but it's easy to see Rand was a dualist. She posited
>binary paradigms. Even young children are able to ascertain reality is
>complex and divergent.
An authoritarian appeal to children? Please.
The essential issues are almost always binary. It is the tangental
issues, often sloppily defined, that suggest otherwise.
>?No, it is your virtue. Someone who questions his own existence
>?doesn't deserve accolades, or a teaching position. He deserves
>?to be institutionalized.
>
>And I always see Objectivists adopting Rand's authoritarianism (dualism).
Can't you see that you've just made my point. Are you offering a
substative critique of Rand, just slandering?
LQuest
On 1 May 1998 04:26:59 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <gio+van+no+ni+8-...@dialup108.tlh.talstar.com>,
>gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com says...
>
>>It all goes back to the axioms. Existence exists. It has
>>always existed, and will always exist. Consciousness exists.
>>And things are what they are rather than what they are not
>>(the law of identity). All 3 are unchanging.
>
>Existence and consciousness are unchanging? Existence exists is an irrelevant
>definition (like runners run). I would say that existence is experience, and
>experience is what "exists".
>
>For that, see; http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/antimaterialist.htm
>
>It's only the start of my discussion, however.
>
>>And they determine epistemology, which in turn determines
>>ethics.
>
>Explain. That seems a bit bizarre.
If you are sincere, and you actually do want an explanation of this
timeless truth, I suggest you read ARs : "The Virtue of Selfishness"
and or "Philosophy -- Who needs it?" Then read them again about
three more times. Even a slow reader can easily accomplish this in
about two weeks. You do that, and you WILL understand. Who knows --
you might have an "Ah ha! experience!
>To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
>cheers, scott
There can be only two possible reasons why you feel this way (if this
actually IS how you feel):
1. You have not yet actually read much of ARs work with a truly
NEUTRAL mindset.
2. You don't have the intellectual capital to comprehend the elegantly
simple, functionally effective truth of Objectivist morality and
ethics as they apply to our earthly context.
For the sake of civility, I'll assume the former.
--Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who
deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of
minorities." --Ayn Rand
Scott D. Erb
In article <354bf7c2....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>I don't think so, Scott. I don't think either you or Pistol
>understand objectivism.
It's not just Pistol, you're contradicting almost all the Randians who post
here, and you're doing so while admitting you haven't read her.
Your faith that your bias and ignorance is more important to determining truth
rather than considering evidence and logic is amusing, but unconvincing.
It's also a bit kooky. You're drifting in Odellesque territory here.
Scott D. Erb
In article <35506759....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>....and I'm telling you that I believe that anybody who questions
>their own interpretation of morality is a damned fool.
So, let's say someone raised in Nazi Germany believes that it is moral to
discriminate against Jews. Are they a damned fool if they question that
interpretation? Let's say I think its moral to steal from someone who has
more money than me. Would I be a damned fool to question that interpretation
of morality?
In short, John comes down as the ultra status quo guy. Nothing should be
reformed one way or another, you should never question your beliefs, you
should try to stay as you are. OK, John, if that's the way you want to live
your life, go ahead. Don't be surprised if people disagree with you.
>...and anybody who allowed their morality to be programmed into them
>in the first place is already a fool
You're in a state of denial about your own programming. Sad.
Unless you learn to think critically and question what you believe, I'm afraid
you're living an unexamined life. And as Socrates said, an unexamined life is
not worth living.
Tim Starr
In article <6idnv2$1cto$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>
>>Scott Erb on Somalia:
>
>Note again Tim's essential dishonesty as he deletes my post and reposts
>something I've debunked in a pathetic effort at personal attacks.
Note again Professor Erb's essential dishonesty as he deleted the evidence
of his lies then accused me of being dishonest. In case anyone missed it,
here's the evidence again:
Scott Erb on Somalia:
4/9/98:
4/18/98:
4/28/98:
"...
>But again: Somalia was an issue we agreed upon, we just disagree on who bares
>most of the blame. Tim blamed Italy, which I said was silly...
Which was false, so I pointed out my proof.
>I blamed the US and USSR. Tim later gave some details about some bad things
>Italy supposedly did, and since (at least at that time) I had little reason
>to doubt Tim, I accepted that Italy probably had some role.
Lie. The first thing you did in response to my presentation of my proof was
to deny your earlier denial of Italian responsibility for Somali problems,
then accuse me of lying & demand proof that you ever said any such thing.
So, I've now composed a file of direct quotes from you saying precisely that
which I can repost at will, no matter how many times you delete it to avoid
having to reply to it.
>His entire attack is based on one line, my "I didn't deny Italy had any
>blame," saying I'm lying because I said blaming Italy was silly. One line.
No, it's based upon several lines, such as your line that blaming Italy was
"bizarre," then that you never said any such thing, then your admission that
Italy was to blame.
>The reason I say those things as two different things is that I thought Tim
>was saying Italy was only to blame, which would be silly.
A completely implausible reading of my statement, which was:
4/9/98:
Starr: "Don't forget the Italian Socialist Party, which made Somalia the
proving ground for all their socialist development schemes."
Nowhere in that did I say that Italy was solely to blame. I just said that
any assessment of blame to foreign powers for Somali problems had to include
Italy.
Erb's denial of his own statement is equally implausible:
Erb: "No, the US and the Soviets are what screwed up the area. Trying to blame
Italy is as bizarre as trying to claim Koresh was just a victim."
- Message-ID <6gjudf$750$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
Nowhere in there did Erb say anything like "Italy can't be solely to blame
for Somali problems." He just flat-out denied that ANY of the blame could
be attributed to Italy.
>I've repeated this (and continue to do so, since I think patient honesty will
>frustrate Tim's repeated attacks, and hurt Tim's credibility in the meantime),
>and will continue to do so for as long as Tim continues his dishonest attack
>posts.
Repeat it all you want, I'm sure you're very familiar with the Big Lie
technique. That still won't make it true.
John Parker
>Yep, I'm back from the dead....
>
>On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:15:07 GMT, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest)
>wrote:
>>>While argument from authority is certainly
>>>not proof, it can be used as evidence that when experts think something is
>>>wrong, there is a good chance it is.
>>
>>Bull shit!
>
>Really? Do you recognize your own contradiction here?
>
>Scott essentially makes the comment that although there are
>exceptions, the opinions of the formally, specifically-educated, and
>trained expert, are more likely to be correct than those of the
>uneducated opinion.
>
>You call that bullshit?
Yea, I call that BULLSHIT. The reason that a person is an "expert" or
an authority has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with how many
other people think he makes sense. There is a fallacy that states that
the number of people agreeing with something does not support it's
accuracy. There was a time when the "experts" thought the world was
flat and the center of the universe. The only true expert is the
individual, based on his own perception and his own reasoning.
>If you were truely thinking objectively, you would have no choice but
>to agree with that assertion. It's obvious, logical, and most
>probable. Your rebuttal is baseless, illogical, and quite frankly,
>illustrates the notion that many Objectivists have turned their
>beliefs into a religion. Shame, shame...
If anyone has turned their beliefs into a religion, then they are
simply not objectivism, for that is contrary to objectivism. If it
matters that you agree with me, I cannot be an objectivist. It's kind
of like the fallacy of saying, "I need my independence."
>>You see, dear fellow, it does not matter what you say. Until you can
>>PROVE that the tree falling in the forest is NOT a physically
>>identical phenomena regardless of the presence of any human witness,
>>then you are wasting your time. I assure you I DO exist. Reality IS
>>separate from human perception and when the tree falls in the forest
>>the event is identical even if no human is there to witness it.
>
>Interesting example. Realize that a great deal of the "truths" we
>cling to are not discovered through DIRECT human observation.
Proving what? That perhaps we are imperfect in our perceptions as
well as our logical conclusions? Of course, but who ever thought that
such was not the case? My imperfect eyesight and my imperfect power
of logical reason does not in any way alter reality. Reality is
reality, and since my perception of it is the only method of observing
it, and my logical reasoning is the only way I have of interpreting
it, I must accept my own conclusions. The fact that I intellectually
understand that I am imperfect, doesn't matter, since it's all I've
got.
>As far as the old "Do I EXIST?" question...of course you do. I've
>never understood why people keep asking that stupid question over and
>over again. Perhaps that is my own failing, yes?
>
>But I pose this question to you: You exist in your world and to the
>people who interact with you in one way or another.
>
>But...do you exist in the mind of little Jean-Marie Doreau, who lives
>in the South of France and has no contact to anyone outside the
>village?
>
>Does it matter? No? Exactly!
...and because little Jean-Marie Doreau has not perceived the reality
of my existence has exactly what meaning to her, or me for that
matter? Now perhaps that you have stated this to me, and as I
perceive your statement, I may logically reason as to the truth of it,
and subsequently, the significance of it, as it relates to me. The
fact that I may not have had any inkling of it prior to your
statement, or how I react to your statement may or may not have had
any significance to me, but that is, as well, only for me to
determine. So, to answer your question, "does it matter?" I can
answer that to me, "no",..... to her, if she indeed exists, and to you
or anybody else, I don't know, nor do I care. But you are very wrong
if you think you can answer that question for anyone but yourself.
>>Now go away son! I must press on with pursuing my highest moral
>>purpose: the achievement of MY OWN happiness at MY OWN expense using
>>MY OWN mind, hands and heart and without expecting anyone else to
>>sacrifice themselves for any part of my happiness.
>
>And if you reach this high point, I can almost guarantee you that
>you'll be quite alone...isolated from the rest of the world.
...and your guarantee is as worthless as your opinion. A person must
first choose for himself how valuable "not being alone" is, then
evaluate and compare it with the terms and conditions of establishing
whatever he chooses.
>This illustrates another flaw I've discovered in this philosophy.
>Taking your comment above, how do you factor in offspring, marriage,
>family, etc.? One of the defining traits of human beings is their
>ability and tendency to sacrifice for others, through love, a sense
>of duty, etc. Study other animals and you'll see that this
>practically never happens.
For whatever reasons, I know not, but this happens all the time in the
"animal world." Perhaps animals can be objective too?
>If you make a basic assumption that reason is one of man's traits that
>distinguishes him from other animals, you also have to take in other
>distinguishing traits that, when combined, form a more complete
>picture. If you say that reason is THE distinguishing trait, then you
>are simply doing "subjective editing" . You can't simply take one
>trait, ignoring the rest because they may be "inconvenient", then base
>an entire philosphy on that one trait...AND THEN include morality.
>
>There are some specific points made in Objectivist philosophy that
>indeed make sense (which is what got me interested in it), but the
>overall picture has just too many flaws, in my opinion, to merit any
>real consideration.
>
>JSS
Scott D. Erb
>Note again Professor Erb's essential dishonesty as he deleted the evidence
>of his lies then accused me of being dishonest. In case anyone missed it,
>here's the evidence again:
On the contrary, I replied to it. But you repeat the same debunked stuff over
and over, asserting that it proves something I show it does not prove. Why
should I keep in my response something you repost ten times a day? Sheesh.
>Lie. The first thing you did in response to my presentation of my proof was
>to deny your earlier denial of Italian responsibility for Somali problems,
>then accuse me of lying & demand proof that you ever said any such thing.
Tim, try to be honest for a change and stop playing rhetoric games. I stated
very clearly that I said that blaming Italy was silly, and I later noted that
Italy did indeed bare some of the blame. I also said that I had never denied
that Italy bore some of the blame. I understand how you could read that as a
contradiction, but I explained how I was interpreting it (I thought you were
blaming Italy completely, which was silly -- once it was clear you were only
assigning them some of the blame, I found it more reasonable). You delete
that and repeat your posts ad nauseum in a lame attempt at personal slander.
It doesn't work, Tim. Readers are too smart.
The fact: Tim fears debate with me since I'm catching him at his rhetorical
games and outting him for all the internet to see. He hopes that by posting
long reposts over and over and making personal attacks on me, he can obfuscate
and hide from the truth. My response: patiently and honestly explaining my
post, reminding people that this was a small part of a larger debate where
Somalia was one of the few points of agreement, and then deconstructing other
Starr posts to show how he uses these rhetorical tactics consistently.
Readers can judge. Readers can also note (for instance in the debate with
M. Root) that I can have very friendly and useful debates and discussions with
libertarians that do not turn into personal attacks. Watch Tim's interactions
with those with whom he disagrees, and note that he never seems to be able to
avoid ad hominem and personal attacks on his opponents. That again proves
that his purpose is propaganda, and not discussion and debate to try to learn.
cheers, scott
http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/
John Parker
On 2 May 1998 15:00:07 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <35506759....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>>....and I'm telling you that I believe that anybody who questions
>>their own interpretation of morality is a damned fool.
>
>So, let's say someone raised in Nazi Germany believes that it is moral to
>discriminate against Jews. Are they a damned fool if they question that
>interpretation? Let's say I think its moral to steal from someone who has
>more money than me. Would I be a damned fool to question that interpretation
>of morality?
That's right, Erb, if you believe those things, you believe 'em, and
you'd be a damned fool to question them. If you believe that it's fun
to kill and mutilate other people, you should not question it. Now I
didn't say that I believed any of those things, nor did I say that I
thought it would be just fine to act out any of those beliefs, and in
fact if I believe that if you did act out any of those things, I
should see to it that you get the death sentence, what I said was
simply that you should not question your beliefs because your beliefs
are the result of your interpretation of your perceptions, and that is
the only reliable source of information.
>In short, John comes down as the ultra status quo guy. Nothing should be
>reformed one way or another, you should never question your beliefs, you
>should try to stay as you are. '
But I didn't say any such thing. My beliefs change all the time, but
not because I question them.
> OK, John, if that's the way you want to live
>your life, go ahead.
Oh, don't worry, I intend to.
>Don't be surprised if people disagree with you.
Why would I be surprised if people disagree with me? Why would it
matter?
>>...and anybody who allowed their morality to be programmed into them
>>in the first place is already a fool
>
>You're in a state of denial about your own programming. Sad.
What's sad is that somebody with their own brain would allow somebody
else to program it. But then you're a liberal, and you can't imagine
having any individuality.
>Unless you learn to think critically and question what you believe, I'm afraid
>you're living an unexamined life. And as Socrates said, an unexamined life is
>not worth living.
...and I'm still far more inclined to question what Socrates said than
what I believe, Erb. A lot of people have said a lot of things, thank
goodness I don't have to believe it all. Too bad that you do.
John Parker
On 2 May 1998 15:02:09 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <354bf7c2....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>>I don't think so, Scott. I don't think either you or Pistol
>>understand objectivism.
>
>It's not just Pistol, you're contradicting almost all the Randians who post
>here, and you're doing so while admitting you haven't read her.
Like I should care?
>Your faith that your bias and ignorance is more important to determining truth
>rather than considering evidence and logic is amusing, but unconvincing.
I wasn't trying to convince you, Erb. I couldn't possibly care less
what you believe, I was just stating my thoughts.
>It's also a bit kooky. You're drifting in Odellesque territory here.
Actually, I'd be a little ashamed if you did agree with me about
anything.
J. Sasha Stewart
On Fri, 01 May 1998 22:22:51 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>Let me try a more complete approach. It is true that the
>opinions of formally educated experts on subjects where we'd
>expect little personal bias are unlikely to result in erroneous
>conclusions. Unlikely, not impossible. There will, no doubt,
>be such cases, as there have been throughout history with
>breakthroughs in all areas of human endeavors.
True, but even then it also seems highly unlikely that all "naysayers"
are working from a personal bias. "The Institution", I can see
though. And yes, it's happened more times than I can count. :)
>Rand attacked modern philosophy, in no uncertain terms, on this
>basis. And philosophers are people, after all, so OF COURSE
>they shunned her! How could they be expected to react any
>other way? When an astrologer, chiropractor, or theologin is
>challenged as to the validity of the discipline to which they
>have dedicated their life, they do not respond with "Oh,
>really? Hey, you might be onto something!" They respond,
>understandably, defensively. Philosophers are no different,
>and for that reason, their opinion of Rand should not be given
>too much credibility.
And why not? If they are trained, versus her lack of training, they
should be taking seriously...I do think their credibility perhaps
should falter in proportion to their own personal bias, etc., but how
can you blanketly assume them to be biased?
But let's not forget that Rand's philosophy was indeed attacked from
the inside. It's hard to assume that external forces were all working
to coerce the "heretics".
>Now if they, or anyone for that matter, presents an ARGUMENT
>against Rand's theories, rather than the usual gratuitous
>dismissal, THAT should be taken seriously. The fact that the
>literature is almost completely devoid of such efforts is
>further evidence (IMO) that modern philosophers refuse to take
>objectivism seriously for reasons that go far beyond philosophy.
I've read a decent amount of stuff from both sides, and I must say
that the criticism did indeed present clean, LOGICAL arguments to show
their point.
>Just examine the criticisms of Objectivism that appear here.
>One after another, they are nothing more than unsubstantiated vague
>generalities and personal attacks. There is often little
>evidence that the critic even knows what objecivism is, much
>less that he has identified its shortcomings. Rarely is there
>actually a specific reference to something Rand or other
>objectivists had to say. And when objectivist opposition to
>these claims appears, the critic often just disappears. I
>think this is telling.
Hmmm, I dunno. I've seen both good arguments AND baseless
attacks...from BOTH sides.
I don't want to play into that game, which is why I generally try to
provide some clear (at least I try to be as clear as possible)
arguments. But like I've said, I do agree with certain aspects of
objectivism. It just seems that the "die hard" objectivists on this
group refuse to really open their minds to other possibilities, which,
I think, is unfortunate. But, of course, that's my take on it.
>>As far as the old "Do I EXIST?" question...of course you do. I've
>>never understood why people keep asking that stupid question over and
>>over again. Perhaps that is my own failing, yes?
>
>No, it is your virtue. Someone who questions his own existence
>doesn't deserve accolades, or a teaching position. He deserves
>to be institutionalized.
>
>>But I pose this question to you: You exist in your world and to the
>>people who interact with you in one way or another.
>
>>But...do you exist in the mind of little Jean-Marie Doreau, who lives
>>in the South of France and has no contact to anyone outside the
>>village?
>>
>>Does it matter? No? Exactly!
>
>You are just playing a semantic game with the word "exist".
>Its meaning in "do I exist?" is very different than its meaning
>in "Do you exist in the mind of so-and-so?".
No, no, no,... I understand that. I was just trying to reinforce the
point that it doesn't matter.
If there's a million dollars buried somewhere on I-71 by a guy who's
now dead, and no one knows that he put it there, the money doesn't
exist for all intents and purposes. But yet, it's there (the two
meanings you speak of). But it's being there is meaningless unless
someone finds it.
>>>Now go away son! I must press on with pursuing my highest moral
>>>purpose: the achievement of MY OWN happiness at MY OWN expense using
>>>MY OWN mind, hands and heart and without expecting anyone else to
>>>sacrifice themselves for any part of my happiness.
>>
>>And if you reach this high point, I can almost guarantee you that
>>you'll be quite alone...isolated from the rest of the world.
>
>Well, I'll assure him that he won't. I implement this
>principle in my life with great success. I have many friends,
>who are, to varying degrees, like-minded. Most of the
>knee-jerk platitudes that people spout about what must be done
>to sustain meaningful relationships with others are just myths.
>I've broken them all, and am none the worse for wear. I've
>dated who I wish, regardless of their relationships to my
>friends or family (unless they are taken). I rid my life of
>people who have nothing to offer me. I've told people they
>cannot bring to my house their kids, and their parents, when I
>determined that to conflict with my interests. And you know
>what happened? Nothing!
Intriguing. :) I imagine your parties are quite...interesting. :)
>Such things are necessary to have relationships with flawed
>individuals who think you owe them something. But with
>self-sufficient people who do not look for handouts, there is
>no problem.
Are you self-imployed, paying no taxes to a government, living on your
own island, with no laws but your own?
In Gault's Gulch, perhaps? *wink* *wink*
>>This illustrates another flaw I've discovered in this philosophy.
>>Taking your comment above, how do you factor in offspring, marriage,
>>family, etc.? One of the defining traits of human beings is their
>>ability and tendency to sacrifice for others, through love, a sense
>>of duty, etc. Study other animals and you'll see that this
>>practically never happens.
>
>What are you talking about? This happens in the animal kingdon
>all the time. Worker ants sacrifice themselves for the benefit
>of the mound (obviously not consciously) all the time. A mother
>bird will risk being eaten by a wolf (by pretending to be
>injured) to protect her young, and this is typical of many
>mother animals. Practically every animal that is social does this.
Oh yes, I think I've seen stuff like that on the Discovery Channel. :)
But yes, I know it DOES happen. But at what level? Perhaps there are
a few animals that seek retribution for a killed offspring? My point
was that if reason is to be regarded as man's "claim to fame", so
should alot of other traits. Other animals reason, but yes, humans do
it better. Other animals feel love, but humans do it more. Other
animals sacrifice, but humans do it for deeper reasons, etc.
>If you think you have other traits to offer as uniquely human,
>I eagerly await your list. I don't see any others. Other
>animals feel love, anger, and sadness.
But, well...that was my point, yo. When you get down to it, humans
are ANIMALS. What separates us from lesser animals aren't the traits
themselves, but the level at which we express them.
If reason and logic are responsible for our technology and our
evolution, what sparks the reasoning and the logical thinking? How
about passion, war, boredom, curiosity? Without those, there's not
much use for reason and logic, is there? Besides environmental
conditions and simple living, etc., other traits help spark the need
to change things, to evolve. Logic and reason helps us to achieve
that change. But if we don't have the drive for change, logic and
reason become a wasted commodity.
>And be careful to not miscategorize actions for traits. The
>fact that many people choose to murder does not make murdering
>an inherent trait of humanity.
If there is some confusion about that, let me say that I'm not
necessarily talking about the action itself, but the emotion behind
it.
>We've had this discussion before, haven't we? If we begin
>again, one thing needs to be made clear - the definition of
>"objectivism". I do not think the definition too many people
>use of "anything Ayn Rand claims is objectivism" is valid. It
>sure isn't very usefull. I consider myself an objectivist, but
>I disagree with a great deal (by O'st standards :)) of what
>Rand had to say.
Yes, yes...and I will admit to falling into that trap myself. It IS
easier to attack Rand's objectivism, especially since she apparently
had a hard time living up to it. But pure objectivism is more
difficult. By it's very nature (at least in terms of the meaning of
objectivity), it should be practically FLAWLESS. My problem, then,
lies in the fact that it seems to try to quantify things that are not
really quantifiable. Morality? The proper way to live? These are
not things that can be decided outside of a person's own subjective
realm. My baseline problem with Objectivism (not Randian, I guess) is
that it shouldn't be thought of as a philosophy in and of itself, but
it should be more of a TOOL to achieving a person's goals. And, as
with all tools, it is only useful in it's proper function, but not
will all things.
>What I think distinguishes objectivism, and what attracted me
>to it initially is the idea that moral truths can be determined
>by an objective analysis of the nature of mankind (vs a divine
>source, or subjectivity). If you agree with this premise, I'd
And, as related to what I've said above, perhaps my understanding of
your interpretation Objectivism is flawed. An "objective analysis",
which connotes "tool", essentially relates to what I have said above.
J Sasha Stewart
J. Sasha Stewart
On Sat, 02 May 1998 20:39:34 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>>Scott essentially makes the comment that although there are
>>exceptions, the opinions of the formally, specifically-educated, and
>>trained expert, are more likely to be correct than those of the
>>uneducated opinion.
>>
>>You call that bullshit?
>
>Yea, I call that BULLSHIT. The reason that a person is an "expert" or
>an authority has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with how many
>other people think he makes sense. There is a fallacy that states that
*Buzz* Three strikes you're out, dude. Next contestant?
But seriously let's think about this one. So you're saying an
"expert" in mathematics is not really one? A person who can prove
something through scientific principles and mathematics is just a con
artist?
So if we can't really rely on the "opinions" of the "experts", then
why are we bothering with all of this nonsense?
Furthermore, you say that and "expert" is only so because other people
think he makes sense. You seem to think that Ayn Rand's stuff makes
sense. So perhaps she is wrong after all, eh?
I mean, really...the last time I've seen so many contradictions, I was
14 years old, lying to my parents on why I had gotten home so late. ;)
>the number of people agreeing with something does not support it's
>accuracy. There was a time when the "experts" thought the world was
>flat and the center of the universe. The only true expert is the
>individual, based on his own perception and his own reasoning.
*Buzz* again, yo. The only true expert is the individual who can
PROVE his findings, perhaps allowing for an exception or two
...but...well, there it is.
>If anyone has turned their beliefs into a religion, then they are
>simply not objectivism, for that is contrary to objectivism. If it
>matters that you agree with me, I cannot be an objectivist. It's kind
He's getting warmer....
>>Interesting example. Realize that a great deal of the "truths" we
>>cling to are not discovered through DIRECT human observation.
>
>Proving what? That perhaps we are imperfect in our perceptions as
>well as our logical conclusions? Of course, but who ever thought that
>such was not the case? My imperfect eyesight and my imperfect power
>of logical reason does not in any way alter reality. Reality is
>reality, and since my perception of it is the only method of observing
>it, and my logical reasoning is the only way I have of interpreting
>it, I must accept my own conclusions. The fact that I intellectually
>understand that I am imperfect, doesn't matter, since it's all I've
>got.
That's not the issue. We are all flawed. The problem is that knowing
this, we make matters worse for ourselves when we don't allow the
possibility that our conclusions are wrong...ESPECIALLY in the face of
good, contrasting arguments, which is a trait you seem to be
demonstrating here. When we do this, our opinions become a religion.
>>But...do you exist in the mind of little Jean-Marie Doreau, who lives
>>in the South of France and has no contact to anyone outside the
>>village?
>>
>>Does it matter? No? Exactly!
>
>...and because little Jean-Marie Doreau has not perceived the reality
>of my existence has exactly what meaning to her, or me for that
>matter? Now perhaps that you have stated this to me, and as I
>perceive your statement, I may logically reason as to the truth of it,
>and subsequently, the significance of it, as it relates to me. The
>fact that I may not have had any inkling of it prior to your
>statement, or how I react to your statement may or may not have had
>any significance to me, but that is, as well, only for me to
>determine. So, to answer your question, "does it matter?" I can
>answer that to me, "no",..... to her, if she indeed exists, and to you
>or anybody else, I don't know, nor do I care. But you are very wrong
>if you think you can answer that question for anyone but yourself.
Actually, you agreed with me, that is, until the last statement. It
is quite simple: That which does not exist to you, does not matter to
you. "Exist", meaning that it has no influence in your life. We are
not omnipotent. Why, then is it wrong for me to answer such a simple
problem?
>>And if you reach this high point, I can almost guarantee you that
>>you'll be quite alone...isolated from the rest of the world.
>
>...and your guarantee is as worthless as your opinion. A person must
>first choose for himself how valuable "not being alone" is, then
>evaluate and compare it with the terms and conditions of establishing
>whatever he chooses.
True. And just how happy will you be when you are completely alone
with your absolute freedom? In my opinion, if you are to be truely,
and ultimately free (as you stated), then there is practically only
one way it will happen. You can't have both, unless you find a
"Gault's Gulch" somewhere....And even then, if you decided you
"wanted" to own the whole resort...well, you can see where this is
going.
J. Sasha Stewart
Loren Petrich
In article <3549731d...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
Tom Asquith <*tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>My primary criticism was that the foundations of Her
>objectivism were constructed post hoc--basically making
>it up as She went along. ...
One wonders how many others viewed as prophets have essentially
done exactly that. For example, I recall that one Soviet ideologist once
joked that "there is nothing on which Lenin does not contradict himself
several times". This was in the late 1970's; there was still an official
Lenin cult in the Soviet Union.
>But considering that she has made both Kant and Hegel sources of
>scorn,
What did she hold against those two gentlemen?
... Still more evidence of this inability to
>remain firm to Her philosophy's tenets is found in "Notes on
>the History of American Free Enterprise"--a history (!) on
>the development of the American railroads.
That sort of thing from capitalism groupies strikes me as
strange, because big businesses have way of imitating governments in how
they are run, and because big businesses have this tendency to be ...
collectivist. And when they are reminded of these awkward facts,
capitalist groupies tend to run away.
Margaret Thatcher's making heroes out of shopkeepers was more
true to Randroid principles, but a small-time shopkeeper can hardly be
called a Great Success.
>Moreover, you won't deny that one of her goals was to romanticize
>capitalism--careful, there is a significant amount of literature
>that backs this up! And surely you wouldn't deny that any attempt
>at romanticizing is a less than objective or logical endeavour.
Could it be said that she had wanted to be the Karl Marx of
capitalism?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Scott D. Erb
In article <355ce5b8....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
> If you believe that it's fun
>to kill and mutilate other people, you should not question it.
I'm glad you're not a teacher, John.
>But I didn't say any such thing. My beliefs change all the time, but
>not because I question them.
John, you are simply getting kooky. Your refusal to question your own beliefs
suggests insecurity (something which seems to come out in all your posts) And
your ability to only change them based on what -- a whim? -- but not on
reflection and questioning seems bizarre.
cheers, scott
John Parker
>And why not? If they are trained, versus her lack of training, they
>should be taking seriously...I do think their credibility perhaps
>should falter in proportion to their own personal bias, etc., but how
>can you blanketly assume them to be biased?
I always get a kick out of people who use the word "should" all the
time. It implies the speaker's desire for the listener to perform an
action without using their ability to reason. As such, I suspect it
also implies that the writer is prone to be so unreasonably motivated
himself. Do you always do what someone tell you "should" do? Are you
so smitten with other people's opinions that you accept their
"shoulds" without question? How does accepting the "should" of
somebody recognized by the masses as an expert encourage new and
original thinking?
John Parker
>On Sat, 02 May 1998 20:39:34 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>>>Scott essentially makes the comment that although there are
>>>exceptions, the opinions of the formally, specifically-educated, and
>>>trained expert, are more likely to be correct than those of the
>>>uneducated opinion.
>>>
>>>You call that bullshit?
>>
>>Yea, I call that BULLSHIT. The reason that a person is an "expert" or
>>an authority has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with how many
>>other people think he makes sense. There is a fallacy that states that
>
>*Buzz* Three strikes you're out, dude. Next contestant?
>
>But seriously let's think about this one. So you're saying an
>"expert" in mathematics is not really one? A person who can prove
>something through scientific principles and mathematics is just a con
>artist?
Can't you read? I didn't say that at all. I said that the term
"expert" get's applied by popular vote, which I do not accept as
validation of it being true. I didn't say it wasn't true, I said that
it isn't necessarily true.
>So if we can't really rely on the "opinions" of the "experts", then
>why are we bothering with all of this nonsense?
"We" are not relying on anything, "Dude." You are relying on whatever
you want, and I determine for myself who the experts are. I don't
have any reason to ask you to accept my opinions, nor do I have any
reason to accept yours.
>Furthermore, you say that and "expert" is only so because other people
>think he makes sense. You seem to think that Ayn Rand's stuff makes
>sense. So perhaps she is wrong after all, eh?
I don't think so, but you are free to, if you if want.
>I mean, really...the last time I've seen so many contradictions, I was
>14 years old, lying to my parents on why I had gotten home so late. ;)
I think perhaps you are still 14. I've contradicted nothing. Your
problem is that you want to use the word "we" all the time to argue
with me, when I am clearly using the word I. There is no "we" in this
conversation, there is only a "you" and a "me."
>>the number of people agreeing with something does not support it's
>>accuracy. There was a time when the "experts" thought the world was
>>flat and the center of the universe. The only true expert is the
>>individual, based on his own perception and his own reasoning.
>
>*Buzz* again, yo. The only true expert is the individual who can
>PROVE his findings, perhaps allowing for an exception or two
>...but...well, there it is.
Prove his finding to who. Why would I need to prove my findings to
anybody?
>>If anyone has turned their beliefs into a religion, then they are
>>simply not objectivism, for that is contrary to objectivism. If it
>>matters that you agree with me, I cannot be an objectivist. It's kind
>
>He's getting warmer....
>
>>>Interesting example. Realize that a great deal of the "truths" we
>>>cling to are not discovered through DIRECT human observation.
>>
>>Proving what? That perhaps we are imperfect in our perceptions as
>>well as our logical conclusions? Of course, but who ever thought that
>>such was not the case? My imperfect eyesight and my imperfect power
>>of logical reason does not in any way alter reality. Reality is
>>reality, and since my perception of it is the only method of observing
>>it, and my logical reasoning is the only way I have of interpreting
>>it, I must accept my own conclusions. The fact that I intellectually
>>understand that I am imperfect, doesn't matter, since it's all I've
>>got.
>
>That's not the issue. We are all flawed. The problem is that knowing
>this, we make matters worse for ourselves when we don't allow the
>possibility that our conclusions are wrong...ESPECIALLY in the face of
>good, contrasting arguments, which is a trait you seem to be
>demonstrating here. When we do this, our opinions become a religion.
Perhaps this is really to deep for you to understand. There is a
distinct difference between questioning my conclusions and making new
ones with new information that render the old ones invalid. My
conclusions are not cast in concrete, and I am in a continual learning
mode, but that is so not because I question my conclusions, but
because I understand that I have not perceived all there is to
perceive and remain open to new information. The fact that I don't
question my conclusions is not dogmatic in the least. It in no way
means that I cling to them in the face of contradictions. It does not
mean that I consider myself or them to be infallible. It simply means
that if I if believe something to be true, it is because I have
rationally and logically reasoned it to be so, and that unless I
receive additional information, I have no reason to question it. If I
have reached a conclusion on an issue, it is because I believe that I
have received enough information to draw a reasonable conclusion from,
that I have logically reasoned through the information, and am
satisfied that it is correct to the extent that I need not actively
seek additional information on the subject. If additional information
presents itself to me, I am more than willing, perhaps eager to
re-evaluate the conclusion.
There are also many things that I have not reached conclusions on.m
Perhaps there are more of these than the other. These issues remain
entirely open, although perhaps leaning one way or the other. Because
I have not reached a conclusion on them, they are not conclusions, by
virtue of not being concluded.
>>>But...do you exist in the mind of little Jean-Marie Doreau, who lives
>>>in the South of France and has no contact to anyone outside the
>>>village?
>>>
>>>Does it matter? No? Exactly!
>>
>>...and because little Jean-Marie Doreau has not perceived the reality
>>of my existence has exactly what meaning to her, or me for that
>>matter? Now perhaps that you have stated this to me, and as I
>>perceive your statement, I may logically reason as to the truth of it,
>>and subsequently, the significance of it, as it relates to me. The
>>fact that I may not have had any inkling of it prior to your
>>statement, or how I react to your statement may or may not have had
>>any significance to me, but that is, as well, only for me to
>>determine. So, to answer your question, "does it matter?" I can
>>answer that to me, "no",..... to her, if she indeed exists, and to you
>>or anybody else, I don't know, nor do I care. But you are very wrong
>>if you think you can answer that question for anyone but yourself.
>
>Actually, you agreed with me, that is, until the last statement. It
>is quite simple:
I know.
> That which does not exist to you, does not matter to
>you.
What makes you think that is true? How would you know?
> "Exist", meaning that it has no influence in your life. We are
>not omnipotent. Why, then is it wrong for me to answer such a simple
>problem?
It is really simple, but escapes you. Perhaps I worded it wrong. It
isn't wrong for you to answer any way you want, but it would be wrong
for me to believe that I know enough about what is or isn't important
to you, or perhaps even to conclude that you are not omnipotent. You
draw your conclusions about these things from your perceptions, and
you are totally free to draw them any way you want, and if you have
reached a conclusion that you are happy with, I would not be
interested in telling you that you were wrong in so doing. I would
simply regard your answer as being totally worthless.
>>>And if you reach this high point, I can almost guarantee you that
>>>you'll be quite alone...isolated from the rest of the world.
>>
>>...and your guarantee is as worthless as your opinion. A person must
>>first choose for himself how valuable "not being alone" is, then
>>evaluate and compare it with the terms and conditions of establishing
>>whatever he chooses.
>
>True. And just how happy will you be when you are completely alone
>with your absolute freedom?
Your conclusion that I will be completely alone is faulty. Your
conclusion that absolute freedom will necessarily lead to that is also
faulty. You see, having absolute freedom does not imply that you do
not have to suffer the consequence for what you do. When you make
your decisions on how to live your life, you must consider those
consequences. Absolute freedom means simply that the consequences are
the only things you must consider. The effects of your own morality
upon those decisions is something that happens automatically when you
do this. The effects of your morality upon them is how they make you
feel, which then becomes one of the consequences. If my morals guide
me to certain things, or away from others, then so be it, but they are
my morals, not yours or anybody else's. I find that people like
yourself have a hard time understanding consequences. You think
freedom implies that the consequences of your actions should somehow
be nullified or not taken into account. I haven't figured out how you
hope to achieve this, have you?
> In my opinion, if you are to be truely,
>and ultimately free (as you stated), then there is practically only
>one way it will happen. You can't have both, unless you find a
>"Gault's Gulch" somewhere....And even then, if you decided you
>"wanted" to own the whole resort...well, you can see where this is
>going.
Oh I disagree, I have both, I assume you mean freedom and happiness.
I also have the piece of mind of knowing that I am what I am, not
because of what other people want, but because of what I chose to be.
...and oh yes, I have many friends, and a large family who like and
respect me.
I know many people who see it another way that appear to be very
unhappy. They see other people as being an infringement upon their
freedom, and resent them for it, then feel guilty for resenting them
and for the actions they take because of that resentment. OTOH, I see
other people as having the freedom to do what they want, and me having
the freedom of reacting to what they do in whatever way I choose.
This way I neither resent other people, nor have to feel guilty about
what I do. I am in harmony with my environment. I understand that I
can only control my environment to a very small degree, but I can
control how I adapt and react to it so that it causes me to achieve
the maximum happiness. How other people fit into my happiness is
under my control, and therefore part of my freedom.
John Parker
On Sun, 03 May 1998 05:27:09 GMT, sa...@cybercom.net (J. Sasha
Stewart) wrote:
>
>If there's a million dollars buried somewhere on I-71 by a guy who's
>now dead, and no one knows that he put it there, the money doesn't
>exist for all intents and purposes. But yet, it's there (the two
>meanings you speak of). But it's being there is meaningless unless
>someone finds it.
Funny thing, but that's not a given at all. If the money is there,
that also means that it isn't somewhere else, so for it's being there
to be meaningless, you would have to assume that everywhere else it
might otherwise have been, but isn't, is meaningless as well. The
bottom line is that the simple fact that you reasoned that it is
meaningless doesn't, in any way, mean that it is. It's just what you
have deduced based upon a lot of incomplete data. You see, to say
that something is meaningless is a logical fallacy. You are trying to
claim that a negative can be logically concluded with absolute
certainty. You would have complete access to all facts about
everything in order to do that. Now, is that what you are claiming?
John Parker
On 3 May 1998 12:33:20 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <355ce5b8....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>> If you believe that it's fun
>>to kill and mutilate other people, you should not question it.
>
>I'm glad you're not a teacher, John.
The problem you are having with statement begs the following question,
Scott. How do I know what beliefs to question and which ones not to?
If I am to question that belief as you imply, how can I not also
question the one that says it is wrong to actually do it? In the end,
all I have is my perceptions and my ability to reason, and that's
really all Ayn Rand said.
John Parker
>In article <355ce5b8....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>> If you believe that it's fun
>>to kill and mutilate other people, you should not question it.
>
>I'm glad you're not a teacher, John.
..and I'm glad you're not much of one either, Scott. Taking such a
statement out of it's context is the cheap trick of a loser Scott,
Which is why I suspect that most of your students are smart enough not
to bother to take your teaching too seriously. But please don't take
that as meaning that I am offended, rather I'm simply pointing out
that it reaffirms my earlier evaluation of you.
>>But I didn't say any such thing. My beliefs change all the time, but
>>not because I question them.
>
>John, you are simply getting kooky. Your refusal to question your own beliefs
>suggests insecurity (something which seems to come out in all your posts)
I've never refused any such thing, Scott. I'm perfectly capable of so
doing if I receive a valid request to do so, and perhaps someday I
might. It's just that I probably wouldn't consider a request from you
to be valid. I don't question my conclusions, and it is for no other
reason than that the reasoning that went into them has been concluded
to my satisfaction, which is what renders them be conclusions.
> And
>your ability to only change them based on what -- a whim? -- but not on
>reflection and questioning seems bizarre.
I explained this very clearly in another post, Scott, but I'll say it
again, just for you. If some additional information presents itself
that I think is significant, I am more than happy to re evaluate any
of my conclusions. If however, I have concluded something to my
satisfaction, I can see no reason to open it up and consider it
further, unless new data is perceived. I would consider anyone who
would ask themselves "have I concluded this correctly," without
having new data to consider, to be a fool, because if he had not
already determined that the issue was settled, he would have been a
fool to declare it to be a conclusion.
Scott D. Erb
In article <3581bb59....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
> How do I know what beliefs to question and which ones not to?
Keep an open mind. As new evidence comes in, reflect on your beliefs, and
what you've learned, and question whether those beliefs still fit the
evidence. Keep learning and growing.
>really all Ayn Rand said.
John, you're gettting your butt kicked in this thread by people who know Ayn
Rand. You've admitted you've read very little about her, and you've admitted
you don't know much about her ideas. You've proven that in your comments.
Your insecurity is really intense if he can't admit to being wrong in even
this obvious an instance. Oh well. That's your problem, not mine.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <3580b519....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>I've never refused any such thing, Scott. I'm perfectly capable of so
>doing if I receive a valid request to do so, and perhaps someday I
>might.
(snicker) John suddenly realizes his very absolute pronouncements that only a
fool would question his own beliefs, and that John never does, put John in an
untenable position.
Now he backtracks, backtracks, backtracks, tries to rationalize, throws in
insults and attacks (deleted) to cover up his bluster, and still is too
stubborn to admit he was simply wrong.
>I explained this very clearly in another post, Scott, but I'll say it
>again, just for you. If some additional information presents itself
>that I think is significant, I am more than happy to re evaluate any
>of my conclusions.
No, John, that is the opposite of what you explained earlier. You've just
changed your position because I showed you that you were wrong, but you're too
stubborn to be able to admit that you were wrong here.
You know and I know, as well as readers following this thread, what happened.
Your bluster only makes you look more foolish. You know, I sort of feel sorry
for you, John. You don't seem like a bad guy, just a tad insecure.
cheers, scott
http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/
John Parker
On 3 May 1998 18:32:11 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <3580b519....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>>I've never refused any such thing, Scott. I'm perfectly capable of so
>>doing if I receive a valid request to do so, and perhaps someday I
>>might.
>
>(snicker) John suddenly realizes his very absolute pronouncements that only a
>fool would question his own beliefs, and that John never does, put John in an
>untenable position.
Only a fool questions his beliefs, Scott. It's pure and simple. I
process information and when I have reached a conclusion, I stop
processing the information, and go on to something else.
>Now he backtracks, backtracks, backtracks, tries to rationalize, throws in
>insults and attacks (deleted) to cover up his bluster, and still is too
>stubborn to admit he was simply wrong.
There was no backtrack, you poor pathetic dumbshit. Can't you read
the english language? I didn't say that I refused, like you claimed,
and I simply pointed that out to your half witted self. I simply said
that anybody who does so is a fool. You're gonna have to get the
meanings of words right if you want to argue with grown ups, little
boy. This aint the classroom where you can enforce your illogical
nonsense with threats of gradepoint.
>>I explained this very clearly in another post, Scott, but I'll say it
>>again, just for you. If some additional information presents itself
>>that I think is significant, I am more than happy to re evaluate any
>>of my conclusions.
>
>No, John, that is the opposite of what you explained earlier. You've just
>changed your position because I showed you that you were wrong, but you're too
>stubborn to be able to admit that you were wrong here.
How is it opposite to say that a person is a fool to question his
beliefs, and conversely say that he is not opposed to accepting new
information that presents itself. The two concepts are very
different, Scott, although I can see how a simpleton might get them
mixed up. Does not the notion of "questioning one's beliefs" involve
a person, under their own volition re-examining information they have
already processed, while OTOH, not being closed to, accepting and
processing new information that had not until now been apparent is
something completely different? ...or perhaps you are too simple to
make the distinction?
>You know and I know, as well as readers following this thread, what happened.
>Your bluster only makes you look more foolish. You know, I sort of feel sorry
>for you, John. You don't seem like a bad guy, just a tad insecure.
>cheers, scott
It sure would appear that it is you that is straining to have your
ideas understood and excepted, Scott, while I continuously assert that
I couldn't possibly care less if you or anybody else agrees with me?
Now even with your very limited understanding of the human psyche,
does it not become very apparent which of those agendas might appear
to originate from a position of insecurity?
John Parker
On 3 May 1998 18:26:56 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <3581bb59....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>> How do I know what beliefs to question and which ones not to?
>
>Keep an open mind. As new evidence comes in, reflect on your beliefs, and
>what you've learned, and question whether those beliefs still fit the
>evidence. Keep learning and growing.
Well, hehehehe, that's pretty much what I said I did, and pretty much
what you don't do. ....except that I do not need reflect on my
beliefs nor do I need to question them. If new evidence make itself
known, my power to reason will automatically make whatever adjustments
are necessary to whatever beliefs are involved, and I would never need
to reflect upon them, once they have become solidified, unless new
evidence appears. You, on the other hand, are apparently saying that
you waste countless hours wondering whether you perceived the data
correctly, and whether you reasoned it out properly, even after you
have committed the idea to the status of a belief. I simply don't
make the mistake of concluding anything that remains questionable. My
belief system is firm because it contains only those things that I am
sure enough about not to question. Anything that is still
questionable, is not a belief. There are many things I am unsure of,
but those things I call beliefs are not among them. I'm sorry that
this concept is so difficult for you, Scott. Perhaps if you were more
of an individual, you would understand.
>>really all Ayn Rand said.
>
>John, you're gettting your butt kicked in this thread by people who know Ayn
>Rand. You've admitted you've read very little about her, and you've admitted
>you don't know much about her ideas. You've proven that in your comments.
Well, I've admitted that I've not read too much of her literature, but
I think I understand her ideas quit well, since what I have read are
her ideas. I've made my interpretations and that's about all I can
say about it. If you or somebody else disagrees about what I think
her ideas were, I hardly take that as meaning I have gotten my butt
kicked, but then I've always failed to understand that dumb assertion
that you bozo liberals seem so fond of. I have my ideas, they are
mine, and whereas I have lots of fun talking about them, I also know
that many people fail to possess the intellect to understand them, and
that lot's of folks simply disagree with them. I'm actually rather
pleased that most people don't agree with me.
>Your insecurity is really intense if he can't admit to being wrong in even
>this obvious an instance. Oh well. That's your problem, not mine.
>cheers, scott
I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong, Scott. I readily
agreed that to the possibility of me having misinterpreted Rand's
ideas, but then if you insist upon basing your dialog with me on the
incorrect assumption that I am insecure, you are free to do so, and I
am not particularly interested in changing your mind.
Scott D. Erb
In article <3588e9b8....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>Only a fool questions his beliefs, Scott.
>There was no backtrack, you poor pathetic dumbshit.
Poor John. You backtracked big time so you could appear to agree with me, but
then claim that you had said that earlier.
You lie to avoid having to admit the obvious -- that you are in over your head
in this discussion. Your insecurities show themselves big time.
>How is it opposite to say that a person is a fool to question his
>beliefs, and conversely say that he is not opposed to accepting new
>information that presents itself.
You can't get around this John. First, you admitted the latter only after I
rubbed your face in the idiocy of your view. You're trying to somehow connect
it, but you can't avoid that the new information has to lead to a questioning
of old beliefs before you can change them.
Sorry, John, you lose yet again.
(rest deleted -- mostly personal insults, and pathetic attempts to try to save
face).
Bye John. You're uninteresting, and your inability to even admit an obvious
error shows that discourse with you would be pointless. Come back when you've
learned something.
Tom Asquith
On Wed, 29 Apr 98 13:17:45 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>In article
><DC8D27E7855FFA13.0BEBDF8C...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>>, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net says...
>>
>>Pistol -- thank you for your response to tasquith. It made my day.
>
>His response, however, was a number of baseless accusations and
>philosophically naive statements.
>
>My own view is one of philosophical pragmatism. The epistemological and
>ontological issues involved make pure objectivism at best an article of faith
>for those who want to believe it. It's as provable as is belief in a God,
>and as unfalsifiable.
Uhh, not entirely pragmatic, Mr. Erb (at least not in the
Pearcean/Jamesian/Putnamite sense). You do here raise one
point that has been used effectively though against those
"tough-minded" individuals who like the objectivist mode
of thought though. There is an active choice present for the
wannabe "objectivist" between so-called 'subjectivist' and
'objectivist' modes of thought. To paraphrase one of the
members of the Frankfurt School (whom Rand despised), the
election of the mode of thought is not as much a matter
of being objective or subjective as it is the willingness
to place oneself with the arbitrary selection of being
objective or subjective. That is, the very fact that
a person chooses to be an objectivist is curiously enough
an election to engage oneself in a subjective moment (e.g.,
"Do I choose to feel or do I choose to be a logical
automaton?"). One of my former colleagues in the Philosophy
department called it the "objectivist cop-out".
I prefer just to think of it as the lack of willingness
of considering that one is choosing to be immoral
(e.g., the Nazi at Auschwitz who said he was only
following orders).
>Where Rand fails is her attempt (or the attempt of her followers) to try to
>turn a belief in "objectivism" to an ethical school of thought. That's when
>it looks more like a religion, since you have to accept some basic unprovable
>precepts about morality before you can go anywhere. That is why Rand's
>"philosophy" is so disrespected. While argument from authority is certainly
>not proof, it can be used as evidence that when experts think something is
>wrong, there is a good chance it is.
This is both true and untrue--though I think you have some missing premisses.
(Incidentally, egoistic theories can work--e.g., Thomas Hobbes--but they tend
to fall apart in other places. Rand just merely leaves herself open to the
same attacks both on epistemological grounds--per her rationalism--and on
the ethical grounds.)
Incidentally, argument from authority is usually a fallacy because either it
doesn't advance the truth of the argument or it produces an argument which
doesn't follow. It can be worked around however by two means: (1) if
the proposition suggested is taken for its own truth (ignoring the source)
or (2) if one is able to use incorporate by reference the argument from
the authority. (2) of course can lead to reductio ad absurdum if one is not
careful.
James A. donald
--
On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:53:05 GMT,
tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith) wrote:
> For the impatient, here's the abstract: (1) Rand doesn't
> follow her own philosophy--often descending into
> subjectivity, often using value statements on which to base
> her arguments;
True
> (2) Rand's rationalism doesn't survive Hume's fork;
That is a very rather strange things to say. You may be confusing
Hume's fork with the alleged separation between empirical and an moral
truths, the alleged is/ought gap.
If you actually mean Hume's fork, Hume concluded that the proposition
"fire causes paper to burn" fails Hume's fork, and he therefore
concluded that the proposition "fire causes paper to burn" was sheer
nonsense, so if Rand's work also fails Hume's fork, so much the better
for Rand, and so much the worse for Hume.
> (3) she is hypocritical with regards to freewill as it
> relates to her objectivists;
Huh? Again, this is a very strange criticism.
> (4) she is hypocritical in her use of history (in short she
> can be accused a number of times of not practicing what
> she preached to her Randbots);
Examples please?
> (5) her philosophy lacks ethics
Utter bullshit. You mean you do not like her ethics, you would prefer
the ethical theories that justified the terror in the Soviet Union
where she grew up, to ethical theories that justify the rights of the
individual.
> and confuses individualism with selfishness;
Half truth.
> and (6) it is proposed that she lacked familiarity with
> those philosophers whom she has criticized (particularly
> Hegel and Kant).
This may well be true, but true or false, clearly they did indeed have
the defects than Rand attributes to them. One may argue that her
defences of her own arguments were less successful than her attacks on
the positions of others, but her attacks on the arguments of others
were devastating.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
wq34RJYLj8sJmDoGdPHWDQD3MZOaSYTqSXnXeVXL
4wDxG+Vw9pzJWbhvUUo5m9yGDmU4MI4i3EqawZCCh
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Scott D. Erb
In article <354cc84e...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca says...
>Uhh, not entirely pragmatic, Mr. Erb (at least not in the
>Pearcean/Jamesian/Putnamite sense).
I'm speaking more in the philosophy of science sense, which is where I have
most of my experience.
(deletions of interesting points)
>This is both true and untrue--though I think you have some missing premisses.
I'm sure I do. I'm posting for fun, and not really spending a lot of time on
my posts at this point. Your posts have much more content than mine, which
tend to be an off the cuff reaction.
(rest deleted, but appreciated)
cheers, scott
J. Sasha Stewart
On Sun, 03 May 1998 16:36:45 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>>And why not? If they are trained, versus her lack of training, they
>>should be taking seriously...I do think their credibility perhaps
>>should falter in proportion to their own personal bias, etc., but how
>>can you blanketly assume them to be biased?
>
>time. It implies the speaker's desire for the listener to perform an
>action without using their ability to reason. As such, I suspect it
I don't know how deep inside your butt you had to dig to fish that
out, but that's YOUR insecure, and quite paranoid, interpretation.
>also implies that the writer is prone to be so unreasonably motivated
>himself. Do you always do what someone tell you "should" do? Are you
>so smitten with other people's opinions that you accept their
>"shoulds" without question? How does accepting the "should" of
>somebody recognized by the masses as an expert encourage new and
>original thinking?
First of all, my use of the word "should" is not aimed to mindlessly
sway you to my opinion. It is a simple English word, not to be given
as some "subliminal coercion". I am simply trying to show you the
logic of my arguments, trusting that you are intelligent enough to
consider it.
For the last question, mindlessly accepting the "should", as you put
it, doesn't encourage new and original thinking. But CONSIDERING it,
and QUESTIONING it does.
J. Sasha Stewart
Tim Starr
In article <6ig5nl$sho$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>>of his lies then accused me of being dishonest. In case anyone missed it,
>>here's the evidence again:
>
Lied about it, you mean.
>>Lie. The first thing you did in response to my presentation of my proof was
>>to deny your earlier denial of Italian responsibility for Somali problems,
>>then accuse me of lying & demand proof that you ever said any such thing.
>
>Tim, try to be honest for a change...
You're the one who's lying here, I've been honest the whole time.
>and stop playing rhetoric games. I stated very clearly that I said that
>blaming Italy was silly, and I later noted that Italy did indeed bare some
>of the blame. I also said that I had never denied that Italy bore some of
>the blame. I understand how you could read that as a contradiction...
Because it manifestly IS a contradiction.
>but I explained how I was interpreting it (I thought you were blaming Italy
>completely, which was silly...
Yes, it was silly of you to misinterpret what I said, which was:
4/9/98:
Starr: "Don't forget the Italian Socialist Party, which made Somalia the
proving ground for all their socialist development schemes."
How on earth could that be interpreted as "It's all Italy's fault"?
>-- once it was clear you were only assigning them some of the blame, I found
>it more reasonable).
When was that unclear?
>The fact: Tim fears debate with me since I'm catching him at his rhetorical
>games and outting him for all the internet to see.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
In fact, the exact reverse is the truth:
Scott Erb on Somalia:
4/9/98:
4/18/98:
4/28/98:
"...
--
Scott Erb
(Tim's continued repost and crude attempt at character assassination though
I've already gone through and debunked it deleted in order to get to any
argument of substance and content.)
Yikes! Nothing was there!
Oh well.
John Parker
>On Sun, 03 May 1998 16:36:45 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>>>And why not? If they are trained, versus her lack of training, they
>>>should be taking seriously...I do think their credibility perhaps
>>>should falter in proportion to their own personal bias, etc., but how
>>>can you blanketly assume them to be biased?
>>
>>I always get a kick out of people who use the word "should" all the
>>time. It implies the speaker's desire for the listener to perform an
>>action without using their ability to reason. As such, I suspect it
>
>I don't know how deep inside your butt you had to dig to fish that
>out, but that's YOUR insecure, and quite paranoid, interpretation.
Hehehehe, there's certainly nothing insecure or paranoid about me
explaining to I ignore statements containing the word "should," but
you go ahead and think so if it makes you feel good. This is not a
big issue, and I'm merely pointing it out to you for your possible
enlightenment. I did not use the word "should" so I clearly want you
to reason out your own interpretation of my statement. Feel free to
continue to use the word "should" whenever you want, but also
understand how others who may think more independently than yourself
are reacting to it.
>>also implies that the writer is prone to be so unreasonably motivated
>>himself. Do you always do what someone tell you "should" do? Are you
>>so smitten with other people's opinions that you accept their
>>"shoulds" without question? How does accepting the "should" of
>>somebody recognized by the masses as an expert encourage new and
>>original thinking?
>
>First of all, my use of the word "should" is not aimed to mindlessly
>sway you to my opinion. It is a simple English word, not to be given
>as some "subliminal coercion". I am simply trying to show you the
>logic of my arguments, trusting that you are intelligent enough to
>consider it.
Do you actually believe that the word "should" has some explanatory
connotation? Wouldn't it be more logical, if indeed you were trying
to show something, to simply show it and allow the reader to reason it
out the logic for themselves? The word "should" simply implies what
you want a person to do. Even when you follow the "should" clause
with a "because" clause, it states how you want the reader to react to
the because clause, which then logically means that you are asking him
not to reason it out and draw his own conclusions, but to accept your
conclusions.
>For the last question, mindlessly accepting the "should", as you put
>it, doesn't encourage new and original thinking. But CONSIDERING it,
>and QUESTIONING it does.
Please tell us how one should consider a statement that says one
should do something? I have no problem in considering an explanatory
statement containing some information, but any phrase containing the
word "should" is nothing more than a request to act, and as such,
there is very little to consider other than what basis or authority
the speaker might have to make such a request.
J. Sasha Stewart
On Sun, 03 May 1998 16:36:49 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>>If there's a million dollars buried somewhere on I-71 by a guy who's
>>now dead, and no one knows that he put it there, the money doesn't
>>exist for all intents and purposes. But yet, it's there (the two
>>meanings you speak of). But it's being there is meaningless unless
>>someone finds it.
>
>that also means that it isn't somewhere else, so for it's being there
WHAT?!? Read a physics book, man. That's true for practically
everything! Your statement means nothing to what I'm trying to
explain.
>that something is meaningless is a logical fallacy. You are trying to
>claim that a negative can be logically concluded with absolute
>certainty. You would have complete access to all facts about
>everything in order to do that. Now, is that what you are claiming?
Um, NO. Who said anythng about a negative? And what other facts am I
leaving out, hmmm? List them for me.
As stated, no one knows about the money on I-71. It's not missing, or
hidden....No one owned the money, except the dead man who put it
there. It simply doesn't exist in the perceptions of anyone. Now if
you understand this point, how can you say it affects anyone? The
money, sitting there buried under 2 feet of ground, affects no one.
It is therefore meaningless. If you don't agree with this conclusion,
give me an example of HOW it would still affect someone, then I will
listen. Otherwise you're just blowin' smoke.
J. Sasha Stewart
J. Sasha Stewart
On Sun, 03 May 1998 16:36:42 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>>>Yea, I call that BULLSHIT. The reason that a person is an "expert" or
>>>an authority has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with how many
>>>other people think he makes sense. There is a fallacy that states that
>>
>>*Buzz* Three strikes you're out, dude. Next contestant?
>>
>>But seriously let's think about this one. So you're saying an
>>"expert" in mathematics is not really one? A person who can prove
>>something through scientific principles and mathematics is just a con
>>artist?
>
>Can't you read? I didn't say that at all. I said that the term
>"expert" get's applied by popular vote, which I do not accept as
>validation of it being true. I didn't say it wasn't true, I said that
>it isn't necessarily true.
Your definition of what an expert is is clouded by some bias of yours.
An expert, in actuality, is someone who is able to demonstrate a high
level of skill in a particular endeavor. His methods and
understanding must be proven to work. Yes, an expert can be wrong.
But, simply by virtue of probability alone, he will be more correct
than the amateur. That was the point I was making.
>>So if we can't really rely on the "opinions" of the "experts", then
>>why are we bothering with all of this nonsense?
>
>"We" are not relying on anything, "Dude." You are relying on whatever
>you want, and I determine for myself who the experts are. I don't
>have any reason to ask you to accept my opinions, nor do I have any
>reason to accept yours.
Are you, like, really this paranoid and insecure? My goal is not to
MAKE you accept anything. I am simply explaining where I see the
error of your conclusions. If you won't open your mind to what I'm
saying (and let's be real here, I'm using basic logic and math to
explain myself), it's no skin off my back. I really don't care,
y'know.
>I think perhaps you are still 14. I've contradicted nothing. Your
And you would be wrong on both counts. And funny enough, the reasons
you are wrong on both counts can be proven. Stay tuned....
>problem is that you want to use the word "we" all the time to argue
>with me, when I am clearly using the word I. There is no "we" in this
>conversation, there is only a "you" and a "me."
An you, as the Lone Gunman, are always right, no matter how much
anyone else can prove you wrong? Delusions so thick, you can cut it
with a knife...
>>*Buzz* again, yo. The only true expert is the individual who can
>>PROVE his findings, perhaps allowing for an exception or two
>>...but...well, there it is.
>
>Prove his finding to who. Why would I need to prove my findings to
>anybody?
Are you that dim? How has mankind progressed? How could we (yes, I'm
using "we" again) progress if every discoverer, inventor, scientist,
etc., kept his findings to himself. Technology is most often the
result of shared minds. And in the battle for bigger and better
things, a person must prove why his way is better...if he expects to
get anything from it (money, accolades, knighthood, etc.)
Issues involving purely personal aspects do not necessarily need
outside approval, I'll grant you. But I pose to you that YOU are
indeed attempting to seek that approval in one way or another. Or
else, you wouldn't be wasting time debating on this newsgroup.
>Perhaps this is really to deep for you to understand. There is a
>distinct difference between questioning my conclusions and making new
>ones with new information that render the old ones invalid. My
Are you still tuned in on this channel? Good!
There's another contradiction right there. How can you find your old
conclusions invalid in the face of new information, if you aren't
already questioning it? You're making your brain sound like a
computer hard drive:
"Do you wish to replace your current ideals (Ideals.jhp v3.21) with
this new version (Ideals.jhp v5.10)?"
It doesn't work that way....dude.
In order to accept a new conclusion, you have to evaluate your current
one and find that it is indeed in error. I.e., questioning.
>conclusions are not cast in concrete, and I am in a continual learning
>mode, but that is so not because I question my conclusions, but
>because I understand that I have not perceived all there is to
>perceive and remain open to new information. The fact that I don't
A paradox....
>question my conclusions is not dogmatic in the least. It in no way
>means that I cling to them in the face of contradictions. It does not
>mean that I consider myself or them to be infallible. It simply means
[...]
>seek additional information on the subject. If additional information
>presents itself to me, I am more than willing, perhaps eager to
>re-evaluate the conclusion.
Yet another contradiction. You're on a roll here. :)
>> That which does not exist to you, does not matter to
>>you.
>
>What makes you think that is true? How would you know?
*Sigh* It is very simple. If it in no way affects you, and you don't
even know it's there, how CAN it matter to you? Answer that for me.
>It is really simple, but escapes you. Perhaps I worded it wrong. It
>isn't wrong for you to answer any way you want, but it would be wrong
>for me to believe that I know enough about what is or isn't important
>to you, or perhaps even to conclude that you are not omnipotent. You
>draw your conclusions about these things from your perceptions, and
Dammit, man! Haven't you been paying attention?!? How can you have a
perception of something that doesn't exist to you? And the question
isn't that you don't have enough information....you don't know it's
even there!! You don't have ANY information! Why is this so hard for
you to grasp?
>feel, which then becomes one of the consequences. If my morals guide
>me to certain things, or away from others, then so be it, but they are
>my morals, not yours or anybody else's. I find that people like
And when those morals conflict with other people's morals? That is
the point I'm trying to make.
>yourself have a hard time understanding consequences. You think
>freedom implies that the consequences of your actions should somehow
>be nullified or not taken into account. I haven't figured out how you
>hope to achieve this, have you?
I couldn't figure that out because that's not what I think. Where are
you getting that idea from?
>Oh I disagree, I have both, I assume you mean freedom and happiness.
>I also have the piece of mind of knowing that I am what I am, not
>because of what other people want, but because of what I chose to be.
>...and oh yes, I have many friends, and a large family who like and
>respect me.
That was not in question.
J. Sasha Stewart
J. Sasha Stewart
On Sun, 03 May 1998 22:51:45 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>Only a fool questions his beliefs, Scott. It's pure and simple. I
>process information and when I have reached a conclusion, I stop
>processing the information, and go on to something else.
Did you not say that if new and better information is presented to
you, it would replace your current conclusion?
Let's analyze this:
If new and better info can change your conclusions, that means the
current conclusion is flawed. Therefore, if you don't question the
flawed conclusion, according to you, that is not foolish.
But in order to accept a new conclusion, you must first analyze the
current conclusion (i.e., question it) to discover that it is not as
good as the newer. Therefore, by your own admission, that would be
foolish.
You have created a paradox and a contradiction for yourself, wrapped
up in a nice, neat package.
>How is it opposite to say that a person is a fool to question his
>beliefs, and conversely say that he is not opposed to accepting new
>information that presents itself. The two concepts are very
Read above.
>different, Scott, although I can see how a simpleton might get them
>mixed up. Does not the notion of "questioning one's beliefs" involve
>a person, under their own volition re-examining information they have
>already processed, while OTOH, not being closed to, accepting and
>processing new information that had not until now been apparent is
>something completely different? ...or perhaps you are too simple to
>make the distinction?
Oooooh! Perhaps now I see where the confusion lies. There appears to
be a misunderstanding of viewpoint here. John, when you say
"questioning", you are referring to an active search to constantly
change one's notions. Is that correct? I, on the other hand, use
"questioning" to mean the actual act itself. If my assessment is
accurate, I can, at least to some degree, understand the difference
you see. However, taking your definition (if my understanding is
correct), still does not explain why you see the "questioning" of
one's beliefs to be foolish. Explain why that is.
>Now even with your very limited understanding of the human psyche,
>does it not become very apparent which of those agendas might appear
>to originate from a position of insecurity?
Black....kettle....kettle.....black....black kettle.....kettle
black....
J. Sasha Stewart
John Parker
On 3 May 1998 23:11:14 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <3588e9b8....@news.binc.net>, jhpa...@Emailbag.com says...
>
>>Only a fool questions his beliefs, Scott.
>>There was no backtrack, you poor pathetic dumbshit.
>
>Poor John. You backtracked big time so you could appear to agree with me, but
>then claim that you had said that earlier.
>
>You lie to avoid having to admit the obvious -- that you are in over your head
>in this discussion. Your insecurities show themselves big time.
(sigh) Anyone can accuse someone of lying, Scott. Proving it seems to
be too difficult for you however.
>>How is it opposite to say that a person is a fool to question his
>>beliefs, and conversely say that he is not opposed to accepting new
>>information that presents itself.
>
>You can't get around this John. First, you admitted the latter only after I
>rubbed your face in the idiocy of your view. You're trying to somehow connect
>it, but you can't avoid that the new information has to lead to a questioning
>of old beliefs before you can change them.
No, Scott, this is simply not true. I run across new information all
the time, yet I spend zero time questioning my beliefs. New
information does not lead to a questioning of old beliefs, while it
may indeed lead to a modification of those beliefs. Now to me, as I
explained before, and as you snipped so that you wouldn't have to
respond to it, the term "questioning" implies a act instituted through
my own volition designed either to rethink a belief or to procure
additional information, not as you apparently claim, to accept
additional information that may appear through means other than my own
volition.
Now if you disagree with that interpretation, you might want to
present some argument to support your counter interpretation or to
rebut mine, but to simpy snip it out and pretend that I didn''t state
it is blatantly dishonest, but then it is your style, isn;t it?
>Sorry, John, you lose yet again.
I did????, that's funny, since I supported my claims with arguments
that you not only didn't rebutt, but snipped so that you could deny
their existance, and you say that it constitutes losing? I posted
them again, Scott, are you going to snip them again, or are you going
to perform your disappearing act this time?
>(rest deleted -- mostly personal insults, and pathetic attempts to try to save
>face).
Of course you deleted the rest, Scott. It is what you do, and you do
it so well. snip snip snip, ... run and hide.... Come on out and
play with the grown ups Scott, whenever you grow up and get body hair.
>Bye John. You're uninteresting, and your inability to even admit an obvious
>error shows that discourse with you would be pointless. Come back when you've
>learned something.
Just a final note to let you know that I do understand your denial,
Scott. I believe that you are bright enough to understand what I have
said, but simply not bright enough to argue against it, which is why
you never address the issues when you get backed into a corner, but
try to bluster your way out like the above. This has always been your
pattern, and you faithfully maintain it like a child, snipping the
argumentative part of other's posts so you don't have to respond to
them. I never expected you to argue these issues, you never do. Talk
about insecurity, Scott, I often wonder how you can hold your pathetic
head up, but then I doubt that you do.
Pistol
On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:07:39 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
A most interesting post.
>hehehehe, I seriously doubt that Erb could have any influence on me,
>and since I admit that I haven't read too much Rand, I have nothing to
>be ashamed of if I have misrepresented her, but I don't think I have.
Well, surely you'll agree that it is a better idea to read something
an author has written before attempting to summarize her views.
>Like Rand, I believe that truth and fact are absolute, but since any
>two individuals might perceive truth and fact dis similarly, and since
>the accuracy of each man's perception of truth and fact is not
>documentable, I don't think my statement above is contrary to Rand's
>objectivism. In short, I think both pistol and Erb are mistaken and
>are reading more into Rand's philosophy than is there.
(heh) There is no evidence that Erb has read Rand at all, so it would
be difficult of rhim to "read" anything into it.
> She professes
>that you should rely on your own ability to analyse your perceptions,
>indeed, there is nothing else that you can rely on.
Directly, I agree. But your original statement sounded more like you
thought that each man created his own "reality" through his
perceptions, very Berkleyesque. Your description here is muchmore on
the mark.
>Although I have
>not read Rand extensively, I have read bits and pieces, and nowhere
>have I seen or heard of her heros arguing with their counterparts over
>the validity of each other's perceptions of truth and fact, as Erb and
>Pistol are doing.
You've never seen me argue over perceptions. I argue over conclusions
drawn based on the perceptions, which is quite a different matter.
>Rather, Howard Roark politely tells Keating that
>Keating is a fool for even asking Roark's opinion. What Roark is
>saying, is "trust your own power of reason, for it is the only place
>you can find the truth"
Which is really stupid. Sure, ULTIMATELY, one's beliefs need to rest
on one's own powers of reason, and anyone who questions this as a
matter of course is, as you properly point out, a fool (or at least
thinks themselves one :)). But there is nothing inconsistent with
this view about checking other people's opinoins to see if there might
be some fact or angle of reasoning one has overlooked, especially on
tipics where one has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. A nit pick,
perhaps, but I thik an important one.
>In my mind, although Erb is probably kind of like Rand's Keating,
Erb is no Keating. He's a wanna-be Toohey, but he lacks both the
brilliance and the balls.
>Pistol is a long way from Roark.
Thank you. I am so by conscious choice. Roark, in many ways, was an
idiot. While one should never allow the opinions of others to, per
se, determine one's own, to ignore the existence of such opinions is
myopic to say the least. To refuse to attend a social gathering in
order to meet and attract clients (as Roark did), instead choosing to
ignore eveyone and hope that they magically come to you for your
services, is nothing short of childish. Remember the scene where
Roark sits in his barren office for days waiting for some activity.
THAT is the where the book would have ended had it been a documentary
instead of a work of abstract fiction.
>Roark wouldn't
>care enough about Erb's opinion of objective morality to argue with
>him about it. I think Roark would be more like me and simply laugh at
>him. I just can't see Howard Roark trying to convince Scott Erb of
>anything.
And while Roark and Parker sit on their asses laughing, the philosophy
(or lack thereof) of the Erb's of the world slowly destroy it. You
see John, you misunderstand me entirely. I care about the opinions of
people only insofar as they stand to spread, whether positive or
negative. A good idea should be fertilized so it wil grow. A bad one
should be stamped out. I don't debate with the Erb's of the world
with an agenda of convincing them of anything. That clearly wil never
happen. I debate them to expose them for what they are, in the hopes
that those who witness the exchange will see it. Its a simple matter
of placing the spotlight on the right place. The rest should follow.
Scott Erb
In article <354f4555...@news.supernews.com>, sa...@cybercom.net says...
>
>Are you, like, really this paranoid and insecure? My goal is not to
>MAKE you accept anything. I am simply explaining where I see the
>error of your conclusions. If you won't open your mind to what I'm
>saying (and let's be real here, I'm using basic logic and math to
>explain myself), it's no skin off my back. I really don't care,
>y'know.
>
>>I think perhaps you are still 14. I've contradicted nothing. Your
>
>And you would be wrong on both counts. And funny enough, the reasons
>you are wrong on both counts can be proven. Stay tuned....
John does indeed seem that insecure, and he doesn't really discuss anything.
He often knows he's wrong (one can tell because he changes his claims,
even while denying he's changing them), but will never admit it, and instead
just launch into various attacks.
I've come to the conclusion he's not worth the trouble, but you are doing a
very effective job of patiently pointing out the problems in his argument.
That usually means John will hurl insults at you. Have fun!
cheers, scott
Pistol
>On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:08:15 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 06:34:01 GMT, tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom
>>Asquith) wrote:
>I will grant that you are a most atypical but very
>interesting objectivist, Mr. Pistol--otherwise
>I wouldn't have responded to your weak allegations,
>attempts at sidestepping my points and half-hearted
>evasions of my comments (gee, I'm glad that you
>introduced me to this manner of degrading opponents.
>It's most enlightening--but not objective.)
So why did you do it? My original criticism of you was that you
tossed around unsubstantiated claims and insults, instead of making
clear arguments. And here you begin a post with the same stuff? This
is not a bright beginning.
>But you nor I am here to just hurl insults at fellow net denizens (that is if
>you in fact exist ;-) ), so let's stop the backhanded backslaps and actually
>get down to business.
I never wanted anything else. Sheesh!
>For the impatient, here's the abstract: (1) Rand doesn't follow
>her own philosophy--often descending into subjectivity, often using value
>statements on which to base her arguments;
Uh, this might be a really short discussion. I'm not much interested
in a debate of Rand per se. I'm interested in the philosophical
issues she raised. I personally have criticisms of some of her
particulars, but its the basic structure she creates which I think has
so much stength. I hope that's where you areheaded.
>(2) Rand's rationalism doesn't survive Hume's fork;
This should be interesting.
>(3) she is hypocritical with regards to freewill
>as it relates to her objectivists;
Yes, yes, she was an uptight bitch, who respected independant thought
only in those who agreed with her, and unfortunately this unsightly
legacy is kept alive by Peikoff and ARI. But this is a trivial,
unimpoortant issue to those interested in the philosophy, and I have
no interest in wasting band-width on such a topic.
>(4) she is hypocritical in her use of
>history (in short she can be accused a number of times of not practicing
>what she preached to her Randbots);
Again, I don't give a damn about Rand's personal foibles - they simply
aren't important. I'd jus as soon discuss whether the fact that
Jefferson banged his slaves regularly lessens the value of the
constitution.
And let's drop the namecalling, shall we? What happening to not
hurling insults?
>(5) her philosophy lacks ethics and confuses individualism with selfishness;
Now THAT we can sink our teeth into.
>and (6) it is proposed that she
>lacked familiarity with those philosophers whom she has criticized (particularly
>Hegel and Kant).
Another discussion of her personally - no thanks.
>[Note: (5) is hinted at earlier--but is analyzed further down. Lack of computer
>memory forbade me from delving further.]
No problem. Alas, I'm liable to snip the entire section. Sorry if
you wasted your time.
>***
>
>[some trimming]
>>But enough of the preliminaries, let's get to something worth
>>discussing.
>
>Odd that you found Mr. Erb's comments to be preliminary.
That was a personal shot - Erb and I have, shall we say, a colorful
past.
>He did raise
>a few interesting points that you just dismissed out of hand (a couple
>of his non-sequiturs--as you labelled them--were connected further
>down in his argument). Ah well, who am I to criticize such a
>skilled mind, who is willing to just dismiss out of hand another person's
>thoughts with but a few sentences? :^)
I simply have no patience for people who present, stated as fact
without support, the critical issues under dispute. It is akin to
those who argue for socialized medicine by declaring as out of bounds,
the idea that some people should not get treatment.
And I note again this disturbing habit of yours to toss accusations my
way without even presenting the incident, much less evidence
supporting your accusation. I hope this was just sloppiness and not
malice.
>>>First, her objectivism is tautological (but then again, so is Marx in some
>>>places--call it the curse of adapting master-servant dialectics to the real
>>>world.
>>
>>What would you have her begin with? An arbitrary assertion?
>
>You are assuming that by taking an egoistic stand that she
>is not taking an arbitrary assertion.
Yes. Especially considering that she doesn't assert it, but derives
it from other premises, it would seem a rather safe stand.
>My primary criticism was that the foundations of Her
>objectivism were constructed post hoc--basically making
>it up as She went along. This has meant that her work
>has been in fact arbitrary, leading to points where her
>philosophy is decidedly vague (dare you throw down the
>gauntlet here? If so, pick the topic :-).)
This is a waste of time. All you are doing is making more sweeping,
vague, unsupported assertions. Fine, I'll respond in kind - Rand's
objectivism is constructed from self-evident premises, and flows
logically and necessarily at every step and in every detail. There is
no sign of the slightest error or vagueness.
Now I, of course, don't believe that, but it is an appropriate
response. I hope I've made my point.
[snip more of the same]
>But considering that she has made both Kant and Hegel sources of
>scorn, one would necessarily assume that she had at least a
>solid understanding of the works on which she was criticizing.
>Then again, I suppose she was only human...despite the belief
>of some to the contrary.
You again seem obsessed with criticizing her personally, instead of
directing your comments to the philosophy.
>Call it being unique or individualistic. Oh, that's right, being
>an objectivist you can't tell the difference between being selfish
>and being an individualist.
This is your idea of productive debate? You sound like Cahill.
The problem Rand identified (if I may be so bold as to actually
discuss the topic) is that the language has been warped to restrict
the word "selfish" to short-sighted-moronic selfishness (eg, Ferengi,
for you Trekkers). People have been brainwashed into thinking that
the only version of the selfish man is someone who steamrolls over
everyone in his path to get what he whimsically wants, as if they were
no more significant than ants.
>Then again, you are a unique objectivist, aren't you? :-)
Yes, but much to my disappointment, you appear to be all too typical
an example of Rand's critics. I can see getting a specific criticism
of s pecific aspect of objectivism is going to be difficult.
>>>Second, she is a minor league philosopher
>>
>>This is, apparently, the title given to anyone who skips all that
>>useless bullshit ("do I exist?", "Is there a reality?") that
>>philosophers wasted hundreds of years on and got to the stuff a person
>>could actually use.
>
>It is both a simple statement..."she is a philosopher"...and
>a value statement (and a comparative one at that), i.e., she
>stands in relation to other philosophers).
Yes. And it is given precisely for the reason I listed.
[snipped pointless ramblings about history]
>Consequently, it should be argued that the Randian objectivist
>who is to remain true to her ideals (as opposed to being one
>who is capable of freewill and able to come up with their own
>ideas) would reject any possible lessons that could be learned
>from the past. (Little wonder William F. Buckley Jr. after his
>interview with her claimed that when he heard her voice, he heard
>echoes of the order "To the Gas Chamber. Go!". See Martin Gardner's
>"The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener")
This is ridculous. Care to explain how you reached this absurd
conclusion? I realize that actually explaining a criticism can be
tiresome, but humor me.
>>>-still, you do find she creeps into
>>>college classrooms via the English department.
>>
>>Is there any relevance to any of this? Patiently, I wade on.
>
>Yes. It implies that Rand has been more influential as a
>novelist than a serious philosopher.
Have you not noticed that philosophy itself has become the black sheep
of the academics? "Serious philosopher" has become an oxymoron.
Criticizing Rand for being shunned by modern philosophers is like
criticizing Galileo for being criticized by astrologers.
>>>Third, it is emotional
>>
>>A gratuitous assertion, and nothing more.
[snip attacks on Rand the person]
Your comment above was of the philosophy. You cannot support it by
attacking the person.
>>>--in fact,
>>>it was the stuff that kept a number of the soldiers in a couple of wars contented
>>>enough to shoot the odd "gook" (think of it as being akin to the rather weak stuff
>>>that was fed to the Bolsheviks during the Revolution and the Second World War--it's
>>>roughly of the same ilk). It helped good old American boys fight off the nasty
>>>commies. Unfortunately, it is emotional stuff without morality (as Nathaniel
>>>Branden, former disciple as pointed out). At least Marx had a moral side.
>>
>>Uh... whatever. You've written a great number of words, and made
>>exactly zero arguments.
>
>Summary: Rand writes capitalist propaganda that is aimed at appealing
>to the ignorant masses just like the Marxist Bolsheviks did--this
>is the point (not quite a zero argument). Obviously you didn't bother to
>read the argument (or were waiting for the Cliff's Notes translation).
No, I just keep waiting for an argument, which is not a series of
assertions (ie, the above), but logical conclusions drawn from
premises.
>[Additional point follows (and pay attention to the last sentence):]
>
>Moreover, you won't deny that one of her goals was to romanticize
>capitalism--careful, there is a significant amount of literature
>that backs this up! And surely you wouldn't deny that any attempt
>at romanticizing is a less than objective or logical endeavour.
Sorry Tom, you're wasting my time. I'm not interested in
psychoanalyzing Rand. If you have something substative to say about
the philosophy, I'm all ears. But so far the entirety of your
comments to date can be summed up thusly:
I hate Rand.
Maybe you do. I don't care.
[snipped remainder]
Pistol
On 1 May 1998 10:07:35 -0700, berg...@big.aa.net (Eric von Weasel)
wrote:
>In article <6ibiuj$1ea8$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>>In article <gio+van+no+ni+8-...@dialup108.tlh.talstar.com>,
>>gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com says...
>
>>>It all goes back to the axioms. Existence exists. It has
>>>always existed, and will always exist. Consciousness exists.
>>>And things are what they are rather than what they are not
>>>(the law of identity). All 3 are unchanging.
>
>>Existence and consciousness are unchanging? Existence exists is an irrelevant
>>definition (like runners run).
>
>"things are what they are" never seemed an especially valuable
>observation, either.
Well, to people who speak as though their beliefs can change reality,
it would be very helpful.
The more useful aspect of what was said above is that things have a
particular nature. Full understanding of this can help one avoid
confusing semantic games that some people like to play, where they act
as if redefining something eliminates or changes it.
>It also needs to be conditioned by the fact that
>what constitutes a "thing" is not always obvious.
But what is being discussed above is the most basic fundamental level.
What you said is a much higher level observation. To draw an
analogy, Giovanni's statement is machine language, yours, an operating
system. Or if you prefer chemistry, Giovanni's is a molecule, yours a
complex protein.
>>I would say that existence is experience, and
>>experience is what "exists".
>
>That's one answer.
It is a good example of the semantic games I mentioned above.
>>>And they determine epistemology, which in turn determines
>>>ethics.
>
>>Explain. That seems a bit bizarre.
For those of you who have difficulty with big words and abstractions,
the nature of reality determines the proper manner of determining
truths about it, and the truths of reality determine what is and is
not proper behavior within that realm.
>It's another one of those sneaky Randian axioms on which her entire
>philosophy depends.
Any good structure of thought depends on axioms. The question is
whether they are really axioms (ie, self evident truths), or merely
arbitrary assumptions.
>>To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
Perhaps that is because you associate elegant semantic games with good
philosophy.
>Her philosophy can be a helpful introduction to some major themes in
>Western thought for teenagers who have spent too much time watching
>television (don't ask me how I came to this conclusion). Fortunately,
>most teenages so exposed manage to grow beyond Randism.
Such an explanation is the surest signal that the writer has read
little of Rand, and understood even less. One can easily draw the
opinion that certain of Rand's theories contain flaws. I certainly
have. But to describe her writing as teenagerish is just ridiculous.
If Rand is teenagerish, then Orwell is prepubescent, and Tolkien,
fetal.
Scott D. Erb
In article <354e4408...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
says...
>For those of you who have difficulty with big words and abstractions,
>the nature of reality determines the proper manner of determining
>truths about it, and the truths of reality determine what is and is
>not proper behavior within that realm.
That says nothing, it's an assertion which gives no real insight into how
humans practically understand reality and learn to make sense of the world
they perceive. Perhaps if you would state these "truths of reality" that you
assert, your ideology could seem like more than some assertions of belief and
faith.
>>It's another one of those sneaky Randian axioms on which her entire
>>philosophy depends.
>
>Any good structure of thought depends on axioms. The question is
>whether they are really axioms (ie, self evident truths), or merely
>arbitrary assumptions.
And that requires a method of determining what a self-evident truth is (and
how you know if you have one), and how to distinguish between a truth and an
assumptions. Note as well that you ignore the possibility that there might be
assumptions which are not self-evidently true, but also not arbitrary.
Indeed, I would say that there are no self-evidently true axioms outside of a
linguistic system, and all linguistic systems are by nature arbitrary, with
order dependent on human constructs (understandings and symbolic
communication). In that sense, the idea of a self-evident truth dies in the
morass of language. Language, like perception, always mediates our experience
with "reality."
>>>To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
>
>Perhaps that is because you associate elegant semantic games with good
>philosophy.
No, just because her ideas aren't that good, and her arguments unpersuasive.
Tom Asquith
On Mon, 04 May 1998 00:04:42 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. donald) wrote:
Nice try James.
> --
>On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:53:05 GMT,
>tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom Asquith) wrote:
>> For the impatient, here's the abstract: (1) Rand doesn't
>> follow her own philosophy--often descending into
>> subjectivity, often using value statements on which to base
>> her arguments;
>
>True
Given this is agreed, we move to the next point.
>> (2) Rand's rationalism doesn't survive Hume's fork;
>
>That is a very rather strange things to say. You may be confusing
>Hume's fork with the alleged separation between empirical and an moral
>truths, the alleged is/ought gap.
Actually, Hume's fork is not aimed at just morality (although it
has made a substantial amount of damage in the area of ethics),
but all forms of rationalism--particularly in the hands of the
positivists (who in turn have been attacked by still others). To
put the positivist version (as outlined by John Cottingham) to
work: EITHER the claim made must be analytic, in which case it must
be knowable a priori (and therefore subject to an empty tautology)
OR they must be synthetic, whereby the rationalist could be challenged
to demonstrate how their truth could be confirmed a posteriori by
observation.
To clarify...
One simple example of Rand caught on the first shaft of the fork is
found in Galt's speech in "For the New Intellectual" (hardcover, p.157;
paperback, p.128): "My morality, the morality of reason is contained
in a single axiom: existence exists....Rationality is the recognition
of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth
and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which
is thinking." Here, not only do we have the "A=A" 'axiom' turned in
towards itself--but there is a clear confusion between the act of
perceiving and the act of thinking. (Score Hume 1 : 0 Rand)
And if Rand wishes to demonstrate that it is correct a posteriori,
we have the case of Rand (and Peikoff) flapping their arms about and
counting angels on the heads of a pin in "Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology"--and confusing empiricism with objectivism in "For
the New Intellectual" a couple of times over.
>If you actually mean Hume's fork, Hume concluded that the proposition
>"fire causes paper to burn" fails Hume's fork, and he therefore
>concluded that the proposition "fire causes paper to burn" was sheer
>nonsense, so if Rand's work also fails Hume's fork, so much the better
>for Rand, and so much the worse for Hume.
It is impossible for Hume to state whether or not a proposed axiom failed
Hume's fork. "Hume's fork" was a term coined in the twentieth century to
describe two attacks which Hume outlined relating to rationalism (this
was in his "Treatise"). Additionally, the point being attacked by you
was a simple syllogism which didn't follow (based merely on induction as
opposed to deduction)--score another for Hume. (Score Hume 2 : 0 Rand).
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the problem of the sun rising every
day. :^)
>> (3) she is hypocritical with regards to freewill as it
>> relates to her objectivists;
>
>Huh? Again, this is a very strange criticism.
Perhaps I was hasty here in summarizing my points in that long post.
What I was trying to say here was that she took the position that
it was perfectly fine for Rand to decide what constituted objectivism
but her followers did not have this privilege; at the same time, she
encouraged her followers to be individuals and think freely.
Contradiction? Perhaps.
>> (4) she is hypocritical in her use of history (in short she
>> can be accused a number of times of not practicing what
>> she preached to her Randbots);
>
>Examples please?
I gave in the previous post an example of her delving into the use
of the history of the railroad and the creation of the so-called
railway barons (see generally, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal--I don't
have the reference here at the moment)--an example of her using history
to further her point. Yet in "Atlas Shrugged", she argued along the
lines of the need for the person to live in the present (along the
lines of her insistence on the need for existence). Admittedly,
she tried to correct herself later in the essay "Is Atlas Shrugging?"
but there is a marked inconsistency in her treatment of history.
[Perhaps it is safe to say that history is still the arena of the
conservative. Randism is still its own bizarre critter.]
>> (5) her philosophy lacks ethics
>
>Utter bullshit. You mean you do not like her ethics, you would prefer
>the ethical theories that justified the terror in the Soviet Union
>where she grew up, to ethical theories that justify the rights of the
>individual.
Now then James (I never expected you to get emotional about a second-rate
philosophy such as this--your own version of libertarian capitalism
at least more consistent [despite the arguments of some to the contrary].
And please watch your vulgarity--children do read these groups).
As for not liking her ethics, that is irrelevant. My criticism is that
she doesn't have an ethical system. Milton Friedman had ethics in his
economic theories. Friedrich Hayek has a very pronounced ethical system
(which makes me shudder at times--but that too is irrelevant). Murray
Rothbard has proposed a form of ethical rudder--as has Robert Nozick
(though he has backtracked from his anarcho-capitalism, in favour of a
more balanced model in the "Examined Life"). The mere fact that a person
is a right-wing libertarian does not mean that one need lack ethics--except
it appears if one's name is Ayn Rand :-). (See also Nathaniel Branden's
letter regarding the defects of "Objectivism" when he broke up with Rand--
should be available on the Web.)
(At least Hobbes offers a way out for the lost objectivist--at least his
ethical egoism sort of works...but admittedly, it doesn't lead to Rand's
quasi-anarchism. <shrug>)
>> and confuses individualism with selfishness;
>
>Half truth.
The whole truth. And nothing but the truth. SHMG. :-)
(See page 6 of the pamplet, "Textbook of Americanism").
A clear case of 'ad confusio'--call it A=B. ;-)
>> and (6) it is proposed that she lacked familiarity with
>> those philosophers whom she has criticized (particularly
>> Hegel and Kant).
>
>This may well be true, but true or false, clearly they did indeed have
>the defects than Rand attributes to them. One may argue that her
>defences of her own arguments were less successful than her attacks on
>the positions of others, but her attacks on the arguments of others
>were devastating.
The defects that she alleged were unsubstantiated and in many cases,
non-existent. The fact remains that she (and Peikoff) never really
understood Kant nor Hegel--they were both too caught up in trying to
make themselves the sine qua non of philosophy to bother learning
what these early thinkers were trying to say.
To use Kant as an example (and I'll use a bit by Rand's #1 moonie):
Peikoff liked to insist that one of Kant's major goals was to
save religion. This was not the case (lest we forget he was an
Enlightenment thinker). He did try and save the nonconsequentialist
perspective in ethics--but this is far from being an attempt to
"resurrect Christ." It was only an attempt to save ethics from
the perspective of man alone--not God. (Ominous Parallels, p.23).
I will grant that she was effective though at undermining a number
of the ill-prepared lesser lights of the New Left--but this was
akin to shooting fish in a barrel (as Milton Friedman and William
F. Buckley Jr. were also able to demonstrate during the
1960s--not to demean either figure, of course :-) ).
--
----
Tom Asquith
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, Canada
tasquith-@-gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
------------------------------------------------------
"Reason--the Devil's Harlot" --Martin Luther
------------------------------------------------------
John Parker
On Mon, 04 May 1998 13:04:07 GMT, sa...@cybercom.net (J. Sasha
Stewart) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 May 1998 16:36:49 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>>>If there's a million dollars buried somewhere on I-71 by a guy who's
>>>now dead, and no one knows that he put it there, the money doesn't
>>>exist for all intents and purposes. But yet, it's there (the two
>>>meanings you speak of). But it's being there is meaningless unless
>>>someone finds it.
>>
>>Funny thing, but that's not a given at all. If the money is there,
>>that also means that it isn't somewhere else, so for it's being there
>
>WHAT?!? Read a physics book, man. That's true for practically
>everything! Your statement means nothing to what I'm trying to
>explain.
Been there, done that, and my statement explains that the money being
in that particular place, even though nobody knows about it, does
indeed have significance.
>>that something is meaningless is a logical fallacy. You are trying to
>>claim that a negative can be logically concluded with absolute
>>certainty. You would have complete access to all facts about
>>everything in order to do that. Now, is that what you are claiming?
>
>Um, NO. Who said anythng about a negative? And what other facts am I
>leaving out, hmmm? List them for me.
To state that something is meaningless means that it has no meaning.
Don't you understand what a negative is? Do you not understand that
you cannot prove and therefore verify a negative. The facts that you
are leaving out are all the possible facts that might indicate that
the negative you hope to prove is otherwise. To list them would
require a summation of all possible knowledge known or otherwise.
You'll understand if I don't try to do that?
>As stated, no one knows about the money on I-71. It's not missing, or
>hidden....No one owned the money, except the dead man who put it
>there. It simply doesn't exist in the perceptions of anyone. Now if
>you understand this point, how can you say it affects anyone? The
>money, sitting there buried under 2 feet of ground, affects no one.
>It is therefore meaningless. If you don't agree with this conclusion,
>give me an example of HOW it would still affect someone, then I will
>listen. Otherwise you're just blowin' smoke.
>
Geez, that's easy, how about the guy that's playing dollar poker, you
know where you gamble on the serial number? The serial number he
needs to win is one that is buried. That fact, regardless of whether
he knows, has definite meaning when you talk about the odds of him
winning. How about if the son of the guy who buried it was dying of
cancer and needed money for an operation, which he could have if his
father had not buried it, and left it to him instead? How about if a
guy stopped along the freeway to take a leak and he peed directly on
the money and it diverted the urine on to one of the reinforcing rods
of the highway and the salt caused the rod to deteriorate, making the
highway crack which required a guy to come out and patch it and he got
hit by a truck? How about if a gopher ate some of the money, got
sick, and went on a terror rampage, killing liberals. I could go on,
but perhaps you get the picture now. In order for you to state that
it is meaningless, you'd have to disprove each one of those scenarios,
along with every other one I might invent.
John Parker
On 1 May 1998 09:59:20 -0700, berg...@big.aa.net (Eric von Weasel)
wrote:
>In article <3551bad9....@news.binc.net>,
>John Parker <jhpa...@Emailbag.com> wrote:
>
>>I think it's ridiculous that you think you are not certain about your
>>morality, I am about mine.
>
>Certainty is not a difficult state to acquire. Pick some plausible
>beliefs from the intellectual landscape; steadfastly refuse to
>acknowledge exceptions, qualifications, and counter-examples; and
>surround yourself with people who will energetically reinforce your
>beliefs.
Actually, quite the opposite is true. I totally ignore the landscape,
and the opinions of others, simply because I cannot depend upon either
the honesty nor intellect of the landscape, and unlike yourself, Mr.
WeaselClone, I steadfastly refuse to surround myself with people who
energetically reinforce my beliefs. The irony of your post is as per
usual, overwhelming, Eric. I wonder how many lurkers are chuckling at
this very moment.
John Parker
On Mon, 04 May 1998 13:04:14 GMT, sa...@cybercom.net (J. Sasha
Stewart) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 May 1998 22:51:45 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>>Only a fool questions his beliefs, Scott. It's pure and simple. I
>>process information and when I have reached a conclusion, I stop
>>processing the information, and go on to something else.
>
>Did you not say that if new and better information is presented to
>you, it would replace your current conclusion?
>
>Let's analyze this:
>
>If new and better info can change your conclusions, that means the
>current conclusion is flawed. Therefore, if you don't question the
>flawed conclusion, according to you, that is not foolish.
No it doesn't mean the old conclusion is flawed at all. It might
simply mean the data was incomplete. If the conclusion was correct on
the basis of the limited data, it still might have been a correct
conclusion, if there was sufficient reason to assume the data was
sufficient to have made the conclusion. The conclusion that there was
sufficient data might have been in error, however, and although this
paradox cannot be resolved, it is not the point. The point is that if
one makes a conclusion, based upon whatever evidence he has, he is
telling himself that by virtue of the conclusion, he intends not to
reopen the issue unless new evidence presents itself. If this is not
the case, then he has simply not concluded the issue. By definition,
a conclusion implies he is done questioning.
>But in order to accept a new conclusion, you must first analyze the
>current conclusion (i.e., question it) to discover that it is not as
>good as the newer. Therefore, by your own admission, that would be
>foolish.
>
>You have created a paradox and a contradiction for yourself, wrapped
>up in a nice, neat package.
>
>>How is it opposite to say that a person is a fool to question his
>>beliefs, and conversely say that he is not opposed to accepting new
>>information that presents itself. The two concepts are very
>
>Read above.
>
>>different, Scott, although I can see how a simpleton might get them
>>mixed up. Does not the notion of "questioning one's beliefs" involve
>>a person, under their own volition re-examining information they have
>>already processed, while OTOH, not being closed to, accepting and
>>processing new information that had not until now been apparent is
>>something completely different? ...or perhaps you are too simple to
>>make the distinction?
>
>Oooooh! Perhaps now I see where the confusion lies. There appears to
>be a misunderstanding of viewpoint here. John, when you say
>"questioning", you are referring to an active search to constantly
>change one's notions. Is that correct? I, on the other hand, use
Exactly, the simple act of questioning implies that you have not
concluded your processing. I make the assumption, of course, that a
belief constitutes a conclusion.
>"questioning" to mean the actual act itself. If my assessment is
>accurate, I can, at least to some degree, understand the difference
>you see. However, taking your definition (if my understanding is
>correct), still does not explain why you see the "questioning" of
>one's beliefs to be foolish. Explain why that is.
Because if one has drawn a conclusion, it implies that you have put
the process to bed.
>>Now even with your very limited understanding of the human psyche,
>>does it not become very apparent which of those agendas might appear
>>to originate from a position of insecurity?
>
>Black....kettle....kettle.....black....black kettle.....kettle
>black....
>
Yea, but I enjoy needling the twit.
John Parker
On Mon, 04 May 1998 13:04:08 GMT, sa...@cybercom.net (J. Sasha
Stewart) wrote:
>
>Your definition of what an expert is is clouded by some bias of yours.
>An expert, in actuality, is someone who is able to demonstrate a high
>level of skill in a particular endeavor. His methods and
>understanding must be proven to work. Yes, an expert can be wrong.
>But, simply by virtue of probability alone, he will be more correct
>than the amateur. That was the point I was making.
...and all of this verification of his expertise is only in the eyes
of the people, whoever they are, who grant him the label of "expert."
Don't misunderstand. You are perfectly free to listen to whomever you
want, and believe in their infallibility to whatever degree. I merely
state that I have that freedom as well.
>>>So if we can't really rely on the "opinions" of the "experts", then
>>>why are we bothering with all of this nonsense?
>>
>>"We" are not relying on anything, "Dude." You are relying on whatever
>>you want, and I determine for myself who the experts are. I don't
>>have any reason to ask you to accept my opinions, nor do I have any
>>reason to accept yours.
>
>Are you, like, really this paranoid and insecure? My goal is not to
>MAKE you accept anything.
Then why, indeed, are you bothering with all this nonsense, Dude?
> I am simply explaining where I see the
>error of your conclusions.
Curious...and yet you say that you are not trying to get me to accept
anything.
> If you won't open your mind to what I'm
>saying (and let's be real here, I'm using basic logic and math to
>explain myself), it's no skin off my back. I really don't care,
>y'know.
Oh, I see, you believe that by virtue of somebody calling somebody
else an expert being a reason to accept without question what that
person says is a logical conclusion? OK, if that's what you want to
do, it's perfectly fine with me, too. I prefer to draw my own
conclusions however.
>>I think perhaps you are still 14. I've contradicted nothing. Your
>
>And you would be wrong on both counts. And funny enough, the reasons
>you are wrong on both counts can be proven. Stay tuned....
>
>>problem is that you want to use the word "we" all the time to argue
>>with me, when I am clearly using the word I. There is no "we" in this
>>conversation, there is only a "you" and a "me."
>
>An you, as the Lone Gunman, are always right, no matter how much
>anyone else can prove you wrong? Delusions so thick, you can cut it
>with a knife...
No, where did I claim I was always right? ...and BTW, where did you
prove me wrong?
>>>*Buzz* again, yo. The only true expert is the individual who can
>>>PROVE his findings, perhaps allowing for an exception or two
>>>...but...well, there it is.
>>
>>Prove his finding to who. Why would I need to prove my findings to
>>anybody?
>
>Are you that dim? How has mankind progressed? How could we (yes, I'm
>using "we" again) progress if every discoverer, inventor, scientist,
>etc., kept his findings to himself. Technology is most often the
>result of shared minds. And in the battle for bigger and better
>things, a person must prove why his way is better...if he expects to
>get anything from it (money, accolades, knighthood, etc.)
Perhaps, but why should this necessitate my proving myself to you or
anybody else, unless it served my purpose?
>Issues involving purely personal aspects do not necessarily need
>outside approval, I'll grant you.
Nothing I do needs outside approval.
> But I pose to you that YOU are
>indeed attempting to seek that approval in one way or another. Or
>else, you wouldn't be wasting time debating on this newsgroup.
I wonder how you arrived at the conclusion that debate was an attempt
to seek approval? I seek none.
>>Perhaps this is really to deep for you to understand. There is a
>>distinct difference between questioning my conclusions and making new
>>ones with new information that render the old ones invalid. My
>
>Are you still tuned in on this channel? Good!
>
>There's another contradiction right there. How can you find your old
>conclusions invalid in the face of new information, if you aren't
>already questioning it? You're making your brain sound like a
>computer hard drive:
You seem to have the same problem with logic as Erb. See if you can
understand this example.
I have a basket containing a dozen eggs. I believe that there are a
dozen eggs in the basket because I looked into the basket and counted
them. If I question that I have a dozen eggs in the basket, it
implies that I am wondering if indeed the basket contains a dozen
eggs, and yet since I already counted them and have assured myself
that the lid on the basket is secure and that no eggs can either
escape from the basket nor slip into the basket without my notice, I
need not question whether I have a dozen eggs in the basket. If
perchance, I notice Scott Erb stealing one of the eggs from my basket,
I still do not need to question whether or not my basket contains a
dozen eggs, for I know it likely does not. It is now possible for me
to re-evaluate the quantity of eggs in the basket, alter my
conclusions concerning the quantity of eggs in my basket and yet, I
have in all instances not found it necessary to question any beliefs.
The additional information needs to be processed and placed in
conjunction with the old information, just as any information needs to
be processed and evaluated.
>"Do you wish to replace your current ideals (Ideals.jhp v3.21) with
>this new version (Ideals.jhp v5.10)?"
>
>It doesn't work that way....dude.
See above "Dude."
>In order to accept a new conclusion, you have to evaluate your current
>one and find that it is indeed in error. I.e., questioning.
No, you simply need to add the new information to the old and let the
evaluation go where it may.
>>conclusions are not cast in concrete, and I am in a continual learning
>>mode, but that is so not because I question my conclusions, but
>>because I understand that I have not perceived all there is to
>>perceive and remain open to new information. The fact that I don't
>
>A paradox....
unsupported opinion.
>>question my conclusions is not dogmatic in the least. It in no way
>>means that I cling to them in the face of contradictions. It does not
>>mean that I consider myself or them to be infallible. It simply means
>[...]
>>seek additional information on the subject. If additional information
>>presents itself to me, I am more than willing, perhaps eager to
>>re-evaluate the conclusion.
>
>Yet another contradiction. You're on a roll here. :)
Yet another unsupported opinion.
>>> That which does not exist to you, does not matter to
>>>you.
>>
>>What makes you think that is true? How would you know?
>
>*Sigh* It is very simple. If it in no way affects you, and you don't
>even know it's there, how CAN it matter to you? Answer that for me.
The point is not whether or not it is or not, the point is that it is
beyond your capacity to know if it is. I don't claim that it is not
meaningless, I merely claim that it is not necessarily meaningless.
Now if you want to disagree with me, you must prove that it is
necessarily meaningless, not the other way around.
>>It is really simple, but escapes you. Perhaps I worded it wrong. It
>>isn't wrong for you to answer any way you want, but it would be wrong
>>for me to believe that I know enough about what is or isn't important
>>to you, or perhaps even to conclude that you are not omnipotent. You
>>draw your conclusions about these things from your perceptions, and
>
>Dammit, man! Haven't you been paying attention?!? How can you have a
>perception of something that doesn't exist to you?
How can you be sure that I cannot?
> And the question
>isn't that you don't have enough information....you don't know it's
>even there!! You don't have ANY information! Why is this so hard for
>you to grasp?
Relax, you will surely hurt yourself. What would you like me to
grasp, and why is it so important for you that i do?
>>feel, which then becomes one of the consequences. If my morals guide
>>me to certain things, or away from others, then so be it, but they are
>>my morals, not yours or anybody else's. I find that people like
>
>And when those morals conflict with other people's morals? That is
>the point I'm trying to make.
...and if their morals conflict with mine? What is the difference?
That is the point I am trying to make.
>>yourself have a hard time understanding consequences. You think
>>freedom implies that the consequences of your actions should somehow
>>be nullified or not taken into account. I haven't figured out how you
>>hope to achieve this, have you?
>
>I couldn't figure that out because that's not what I think. Where are
>you getting that idea from?
From your assertion that a person who practices total freedom would be
very unhappy. Why would a person with total freedom pursue that which
makes him unhappy?
>>Oh I disagree, I have both, I assume you mean freedom and happiness.
>>I also have the piece of mind of knowing that I am what I am, not
>>because of what other people want, but because of what I chose to be.
>>...and oh yes, I have many friends, and a large family who like and
>>respect me.
>
>That was not in question.
Then what?
John Parker
On Mon, 04 May 1998 14:54:52 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:07:39 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>A most interesting post.
>
>>hehehehe, I seriously doubt that Erb could have any influence on me,
>>and since I admit that I haven't read too much Rand, I have nothing to
>>be ashamed of if I have misrepresented her, but I don't think I have.
>
>Well, surely you'll agree that it is a better idea to read something
>an author has written before attempting to summarize her views.
As I said, i haven't read too much of her literature, but I have read
many quotes from her philosophy.
>>Like Rand, I believe that truth and fact are absolute, but since any
>>two individuals might perceive truth and fact dis similarly, and since
>>the accuracy of each man's perception of truth and fact is not
>>documentable, I don't think my statement above is contrary to Rand's
>>objectivism. In short, I think both pistol and Erb are mistaken and
>>are reading more into Rand's philosophy than is there.
>
>(heh) There is no evidence that Erb has read Rand at all, so it would
>be difficult of rhim to "read" anything into it.
We can agree on that.
>> She professes
>>that you should rely on your own ability to analyse your perceptions,
>>indeed, there is nothing else that you can rely on.
>
>Directly, I agree. But your original statement sounded more like you
>thought that each man created his own "reality" through his
>perceptions, very Berkleyesque. Your description here is muchmore on
>the mark.
Perhaps I worded it wrong.
>>Although I have
>>not read Rand extensively, I have read bits and pieces, and nowhere
>>have I seen or heard of her heros arguing with their counterparts over
>>the validity of each other's perceptions of truth and fact, as Erb and
>>Pistol are doing.
>
>You've never seen me argue over perceptions. I argue over conclusions
>drawn based on the perceptions, which is quite a different matter.
>
>>Rather, Howard Roark politely tells Keating that
>>Keating is a fool for even asking Roark's opinion. What Roark is
>>saying, is "trust your own power of reason, for it is the only place
>>you can find the truth"
>
>Which is really stupid. Sure, ULTIMATELY, one's beliefs need to rest
>on one's own powers of reason, and anyone who questions this as a
>matter of course is, as you properly point out, a fool (or at least
>thinks themselves one :)). But there is nothing inconsistent with
>this view about checking other people's opinoins to see if there might
>be some fact or angle of reasoning one has overlooked, especially on
>tipics where one has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. A nit pick,
>perhaps, but I thik an important one.
There's nothing wrong with soliciting opinions, as you say, as long as
you have the capacity to properly interpret those opinions as having
come from someone other than yourself, and as such, can be colored by
their prejudices.
>>In my mind, although Erb is probably kind of like Rand's Keating,
>
>Erb is no Keating. He's a wanna-be Toohey, but he lacks both the
>brilliance and the balls.
I haven't got that far yet. Don't have the time to read that I used to
have.
Well I suppose I have that purpose as well.
John Parker
On Mon, 04 May 98 11:10:46 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
wrote:
>In article <354f4555...@news.supernews.com>, sa...@cybercom.net says...
>>
>
>>Are you, like, really this paranoid and insecure? My goal is not to
>>MAKE you accept anything. I am simply explaining where I see the
>>error of your conclusions. If you won't open your mind to what I'm
>>saying (and let's be real here, I'm using basic logic and math to
>>explain myself), it's no skin off my back. I really don't care,
>>y'know.
>>
>>>I think perhaps you are still 14. I've contradicted nothing. Your
>>
>>And you would be wrong on both counts. And funny enough, the reasons
>>you are wrong on both counts can be proven. Stay tuned....
>
>John does indeed seem that insecure, and he doesn't really discuss anything.
>He often knows he's wrong (one can tell because he changes his claims,
>even while denying he's changing them), but will never admit it, and instead
>just launch into various attacks.
>
>I've come to the conclusion he's not worth the trouble, but you are doing a
>very effective job of patiently pointing out the problems in his argument.
>
>That usually means John will hurl insults at you. Have fun!
>cheers, scott
Go away Scott. I've got no time for little pre pubescent boys that
can't debate the issues without snipping the arguments that they can't
answer and run away and hide whenever they get in a bind.
J. Sasha Stewart
On Mon, 04 May 1998 13:25:59 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>>>I always get a kick out of people who use the word "should" all the
>>>time. It implies the speaker's desire for the listener to perform an
>>>action without using their ability to reason. As such, I suspect it
>>
>>I don't know how deep inside your butt you had to dig to fish that
>>out, but that's YOUR insecure, and quite paranoid, interpretation.
>
>Hehehehe, there's certainly nothing insecure or paranoid about me
>explaining to I ignore statements containing the word "should," but
No, not in and of itself. But the "implication" you referred to is
quite a paranoid and insecure view. It almost sounds like you're
mortally afraid that someone's gonna turn you into a mindless slave or
something.
>enlightenment. I did not use the word "should" so I clearly want you
>to reason out your own interpretation of my statement. Feel free to
>continue to use the word "should" whenever you want, but also
>understand how others who may think more independently than yourself
>are reacting to it.
And how is my use of the word "should" a sign of my thinking less
indepedently? Also, since I have essentially defined how I use the
word "should" (even if you don't agree with it), if you don't use MY
definition with MY statements, you may not be able to fully understand
what I'm saying. And, of course, this works both ways.
Now, let me at last commend you on taking my original response, not
answer any of the questions I have posed to you, and divert attention
to some inanely trivial and semantic argument. I realize now that my
sin was in taking the bait. But sometimes, I just Loooove to see my
words on a phosphor tube. :)
>Do you actually believe that the word "should" has some explanatory
>connotation? Wouldn't it be more logical, if indeed you were trying
>to show something, to simply show it and allow the reader to reason it
>out the logic for themselves? The word "should" simply implies what
>you want a person to do. Even when you follow the "should" clause
>with a "because" clause, it states how you want the reader to react to
>the because clause, which then logically means that you are asking him
>not to reason it out and draw his own conclusions, but to accept your
>conclusions.
After reading this last part, I thought to myself, "Jason, waste not
thy time with the useless ramblings of a nimrod."
"But we can't let it end like this, Johnny!"
>Please tell us how one should consider a statement that says one
>should do something? I have no problem in considering an explanatory
>statement containing some information, but any phrase containing the
>word "should" is nothing more than a request to act, and as such,
>there is very little to consider other than what basis or authority
>the speaker might have to make such a request.
Can't you see your own paranoia here? It's as bright as day on this
side of the fence.
Let's play your game for a second:
Should.
Your body is exhausted, you can BARELY move or function. I say,
"John, you should get some rest."
When a person says something like that to you, do you immediately
think they're trying to force you to reach their own conclusions? My
telling you that you SHOULD go to bed has nothing to do with my trying
to make you think as I do. On the contrary, the word "should" means,
"It is good for you to do this, but it's your decision." If I say you
should get some rest, well, I really don't give a rat's ass if you do
or not, but I would think you would agree with my conclusion because
it is obvious and makes the most sense. But ultimately, the choice is
yours. If I didn't want you to reason this out, I would say, "John,
get some rest...NOW!"
So explain what that example has to do with authority, bias, my
wanting you not to reason for yourself...
And now for a final word:
Johnny, you SHOULD get a clue.
J. Sasha Stewart
James A. donald
--
On Mon, 04 May 1998 23:35:38 GMT, tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom
Asquith) wrote:
> To put the positivist version (as outlined by John
> Cottingham) to work: EITHER the claim made must be
> analytic, in which case it must be knowable a priori (and
> therefore subject to an empty tautology) OR they must be
> synthetic, whereby the rationalist could be challenged to
> demonstrate how their truth could be confirmed a posteriori
> by observation.
Hume's fork itself fails Hume's fork, thus if all statements that fail
Hume's fork are nonsense, then Hume's fork is itself nonsense, since
it is neither analytic or synthetic, by any normal criteria, let alone
Hume's rather strict criteria.
Pretty much any issue that people care to think and talk about cannot
be fitted on one side or the other of that dichotomy. Most statements
involving causality fail Hume's fork, as do most statements involving
natural kinds, for example "is this animal a wolf or a dog".
If we limit ourselves to propositions that can be fitted into that
dichotomy, we would soon run out of conversation.
While the dichotomy between synthetic and analytic statements is a
quite useful dichotomy, it is unavoidably fuzzy, and most statements
that people find important or interesting cannot be clearly
categorized to one extreme or the other, and there is nothing wrong
with such hard to categorize statements.
If the proposition "there is an external world upon which my
perceptions are based," fails Hume's fork, this is not evidence that
Rand was wrong, rather it is evidence that she is entirely correct
that mainstream philosophy has become a pile of obviously silly
nonsense.
> she took the position that it was perfectly fine for Rand
> to decide what constituted objectivism but her followers
> did not have this privilege; at the same time, she
> encouraged her followers to be individuals and think
> freely. Contradiction? Perhaps.
Agreed.
> > > (4) she is hypocritical in her use of history (in short
> > > she can be accused a number of times of not practicing
> > > what she preached to her Randbots);
> >Examples please?
> I gave in the previous post an example of her delving into
> the use of the history of the railroad and the creation of
> the so-called railway barons (see generally, Capitalism the
> Unknown Ideal--I don't have the reference here at the
> moment)--an example of her using history to further her
> point. Yet in "Atlas Shrugged", she argued along the lines
> of the need for the person to live in the present
I fail to see any contradiction there: Living in the present hardly
precludes us from using knowledge from all of time.
> As for not liking her ethics, that is irrelevant. My
> criticism is that she doesn't have an ethical system.
This simply is not true. One can argue that her ethical system is not
well founded, one can argue that here system is morally wrong, but you
cannot argue that it does not exist. Manifestly it does exist.
You appear to be identifying ethics with pure altruism, that is to say
altruism other than kin altruism, mutuality, and reciprocity.
Pure altruism is quite rare in humans, so rare that one cannot easily
say whether it is correlated with other perverse behaviors. One can
however quite easily determine that *preaching* pure altruism, a much
more common phenomenon, is correlated with such perverse behaviors as
mass murder and terror, in particular the terror to which Rand was
exposed in her youth.
> > > and (6) it is proposed that she lacked familiarity with
> > > those philosophers whom she has criticized
> > > (particularly Hegel and Kant).
> > This may well be true, but true or false, clearly they
> > did indeed have the defects than Rand attributes to them.
> > One may argue that her defences of her own arguments were
> > less successful than her attacks on the positions of
> > others, but her attacks on the arguments of others were
> > devastating.
> The defects that she alleged were unsubstantiated and in
> many cases, non-existent.
You strain at a gnat, and yet have no difficulty swallowing a camel.
If Kant wishes to prove X, where X is a statement that people might be
inclined to doubt, he will prove a bunch of statements similar to X,
statements that no reasonable person would doubt, and then cheerfully
announce he has proven X.
If he tried that on usenet people would flame his pants off.
> To use Kant as an example (and I'll use a bit by Rand's #1
> moonie):
Perhaps, instead, you should try using an example from Rand. Even the
most orthodox objectivists do not universally accept Piekoff's claim
to be Rand's apostolic successor.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
tOEbKgU75IF1rB1stwaS0+WuiUKNvntz6x737bUM
4cidjB/yFexZ2ha4F4S+Blv1LbveIJPuDtHTwZb3k
Eric von Weasel
In article <35b80b75....@news.binc.net>,
John Parker <jhpa...@Emailbag.com> wrote:
>On 1 May 1998 09:59:20 -0700, berg...@big.aa.net (Eric von Weasel)
>wrote:
>>In article <3551bad9....@news.binc.net>,
>>John Parker <jhpa...@Emailbag.com> wrote:
>>>I think it's ridiculous that you think you are not certain about your
>>>morality, I am about mine.
>>Certainty is not a difficult state to acquire. Pick some plausible
>>beliefs from the intellectual landscape; steadfastly refuse to
>>acknowledge exceptions, qualifications, and counter-examples; and
>>surround yourself with people who will energetically reinforce your
>>beliefs.
>Actually, quite the opposite is true. I totally ignore the landscape,
>and the opinions of others, simply because I cannot depend upon either
>the honesty nor intellect of the landscape,
You also seem to be ignoring exceptions, qualifications, and
counter-examples.
>and unlike yourself, Mr.
>WeaselClone, I steadfastly refuse to surround myself with people who
>energetically reinforce my beliefs.
This is one of the funniest things you've ever written. About the
only thing the Weasel enrollees have in common is a witty disdain for
blockheadedness, especially of the rightist kind. Beyond that, we
have significant differences on many issues.
>The irony of your post is as per
>usual, overwhelming, Eric.
Always glad to be of service. It would be nicer if your reactions
were actually connected to reality, but I'm happy for small favors.
>I wonder how many lurkers are chuckling at
>this very moment.
Hopefully, billions and billions.
--
Quote Of The Week: "Individuals have no place in this corporation, and
will be made to conform." Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds.
Eric von Weasel
In article <354e4408...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
Pistol <pis...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>On 1 May 1998 10:07:35 -0700, berg...@big.aa.net (Eric von Weasel)
>wrote:
>>In article <6ibiuj$1ea8$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>>Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <gio+van+no+ni+8-...@dialup108.tlh.talstar.com>,
>>>gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com says...
>>>>It all goes back to the axioms. Existence exists. It has
>>>>always existed, and will always exist. Consciousness exists.
>>>>And things are what they are rather than what they are not
>>>>(the law of identity). All 3 are unchanging.
>>>Existence and consciousness are unchanging?
>>>Existence exists is an irrelevant >>>definition (like runners run).
>>"things are what they are" never seemed an especially valuable
>>observation, either.
>Well, to people who speak as though their beliefs can change reality,
>it would be very helpful.
I've never had meaningful philosophical discussions with anyone who
would dispute the statement that "things are what they are." The
points of dispute revolved around issues like what a thing really
is.
>The more useful aspect of what was said above is that things have a
>particular nature.
That does not follow from the axiom "existence exists." For instance,
it may be that the existence of an object includes both a mode which
can be sensually perceived and a mode which participates in a
non-sensual existence. This possibility is explicitly and
emphatically rejected by Randians, but someone who believes in such a
form of existence would claim that the Randians are being
"unrealistic" by ignoring the non-sensual mode of reality.
Rand jumps from the axiom "existence exists" to make a number of
pronouncements about the nature of existence, none of which
necessarily follow from her axiom.
>Full understanding of this can help one avoid
>confusing semantic games that some people like to play, where they act
>as if redefining something eliminates or changes it.
Rand herself is hardly above this sort of tactic, as her use of terms
like "logic," "romanticism," and even "capitalism" indicates.
However, to her credit, she is usually explicit in her definitions of
terms which she uses idiosyncratically.
>>It also needs to be conditioned by the fact that
>>what constitutes a "thing" is not always obvious.
>But what is being discussed above is the most basic fundamental level.
>What you said is a much higher level observation. To draw an
>analogy, Giovanni's statement is machine language, yours, an operating
>system.
Not that much higher. If the statement "existence exists" is to have
any useful meaning, and not simply be a tautology, something about
existence must immediately be established.
>Or if you prefer chemistry, Giovanni's is a molecule, yours a
>complex protein.
>>>I would say that existence is experience, and
>>>experience is what "exists".
>>
>>That's one answer.
>
>It is a good example of the semantic games I mentioned above.
It's a good example of fleshing out the rather emaciated pronouncement
"existence exists."
>>>>And they determine epistemology, which in turn determines
>>>>ethics.
>>>Explain. That seems a bit bizarre.
>For those of you who have difficulty with big words and abstractions,
This is a good example of a favored "semantic game" of Randians and
her fellow travellers - the use of invective. She is not alone in
this, of course. Philosophers of real stature (Marx, Nietzsche,
Schopenhauer, and Hobbes immediately come to mind) sprinkle insults
and ridicule throughout their writings. The difficulty comes when
invective is a substitute for important connections and chains of
argument, which in Rand is all too common.
>the nature of reality determines the proper manner of determining
>truths about it, and the truths of reality determine what is and is
>not proper behavior within that realm.
In order to agree what is a "proper" manner of determining truth about
reality, you must have already made some determinations about reality.
If one is attempting to development a thoroughly deductive philosophy,
this is a fatal error.
>>It's another one of those sneaky Randian axioms on which her entire
>>philosophy depends.
>Any good structure of thought depends on axioms. The question is
>whether they are really axioms (ie, self evident truths), or merely
>arbitrary assumptions.
One philosopher's axioms are another philosopher's arbitrary
assumptions.
>>>To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
>Perhaps that is because you associate elegant semantic games with good
>philosophy.
Can't speak for Scott, but for me good philosophy should have many of
these characteristics: rigorous argumentation, novel insights,
acknowledgement of prior similar work in the field, confrontation of
the "tough" questions, willingness to test conclusions against
empirical data. I find Rand wanting in all of these criteria.
>>Her philosophy can be a helpful introduction to some major themes in
>>Western thought for teenagers who have spent too much time watching
>>television (don't ask me how I came to this conclusion). Fortunately,
>>most teenages so exposed manage to grow beyond Randism.
>Such an explanation is the surest signal that the writer has read
>little of Rand, and understood even less.
I think I've read every one of Rand's books, and for several years had
subscriptions to her newsletters.
Here's a hint which is useful in any serious discussion (as opposed to
the run-of-the-mill Usenet foodfights) - the fact that someone
disagrees with you is not proof that this person is ignorant or
stupid.
>One can easily draw the
>opinion that certain of Rand's theories contain flaws. I certainly
>have. But to describe her writing as teenagerish is just ridiculous.
That is, of course, not what I said. Her writings are fully adult.
Their appeal to a certain sector of teenagers is indisputable - it was
at this age that I discovered Rand, and have met numerous people with
the same experience.
>If Rand is teenagerish, then Orwell is prepubescent, and Tolkien,
>fetal.
I can agree with your assessment of Tolkien.
LQuest
On Mon, 04 May 1998 22:55:03 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>On 1 May 1998 10:07:35 -0700, berg...@big.aa.net (Eric von Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <6ibiuj$1ea8$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>>Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <gio+van+no+ni+8-...@dialup108.tlh.talstar.com>,
>>>gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com says...
>>
>>>>It all goes back to the axioms. Existence exists. It has
>>>>always existed, and will always exist. Consciousness exists.
>>>>And things are what they are rather than what they are not
>>>>(the law of identity). All 3 are unchanging.
>>
>>>Existence and consciousness are unchanging? Existence exists is an irrelevant
>>>definition (like runners run).
>>
>>"things are what they are" never seemed an especially valuable
>>observation, either.
>
>Well, to people who speak as though their beliefs can change reality,
>it would be very helpful.
>
>The more useful aspect of what was said above is that things have a
>particular nature. Full understanding of this can help one avoid
>confusing semantic games that some people like to play, where they act
>as if redefining something eliminates or changes it.
>
>>It also needs to be conditioned by the fact that
>>what constitutes a "thing" is not always obvious.
>
>But what is being discussed above is the most basic fundamental level.
>What you said is a much higher level observation. To draw an
>analogy, Giovanni's statement is machine language, yours, an operating
>system. Or if you prefer chemistry, Giovanni's is a molecule, yours a
>complex protein.
>
>>>I would say that existence is experience, and
>>>experience is what "exists".
>>
>>That's one answer.
>
>It is a good example of the semantic games I mentioned above.
>
>>>>And they determine epistemology, which in turn determines
>>>>ethics.
>>
>>>Explain. That seems a bit bizarre.
>
>For those of you who have difficulty with big words and abstractions,
>the nature of reality determines the proper manner of determining
>truths about it, and the truths of reality determine what is and is
>not proper behavior within that realm.
>
>>It's another one of those sneaky Randian axioms on which her entire
>>philosophy depends.
>
>Any good structure of thought depends on axioms. The question is
>whether they are really axioms (ie, self evident truths), or merely
>arbitrary assumptions.
>
>>>To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
>
>Perhaps that is because you associate elegant semantic games with good
>philosophy.
>
>>Her philosophy can be a helpful introduction to some major themes in
>>Western thought for teenagers who have spent too much time watching
>>television (don't ask me how I came to this conclusion). Fortunately,
>>most teenages so exposed manage to grow beyond Randism.
>
>Such an explanation is the surest signal that the writer has read
>little of Rand, and understood even less. One can easily draw the
>opinion that certain of Rand's theories contain flaws. I certainly
>have. But to describe her writing as teenagerish is just ridiculous.
>
>If Rand is teenagerish, then Orwell is prepubescent, and Tolkien,
>fetal.
I love it!!! Pistol, are you sure you weren't AR in a former life?
Your comments, while acutely precise and on "apparent" point are
skirting around the most likely reason these "ivory tower"
philosophers seem so anxious to criticize Objectivism (and its
author): They dare not accept it as valid lest they loose all
pretense that they are not 100% accountable and responsible for the
results in their own lives. That's the trouble with Objectivism -- it
makes the individual accountable, i.e. there are rarely any REAL
victims -- only volunteers, in the game of life on Earth.
Collectivist minions cannot accept that for reasons that are similar
to why Christianity cannot accept the idea of Pan-theism (God IS
everything) -- because if they did, their entire cosmological house of
cards would come crashing down. Denial of this possibility is a
primary symptom of its existence.
--Mike
Eric von Weasel
In article <slur-04059...@10.0.2.15>,
Scott Lahteine <sl...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <6icvgn$pdc$1...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net (Eric von
>Weasel) wrote:
>>>I would say that existence is experience, and
>>>experience is what "exists".
>>
>>That's one answer.
> It certainly helps to bolster the notion that consciousness and
>existence are more or less one and the same thing. Consider the way that
>sight operates in "real-time" - the visual cortex is in a certain state
>and we immediately perceive that state *prior to processing* the
>information.
In normally functioning humans the process of "sight" (for example)
consists of several steps. Each of these steps represents some form
of "processing" - conversion of one physical state into another
physical state. It's never been clear to me exactly which state
represents "perception" as Rand uses the term, especially in the
phrase "perceptual level of consciousness." People are not conscious
of perceptions of an object and then decide what the object is - they
are conscious of the object. I've had a couple of Zen practitioners
claim that they can train themselves to be aware of this "perceptual"
level, but I remain skeptical.
>Thus consciousness precedes reason and/or contextualization.
>>>>And they determine epistemology, which in turn determines
>>>>ethics.
>>
>>>Explain. That seems a bit bizarre.
>>
>>It's another one of those sneaky Randian axioms on which her entire
>>philosophy depends.
> One thing Rand failed to grok about the "law of identity" is that "A =
>A" says nothing whatsoever about 'A' but rather provides the simplest
>definition of '=' for the mind to grasp. Equating a thing to itself is at
>least one step removed from simply being.
The statement "A = A" as a demonstration of "=" is most handy in
formal systems, especially in systems where the possible values of "A"
are simple and uncomplicated. Where "A" represents a rich and complex
object like "human", the value of "A = A" in the development of a
philosophy diminishes dramatically.
>>>To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
>>Her philosophy can be a helpful introduction to some major themes in
>>Western thought for teenagers who have spent too much time watching
>>television (don't ask me how I came to this conclusion). Fortunately,
>>most teenages so exposed manage to grow beyond Randism.
> It certainly provides a "compelling" context for those who are
>inexperienced in the nuances of *practice* or any form of learning which
>is non-concept-dependent. American education creates the conditions by
>which our "innate" sense of injustice (lack of resolution) is converted
>into a Romatic crusader's psyche. Some people turn to Rand, others to
>Nietzche.
>
> In the end all Idealists fall into the same trap - of equating Reason
>to Mind - and lose all sense of proportion or identity. To believe that
>the ongoing dialog in one's head is infallible (denying one's own
>denial...?) amounts to the most insidious form of ignorance. The dialog
>may express *beliefs about reality* but reality is a pure expression of
>itself that doesn't care what you believe... and the mind can process it
>without dialectical rub-a-dub.
LQuest
On 4 May 1998 23:30:09 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <354e4408...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
>says...
>
[snip]
>>>>To me, Rand still seems a lightweight when it comes to philosophy.
>>
>>Perhaps that is because you associate elegant semantic games with good
>>philosophy.
>
>No, just because her ideas aren't that good, and her arguments unpersuasive.
Uhh.. Scott -- how would you go about KNOWING whether her arguments
are "good" or not "good". The word "good" describes a value
judgement. Just how do YOU determine if something is GOOD or BAD?
--Mike
Pistol
On Sun, 03 May 1998 05:27:09 GMT, sa...@cybercom.net (J. Sasha
Stewart) wrote:
CRUDE
>On Fri, 01 May 1998 22:22:51 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>>Let me try a more complete approach. It is true that the
>>opinions of formally educated experts on subjects where we'd
>>expect little personal bias are unlikely to result in erroneous
>>conclusions. Unlikely, not impossible. There will, no doubt,
>>be such cases, as there have been throughout history with
>>breakthroughs in all areas of human endeavors.
>
>True, but even then it also seems highly unlikely that all "naysayers"
>are working from a personal bias. "The Institution", I can see
>though. And yes, it's happened more times than I can count. :)
Oh, without a doubt. Personal bias is but one cause. Incompetence is
another.
>>Rand attacked modern philosophy, in no uncertain terms, on this
>>basis. And philosophers are people, after all, so OF COURSE
>>they shunned her! How could they be expected to react any
>>other way? When an astrologer, chiropractor, or theologin is
>>challenged as to the validity of the discipline to which they
>>have dedicated their life, they do not respond with "Oh,
>>really? Hey, you might be onto something!" They respond,
>>understandably, defensively. Philosophers are no different,
>>and for that reason, their opinion of Rand should not be given
>>too much credibility.
>
>And why not? If they are trained, versus her lack of training, they
>should be taking seriously...I do think their credibility perhaps
>should falter in proportion to their own personal bias, etc., but how
>can you blanketly assume them to be biased?
I just explained why. They were attacked personally, and told,
essentially, that their work, nay, their field, was crap, and
that they were (through inaction) responsible for the
destruction of the world (Rand's imagery was nothing if not
grandiose :)). If that isn't solid enough a basis for bias, I
don't know what is.
>But let's not forget that Rand's philosophy was indeed attacked from
>the inside. It's hard to assume that external forces were all working
>to coerce the "heretics".
Well, here you get into Rand's personality flaws. She would
call me a heretic because I think everything she wrote about
sex was crap (essentially, there's nothing inherent about the
act that makes it more philosophically significant than playing
basketball)
Let me be chrystal clear. I am not saying that EVERYONE who
EVER criticized Rand for ANYTHING is biased and deserving of
being blown off (I'd have to blow off myself, and, well, never
mind). I am saying that the systematic shunning of her by the
"philosophy community", as if to try to get her to disappear
through inattention, deserves short shrift becaue of the
obvious bias they would have. But any particular criticisms
made deserve attention.
Unfortunately, such criticisms, however well-intentioned, tend
to fall into that pedantic jabber that poor Tom keeps falling
into, the same seeming nothingness in many words, that has
caused society to shun philosophy in the first place.
>>Now if they, or anyone for that matter, presents an ARGUMENT
>>against Rand's theories, rather than the usual gratuitous
>>dismissal, THAT should be taken seriously. The fact that the
>>literature is almost completely devoid of such efforts is
>>further evidence (IMO) that modern philosophers refuse to take
>>objectivism seriously for reasons that go far beyond philosophy.
>
>I've read a decent amount of stuff from both sides, and I must say
>that the criticism did indeed present clean, LOGICAL arguments to show
>their point.
I've never seen one, except in a book I picked up called "The
Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Ur(?) and Rasmussen (?). If you know
of other sources, please cite them, and I would be most
grateful.
>>Just examine the criticisms of Objectivism that appear here.
>>One after another, they are nothing more than unsubstantiated vague
>>generalities and personal attacks. There is often little
>>evidence that the critic even knows what objecivism is, much
>>less that he has identified its shortcomings. Rarely is there
>>actually a specific reference to something Rand or other
>>objectivists had to say. And when objectivist opposition to
>>these claims appears, the critic often just disappears. I
>>think this is telling.
>
>Hmmm, I dunno. I've seen both good arguments AND baseless
>attacks...from BOTH sides.
Like I said, I've never seen a good argument. Hell, I've only
seen one person who seemed to actually understand what Rand
said (some girl that went by "W$"). Every other critic I've
seen doesn't take very long to display a total lack of
understanding of what she was talking about.
>I don't want to play into that game, which is why I generally try to
>provide some clear (at least I try to be as clear as possible)
>arguments. But like I've said, I do agree with certain aspects of
>objectivism. It just seems that the "die hard" objectivists on this
>group refuse to really open their minds to other possibilities, which,
>I think, is unfortunate. But, of course, that's my take on it.
Its probably accurate. Objectivism opens the door to
the possibility of moral certainty, something I think we can
all admit having desired, even if (as I once did) we believe
it can never be. This is naturally going to result in a sort
of mental velcro effect on its adherents. But, again, that
indicates a personality flaw in those people, rather than a
flaw in the philosophy.
>>>But I pose this question to you: You exist in your world and to the
>>>people who interact with you in one way or another.
>>
>>>But...do you exist in the mind of little Jean-Marie Doreau, who lives
>>>in the South of France and has no contact to anyone outside the
>>>village?
>>>
>>>Does it matter? No? Exactly!
>>
>>You are just playing a semantic game with the word "exist".
>>Its meaning in "do I exist?" is very different than its meaning
>>in "Do you exist in the mind of so-and-so?".
>
>No, no, no,... I understand that. I was just trying to reinforce the
>point that it doesn't matter.
>If there's a million dollars buried somewhere on I-71 by a guy who's
>now dead, and no one knows that he put it there, the money doesn't
>exist for all intents and purposes. But yet, it's there (the two
>meanings you speak of). But it's being there is meaningless unless
>someone finds it.
No, it is meaningful, it just may not be important.
You are still playig the semantic game. The money occupies a
point in space and time. That's the short definition of
"exists" for physical objects. Whether its existence is
important to me (ie does it matter) is a different question.
If that's all you were trying to prove, I readily grant it.
I just wonder what the point is.
>>>>Now go away son! I must press on with pursuing my highest moral
>>>>purpose: the achievement of MY OWN happiness at MY OWN expense using
>>>>MY OWN mind, hands and heart and without expecting anyone else to
>>>>sacrifice themselves for any part of my happiness.
>>>
>>>And if you reach this high point, I can almost guarantee you that
>>>you'll be quite alone...isolated from the rest of the world.
>>
>>Well, I'll assure him that he won't. I implement this
>>principle in my life with great success. I have many friends,
>>who are, to varying degrees, like-minded. Most of the
>>knee-jerk platitudes that people spout about what must be done
>>to sustain meaningful relationships with others are just myths.
>>I've broken them all, and am none the worse for wear. I've
>>dated who I wish, regardless of their relationships to my
>>friends or family (unless they are taken). I rid my life of
>>people who have nothing to offer me. I've told people they
>>cannot bring to my house their kids, and their parents, when I
>>determined that to conflict with my interests. And you know
>>what happened? Nothing!
>
>Intriguing. :) I imagine your parties are quite...interesting. :)
Yes, they are. They represent the most intense gathering of
quality individualsI can muster. I've found that the only
people who object to the idea of justifying my company are
those who have little to offer.
>>Such things are necessary to have relationships with flawed
>>individuals who think you owe them something. But with
>>self-sufficient people who do not look for handouts, there is
>>no problem.
>
>Are you self-imployed, paying no taxes to a government, living on your
>own island, with no laws but your own?
Of course not. How does that relate to my passage above? When
I say "self-sufficient", I don't mean "supports with no
assistence from others". I mean "earns what he gets from
others, and asks for no charity".
>In Gault's Gulch, perhaps? *wink* *wink*
I really hate it when marginally humorous one-liners take the
place of thoughtful debate.
>>This [self-sacrifice] happens in the animal kingdon
>>all the time. Worker ants sacrifice themselves for the benefit
>>of the mound (obviously not consciously) all the time. A mother
>>bird will risk being eaten by a wolf (by pretending to be
>>injured) to protect her young, and this is typical of many
>>mother animals. Practically every animal that is social does this.
>
>Oh yes, I think I've seen stuff like that on the Discovery Channel. :)
>But yes, I know it DOES happen. But at what level? Perhaps there are
>a few animals that seek retribution for a killed offspring? My point
>was that if reason is to be regarded as man's "claim to fame", so
>should a lot of other traits. Other animals reason, but yes, humans do
>it better. Other animals feel love, but humans do it more. Other
>animals sacrifice, but humans do it for deeper reasons, etc.
I think you are missing a subtle, but important point here. It
is not that humans CAN reason, but rather that reason is our
survival mechanism, that seperates us from the rest of the
animal kingdom. Dolphins can reason, some better than some
humans. And humans can swim, some better than certain
dolphins. But what is relevant is that swimming is the
mechanism a dolphin uses to live, and reasoning is what humans
use. It is not an arbitrary line in the sand of ability that
seperates humans so much as the black/white distinction of
survival. Reasoning is the defining characteristic of humans.
>>If you think you have other traits to offer as uniquely human,
>>I eagerly await your list. I don't see any others. Other
>>animals feel love, anger, and sadness.
>
>But, well...that was my point, yo. When you get down to it, humans
>are ANIMALS. What separates us from lesser animals aren't the traits
>themselves, but the level at which we express them.
The camp still seems to be out on whether animals are
capable of second-order knowledge. That is, sure, apes and
dolphins can solve a puzzle put before them. But can they
decide to decide, as we do? Or are they just at the level of a
computer which simply solves whatever problem you give it?
Does the ape reason out how to stack the boxes to get at the
banana because he reasoned out that course of action? Or does
he merely follow his instincts to eat?
I think before one claims that animals reason as we do, just
not as well, one needs proof that they can do this at all. One
can observe a group of 4 year olds huddle up to determine a
course of action, whereas no group of mature chimps does so.
And the barrier that keeps chimps from developing a complex
language is far from physical. It appears to be conceptual,
which would make it a difference in kind, not extent.
>If reason and logic are responsible for our technology and our
>evolution, what sparks the reasoning and the logical thinking? How
>about passion, war, boredom, curiosity? Without those, there's not
>much use for reason and logic, is there? Besides environmental
>conditions and simple living, etc., other traits help spark the need
>to change things, to evolve. Logic and reason helps us to achieve
>that change. But if we don't have the drive for change, logic and
>reason become a wasted commodity.
But now you are drifting off into that subjective never-never
land wherein I quickly lose patience. And I'll even let you
slide on the ridiculous idea that "there's not much use for
reason ... without ... passion, war, boredom and curiousity".
First, you have to define "helpful", justify that use, and
demonstrate that certain things qualify. Then you have to
explain why something that is "helpful" should be considered
essential, which is the tougher task. A human being who
anything removed would still be a human being - except his
ability to conceptualize.
Just ask yourself why people in a coma, or who are retarded, or
children for that matter, do not have the same rights
recognized as healthy adults do. Can you justify having rights
removed if one has emotion or curiosity removed?
Of course not.
>>And be careful to not miscategorize actions for traits. The
>>fact that many people choose to murder does not make murdering
>>an inherent trait of humanity.
>
>If there is some confusion about that, let me say that I'm not
>necessarily talking about the action itself, but the emotion behind
>it.
Well, the bottom line to me is that a man motivated by reason
alone can survive, whereas a man motivated by emotion alone
cannot.
>>We've had this discussion before, haven't we? If we begin
>>again, one thing needs to be made clear - the definition of
>>"objectivism". I do not think the definition too many people
>>use of "anything Ayn Rand claims is objectivism" is valid. It
>>sure isn't very usefull. I consider myself an objectivist, but
>>I disagree with a great deal (by O'st standards :)) of what
>>Rand had to say.
>
>Yes, yes...and I will admit to falling into that trap myself. It IS
>easier to attack Rand's objectivism, especially since she apparently
>had a hard time living up to it.
PFFFT! A greater understatement there never was.
>But pure objectivism is more
>difficult. By it's very nature (at least in terms of the meaning of
>objectivity), it should be practically FLAWLESS.
I don't see that. One can be perfectly rational and still make a
mistake.
>My problem, then,
>lies in the fact that it seems to try to quantify things that are not
>really quantifiable. Morality? The proper way to live? These are
>not things that can be decided outside of a person's own subjective
>realm.
Depends on what you are talking about. The way I see it, the
objective quantities determine the boundaries within which
subjective judgements may be made. You may subjectively decide
to feed your child pea soup rather than tomatoe soup, and not
be in violation of objectivist standards. But if you decide to
feed him arsenic soup...
>My baseline problem with Objectivism (not Randian, I guess) is
>that it shouldn't be thought of as a philosophy in and of itself, but
>it should be more of a TOOL to achieving a person's goals. And, as
>with all tools, it is only useful in it's proper function, but not
>will all things.
That is the short definition of philosophy AFAICT, which is why
I consider all this modern gibberish so much ballast, and the
practitioners of it so dismissible.
Pistol
On 5 May 1998 08:53:35 -0700, berg...@big.aa.net (Eric von Weasel)
wrote:
[snips]
>About the
>only thing the Weasel enrollees have in common is a witty disdain for
>blockheadedness, especially of the rightist kind. Beyond that, we
>have significant differences on many issues.
Just what is this "Weasel" clan anyway. Is it just a coincidence, or
are you all related somehow?
Tom Asquith
Much snipping!
On Mon, 04 May 1998 15:43:24 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:53:05 GMT, tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom
>Asquith) wrote:
>>On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:08:15 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>>>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 06:34:01 GMT, tasq...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Tom
>>>Asquith) wrote:
>So why did you do it? My original criticism of you was that you
>tossed around unsubstantiated claims and insults, instead of making
>clear arguments. And here you begin a post with the same stuff? This
>is not a bright beginning.
Ah but the tone denotes otherwise--in both our posts. :-)
>>But you nor I am here to just hurl insults at fellow net denizens (that is if
>>you in fact exist ;-) ), so let's stop the backhanded backslaps and actually
>>get down to business.
>
>I never wanted anything else. Sheesh!
Ditto.
>Uh, this might be a really short discussion. I'm not much interested
>in a debate of Rand per se. I'm interested in the philosophical
>issues she raised. I personally have criticisms of some of her
>particulars, but its the basic structure she creates which I think has
>so much stength. I hope that's where you areheaded.
Which issues she raised? It seems that you are interested in particulars
but you make no effort to explain which particulars--but thanks to this
post, we can begin to understand which.
>Yes, yes, she was an uptight bitch, who respected independant thought
>only in those who agreed with her, and unfortunately this unsightly
>legacy is kept alive by Peikoff and ARI. But this is a trivial,
>unimpoortant issue to those interested in the philosophy, and I have
>no interest in wasting band-width on such a topic.
Granted.
>>(4) she is hypocritical in her use of history ...
>Again, I don't give a damn about Rand's personal foibles - they simply
>aren't important. I'd jus as soon discuss whether the fact that
>Jefferson banged his slaves regularly lessens the value of the
>constitution.
Ok.
>And let's drop the namecalling, shall we? What happening to not
>hurling insults?
Insults stopped (at least at this end).
>>(5) her philosophy lacks ethics and confuses individualism with selfishness;
>
>Now THAT we can sink our teeth into.
Yes and no. The question is whether you want to speak about objectivism
(which is possible to do), Rand's Objectivism (which you both embrace and
criticize--note the header--hence, my restriction to just Rand--if you
wish to discuss objectivism generally, then change the header, drop me
a line by e-mail and I will subscribe to a.p.o temporarily to pursue this further
with you. All jibes put aside.)
>>and (6) it is proposed that she
>>lacked familiarity with those philosophers whom she has criticized (particularly
>>Hegel and Kant).
>
>Another discussion of her personally - no thanks.
Very well. See my reply to (5).
>>Odd that you found Mr. Erb's comments to be preliminary.
>
>That was a personal shot - Erb and I have, shall we say, a colorful
>past.
So I noticed (did a brief search on Alta Vista's newsgroup archive).
>I simply have no patience for people who present, stated as fact
>without support, the critical issues under dispute. It is akin to
>those who argue for socialized medicine by declaring as out of bounds,
>the idea that some people should not get treatment.
>
>And I note again this disturbing habit of yours to toss accusations my
>way without even presenting the incident, much less evidence
>supporting your accusation. I hope this was just sloppiness and not
>malice.
No malice, just spite and a touch of mischief. If I detect a tendency in
another poster to be aggressive, that particular side comes out. Hopefully
we can be objective, hein?
The chief point of my past 2-3 posts was that Rand's objectivism (and its
respective defects) were attributable to her deficiencies and lack of
willingness to be objective.
>>>What would you have her begin with? An arbitrary assertion?
>>
>>You are assuming that by taking an egoistic stand that she
>>is not taking an arbitrary assertion.
>
>Yes. Especially considering that she doesn't assert it, but derives
>it from other premises, it would seem a rather safe stand.
Actually she doesn't--take a close look at Galt's speech (works a priori).
The attempt at deriving it from other premises was done a posteriori by
Peikoff--read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. The parts of the book
which are really Rand are few (although it may be inferred from stylometry,
the Meridian's copy editor at the time has confirmed as much).
>This is a waste of time. All you are doing is making more sweeping,
>vague, unsupported assertions. Fine, I'll respond in kind - Rand's
>objectivism is constructed from self-evident premises, and flows
>logically and necessarily at every step and in every detail. There is
>no sign of the slightest error or vagueness.
"Self-evident"-->that is, determined 'a priori' (ergo empty and leading to
tautology) and by necessity flows into itself. [I went into this in the
response to Mr. Donald .]
>Now I, of course, don't believe that, but it is an appropriate
>response. I hope I've made my point.
Yes and no. You've basically just repeated what you've said elsewhere.
Sorry if I'm sounding a tad harsh :-/ --but this is what you've done.
>>But considering that she has made both Kant and Hegel sources of
>>scorn, one would necessarily assume that she had at least a
>>solid understanding of the works on which she was criticizing.
>>Then again, I suppose she was only human...despite the belief
>>of some to the contrary.
>
>You again seem obsessed with criticizing her personally, instead of
>directing your comments to the philosophy.
The attack was not on her personally, just merely what she had written.
Obviously, we cannot expect a dead person to speak in bad faith about
Hegel or Kant.
>>Call it being unique or individualistic. Oh, that's right, being
>>an objectivist you can't tell the difference between being selfish
>>and being an individualist.
>
>This is your idea of productive debate? You sound like Cahill.
You flatter me.
>The problem Rand identified (if I may be so bold as to actually
>discuss the topic) is that the language has been warped to restrict
>the word "selfish" to short-sighted-moronic selfishness (eg, Ferengi,
>for you Trekkers). People have been brainwashed into thinking that
>the only version of the selfish man is someone who steamrolls over
>everyone in his path to get what he whimsically wants, as if they were
>no more significant than ants.
Communitarians have taken to using the term 'self-interest'. It works
a little better. "Selfish" though still is "me" oriented--even if you
take it back to its roots with Tocqueville and Smith.
>>Then again, you are a unique objectivist, aren't you? :-)
>
>Yes, but much to my disappointment, you appear to be all too typical
>an example of Rand's critics. I can see getting a specific criticism
>of s pecific aspect of objectivism is going to be difficult.
One sees what one wishes to see. Also you never really clarified what
form of objectivism you wished to really discuss (had you done so, I
would have changed the thread's header, and engaged in an analysis
of your different topic). It is my understanding that objectivism (as
opposed to Rand's hodge-podge of laissez-faire, atheism and faux
neo-Aristotelianism) can be: (a) an insistence that the world exists in
itself independently from our comprehension of it; (b) an insistence that
the world can be understood independently of any subjective understanding;
(c) both (a) & (b); (d) a belief that knowledge is based on facts
determined by scientific method and it describes things exactly as
they are [per correspondence theory of truth]; (e) view that the only
meaningful (true) knowledge is that which comes from the senses; (f) the
view that aesthetics/ethics (a&e) exist independent of man; (g) a&e can be
found and known; (h) a&e can be used as the guiding principles of
man's actions; (i) a&e are valuable/proper because of some objective
quality which makes them beautiful/right. {Source: Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy; Harper's Dictionary of Philosophy}. Which form of objectivism
do you wish to discuss/subscribe to?
Perhaps one of these points has "cash-value" for you?
[Per Buckley's comment regarding Rand]
>This is ridculous. Care to explain how you reached this absurd
>conclusion? I realize that actually explaining a criticism can be
>tiresome, but humor me.
One aspect of objective thought is the reduction of others to objects
(this has been commented on by a variety of existentialist thinkers--from
Sartre and Camus to Buber).
>>Yes. It implies that Rand has been more influential as a
>>novelist than a serious philosopher.
>
>Have you not noticed that philosophy itself has become the black sheep
>of the academics? "Serious philosopher" has become an oxymoron.
>Criticizing Rand for being shunned by modern philosophers is like
>criticizing Galileo for being criticized by astrologers.
Blame Socrates. He aimed to have fun with his opponents by making
fun of them. Rand is basically the source of scorn, not just for
her numerous philosophical errors, but for the mere fact that she
decided to use her philosophical skill (if that is the word) to
act as a cheerleader for big biz. But I don't think Rand is akin
to Galileo (he was an innovator--Rand was merely a copycat, borrowing
from other philosophers or using her students to do her work. A
better analogy might be comparing Rand with Koons or Kostabi.). Also,
you must be aware that Galileo was also involved in astrology--it
was a common way for astronomers to make money at the time.
>>Summary: Rand writes capitalist propaganda that is aimed at appealing
>>to the ignorant masses just like the Marxist Bolsheviks did--this
>>is the point (not quite a zero argument). Obviously you didn't bother to
>>read the argument (or were waiting for the Cliff's Notes translation).
>
>No, I just keep waiting for an argument, which is not a series of
>assertions (ie, the above), but logical conclusions drawn from
>premises.
The back-up source for the allegation was "Benefits and Hazards of
Ayn Rand's Objectivism" by Branden. He noted in his practice that
there were objectivists coming to him who felt unfulfilled.
>Sorry Tom, you're wasting my time. I'm not interested in
>psychoanalyzing Rand. If you have something substative to say about
>the philosophy, I'm all ears. But so far the entirety of your
>comments to date can be summed up thusly:
>
>I hate Rand.
>
>Maybe you do. I don't care.
And sir, I don't care for the tone. I was merely following the topic
mentioned in the headers. You are obviously on your own personal
quest in trying to determine whether there is value in your own
philosophical beliefs or to try and annoy those people who criticize
objectivism. If you wish to discuss objectivism, I've given you
the opportunity to do so above. It remains up to you to decide
whether it is worth you wish to go and delve into the philosophy.
J. Sasha Stewart
On Tue, 05 May 1998 13:09:51 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>Actually, quite the opposite is true. I totally ignore the landscape,
>and the opinions of others, simply because I cannot depend upon either
>the honesty nor intellect of the landscape, and unlike yourself, Mr.
>WeaselClone, I steadfastly refuse to surround myself with people who
>energetically reinforce my beliefs. The irony of your post is as per
>usual, overwhelming, Eric. I wonder how many lurkers are chuckling at
>this very moment.
A lot of us are chuckling....not at him, but at you.
J. Sasha Stewart
J. Sasha Stewart
On Tue, 05 May 1998 13:09:46 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
wrote:
>>understanding must be proven to work. Yes, an expert can be wrong.
>>But, simply by virtue of probability alone, he will be more correct
>>than the amateur. That was the point I was making.
>
>...and all of this verification of his expertise is only in the eyes
>of the people, whoever they are, who grant him the label of "expert."
That statement alone shows the error of your thinking. That statement
essentially says that there is no objective reality. If what a person
"proves" is only valid if it is acceptable to others, then how does
one find the "real truth"? Or are you advocating that there is no
real truth?
>>Are you, like, really this paranoid and insecure? My goal is not to
>>MAKE you accept anything.
>
>Then why, indeed, are you bothering with all this nonsense, Dude?
I am here to debate, to learn, and to discover new ways of seeing
things. But those new ways have to make sense. If they don't, I ask
for clarification. And if the clear message is obviously illogical, I
then attempt to explain why.
>> I am simply explaining where I see the
>>error of your conclusions.
>
>Curious...and yet you say that you are not trying to get me to accept
>anything.
Wrong, I'm not trying to MAKE you accept anything. Read my
statement....it's written a few lines above. I am relying on your
sense of logic and common sense to take you the rest of the way.
The purpose of debate is to indeed get the other side to at least see
or understand, if not agree, with your conclusions. Otherwise, it is
purely an exercise of people talking to hear themselves talk, and that
is not productive.
>> If you won't open your mind to what I'm
>>saying (and let's be real here, I'm using basic logic and math to
>>explain myself), it's no skin off my back. I really don't care,
>>y'know.
>
>Oh, I see, you believe that by virtue of somebody calling somebody
>else an expert being a reason to accept without question what that
>person says is a logical conclusion? OK, if that's what you want to
>do, it's perfectly fine with me, too. I prefer to draw my own
>conclusions however.
I have NEVER said "WITHOUT QUESTION". That's the interpretation YOU
have put into it.
Furthermore, I have now decided that you are either completely
deluded, religiously stubborn, or a complete liar:
How in the world can you say you draw you own conclusions about
everything? Did you make the scientific discoveries of light, fire,
clothing, etc? Have you ever read a book, manual, or textbook to
learn something? Who's conclusion are you using then? Hmmm? We
commonfolk rely on the premade conclusions of other people to live.
It's just that simple. It's just that obvious.
>>Are you that dim? How has mankind progressed? How could we (yes, I'm
>>using "we" again) progress if every discoverer, inventor, scientist,
>>etc., kept his findings to himself. Technology is most often the
>>result of shared minds. And in the battle for bigger and better
>>things, a person must prove why his way is better...if he expects to
>>get anything from it (money, accolades, knighthood, etc.)
>
>Perhaps, but why should this necessitate my proving myself to you or
>anybody else, unless it served my purpose?
Now you understand! "Unless it served my purpose". Your purpose can
be almost anything: pride, loneliness, vindicitveness,
self-assurance. I'm starting to get the impression that your
"purpose" on this newsgroup is to
1) Blow off steam about something, most likely, completely unrelated
to Objectivism. This is evident in your often-times unnecessarily
hostile tone (along with the name-calling in strange places).
2) Feel the little bit of pride one gets when someone else agrees with
you.
3) Find some solution to some unmentionable personal problem (mental
instability, impotence, thoughts of bestiality...)
This is all perfectly normal behavior, really (well...more or less).
So don't feel bad. ;)
Okay, okay...don't take all that personally (after all, it's not like
I really know you). But I admit is WAS kinda fun just thinking of the
possibilities. *wink*
But back to being serious:
>Nothing I do needs outside approval.
Now it's my turn. BULLSHIT. Perhaps your meaning of "nothing" is not
as absolute as mine. Are you self-employed? If so, do you pay taxes?
>I wonder how you arrived at the conclusion that debate was an attempt
>to seek approval? I seek none.
See the above listed 'purposes" I wrote earlier.
> I have a basket containing a dozen eggs. I believe that there are a
>dozen eggs in the basket because I looked into the basket and counted
>them. If I question that I have a dozen eggs in the basket, it
[...]
>conclusions concerning the quantity of eggs in my basket and yet, I
>have in all instances not found it necessary to question any beliefs.
>The additional information needs to be processed and placed in
>conjunction with the old information, just as any information needs to
>be processed and evaluated.
Interesting example, and well constructed to fit your argument. In
the case of your example...yes, I see how the new information modifies
the old, etc. etc. But that's because your example with eggs is a
quantifiable concept. It's pure and simple math.
But how can you quantify ethics, opinions, and beliefs?
>>In order to accept a new conclusion, you have to evaluate your current
>>one and find that it is indeed in error. I.e., questioning.
>
>No, you simply need to add the new information to the old and let the
>evaluation go where it may.
Ummm, nah. New information doesn't necessarily append itself to old
info like a leech. Sometimes the new adds to the old. Sometimes it
subtracts, and sometimes, it completely replaces.
>>>conclusions are not cast in concrete, and I am in a continual learning
>>>mode, but that is so not because I question my conclusions, but
>>>because I understand that I have not perceived all there is to
>>>perceive and remain open to new information. The fact that I don't
>>
>>A paradox....
>
>unsupported opinion.
You just said you make conclusions knowing that you may not have all
the information there. Earlier you define your conclusions as
something that has been "put to bed". But you keep yourself open to
the possibility to change the conclusion, yet you don't question the
conclusion....
Big paradox.
>>>presents itself to me, I am more than willing, perhaps eager to
>>>re-evaluate the conclusion.
>>
>>Yet another contradiction. You're on a roll here. :)
>
>Yet another unsupported opinion.
Your use of the word "re-evaluate" says it all.
>>*Sigh* It is very simple. If it in no way affects you, and you don't
>>even know it's there, how CAN it matter to you? Answer that for me.
>
>The point is not whether or not it is or not, the point is that it is
>beyond your capacity to know if it is. I don't claim that it is not
>meaningless, I merely claim that it is not necessarily meaningless.
>Now if you want to disagree with me, you must prove that it is
>necessarily meaningless, not the other way around.
No. I have set the parameters and have shown that it is necessarily
meaningless. YOU have said there are exceptions. Therefore, the
burden of proof is on you.
>>Dammit, man! Haven't you been paying attention?!? How can you have a
>>perception of something that doesn't exist to you?
>
>How can you be sure that I cannot?
Oooh boy. I'm not gonna even justify that as a serious question.
>>isn't that you don't have enough information....you don't know it's
>>even there!! You don't have ANY information! Why is this so hard for
>>you to grasp?
>
>Relax, you will surely hurt yourself. What would you like me to
>grasp, and why is it so important for you that i do?
The importance, my dear fellow, is that I simply have a hard time
believing you are that stupid. Do I really care in the long run? No.
But I would like to think that all the time I've spent on this subject
was for someone who had the capacity to grasp it. Perhaps I am wrong.
Scott, I see your point....
>>And when those morals conflict with other people's morals? That is
>>the point I'm trying to make.
>
>...and if their morals conflict with mine? What is the difference?
>That is the point I am trying to make.
You have done nothing but repeat what I have just said. I said that
to follow-up my statement about your being alone if you were to
achieve ABSOLUTE freedom. Absolute freedom means no one can stop you
from doing anything you want. In order for that to happen, you would
need to be alone (or emperor of the planet...and even then....).
Simple group dynamics and psychology show this.
>>I couldn't figure that out because that's not what I think. Where are
>>you getting that idea from?
>
>From your assertion that a person who practices total freedom would be
>very unhappy. Why would a person with total freedom pursue that which
>makes him unhappy?
Man are you out on a limb or what? I didn't say total freedom would
require unhappiness. I never used the word happiness. YOU did! I
said it would require LONELINESS.
Get the bloody comment right before you try to use it against me.
>>>Oh I disagree, I have both, I assume you mean freedom and happiness.
>>>I also have the piece of mind of knowing that I am what I am, not
>>>because of what other people want, but because of what I chose to be.
>>>...and oh yes, I have many friends, and a large family who like and
>>>respect me.
>>
>>That was not in question.
>
>Then what?
Look, I have alot of friends and family, I'm single, and I live alone.
I make a very good living. I can do whatever I want. I'm free and
happy.
But I'm not totally free.
I don't want to pay taxes.
I want to claim my own personal parking space all over town.
I'd like to sun-bathe nude on the Boston Common.
I wish I could take this cool computer monitor from work and take it
home with me.
I'd like to do all of this stuff, but I'm not free to. My morals and
perceived rights begin to conflict with other people's. Other people
have just as much a right for me to NOT do certain things. This
causes a clash or whatever. Perhaps I could win out by force, but
it's highly unlikely. The only way I can do absolutely anything I
want is to be alone, away from other people.
Are you getting it yet?
J. Sasha Stewart
John Parker
On Tue, 05 May 1998 14:17:02 GMT, sa...@mdc.net (J. Sasha Stewart)
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 May 1998 13:25:59 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>>>>I always get a kick out of people who use the word "should" all the
>>>>time. It implies the speaker's desire for the listener to perform an
>>>>action without using their ability to reason. As such, I suspect it
>>>
>>>I don't know how deep inside your butt you had to dig to fish that
>>>out, but that's YOUR insecure, and quite paranoid, interpretation.
>>
>>Hehehehe, there's certainly nothing insecure or paranoid about me
>>explaining to I ignore statements containing the word "should," but
>
>No, not in and of itself. But the "implication" you referred to is
>quite a paranoid and insecure view. It almost sounds like you're
>mortally afraid that someone's gonna turn you into a mindless slave or
>something.
That's probably the thing I fear least in the whole world. I simply
see the use of the word "should" as an indication of the
writer/speaker's request for me to forego my own analysis of the
situation and do what they have directed me to do. Because I have no
intention of complying, the directive has no effect, and I am simply
pointing that out to you.
>>enlightenment. I did not use the word "should" so I clearly want you
>>to reason out your own interpretation of my statement. Feel free to
>>continue to use the word "should" whenever you want, but also
>>understand how others who may think more independently than yourself
>>are reacting to it.
>
>And how is my use of the word "should" a sign of my thinking less
>indepedently? Also, since I have essentially defined how I use the
>word "should" (even if you don't agree with it), if you don't use MY
>definition with MY statements, you may not be able to fully understand
>what I'm saying. And, of course, this works both ways.
I presume that an independent thinker would simply present the ideas
and not tell the listener how you to react to them rather than require
a directive as to how to react.
>Now, let me at last commend you on taking my original response, not
>answer any of the questions I have posed to you, and divert attention
>to some inanely trivial and semantic argument. I realize now that my
>sin was in taking the bait. But sometimes, I just Loooove to see my
>words on a phosphor tube. :)
>
>>Do you actually believe that the word "should" has some explanatory
>>connotation? Wouldn't it be more logical, if indeed you were trying
>>to show something, to simply show it and allow the reader to reason it
>>out the logic for themselves? The word "should" simply implies what
>>you want a person to do. Even when you follow the "should" clause
>>with a "because" clause, it states how you want the reader to react to
>>the because clause, which then logically means that you are asking him
>>not to reason it out and draw his own conclusions, but to accept your
>>conclusions.
>
>After reading this last part, I thought to myself, "Jason, waste not
>thy time with the useless ramblings of a nimrod."
Suit yourself.
>"But we can't let it end like this, Johnny!"
Whatever.....
>>Please tell us how one should consider a statement that says one
>>should do something? I have no problem in considering an explanatory
>>statement containing some information, but any phrase containing the
>>word "should" is nothing more than a request to act, and as such,
>>there is very little to consider other than what basis or authority
>>the speaker might have to make such a request.
>
>Can't you see your own paranoia here? It's as bright as day on this
>side of the fence.
Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear. I wonder what you think I
fear?
>Let's play your game for a second:
>
>Should.
>
>Your body is exhausted, you can BARELY move or function. I say,
>"John, you should get some rest."
>
>When a person says something like that to you, do you immediately
>think they're trying to force you to reach their own conclusions?
My first reaction would be to wonder how they thought they knew more
than me about whether I should get some rest, and realizing that there
was no way that they could know that, my second would be to wonder why
they wanted me to get some rest so much that they would tell me to do
it, but since I would be making the decision myself, based upon my
perceptions, not theirs, the whole thing would be a waste of your
time.
> My
>telling you that you SHOULD go to bed has nothing to do with my trying
>to make you think as I do. On the contrary, the word "should" means,
>"It is good for you to do this, but it's your decision."
Apparently you want me to share your opinion of what's good for me.
but if you want it to be my decision, why do you attempt to make it
for me?
> If I say you
>should get some rest, well, I really don't give a rat's ass if you do
>or not, but I would think you would agree with my conclusion because
>it is obvious and makes the most sense.
Hehehehe, that's really cute, but what makes your perception of what
is obvious or makes the most sense is any better than mine or someone
else's? ....and why would I agree with you conclusion, if I did not
also arrive at that conclusion? I continue to wonder why you say I
should do something if indeed you don't care if I do or not. The word
clearly indicates that you do have a definite preference as to what I
do. If you do not care what I do, why do you not instead say, " I
don't care what you do?" ..or do you always express one thing by
saying something different?
> But ultimately, the choice is
>yours. If I didn't want you to reason this out, I would say, "John,
>get some rest...NOW!"
I see, you believe that the addition of the word "now" has some
special meaning that makes it more of a directive? I always thought
of the word "now" as an adverb, rather than a verb.
>So explain what that example has to do with authority, bias, my
>wanting you not to reason for yourself...
The word "should" when used in this context is defined as synonymous
with "must." At least so says webster.
John Parker
>In article <35b80b75....@news.binc.net>,
>John Parker <jhpa...@Emailbag.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, quite the opposite is true. I totally ignore the landscape,
>>and the opinions of others, simply because I cannot depend upon either
>>the honesty nor intellect of the landscape,
>
>You also seem to be ignoring exceptions, qualifications, and
>counter-examples.
That's quite a simple thing to say, and lord knows you say some simple
things, sometimes, but quite another to prove.
>>and unlike yourself, Mr.
>>WeaselClone, I steadfastly refuse to surround myself with people who
>>energetically reinforce my beliefs.
>
>This is one of the funniest things you've ever written. About the
>only thing the Weasel enrollees have in common is a witty disdain for
>blockheadedness, especially of the rightist kind. Beyond that, we
>have significant differences on many issues.
Yea I thought it was amusing myself. ....and isn't it also funny how
a group of folks who continuously claim to have practically nothing in
common make such a point of belonging to a group?
>>The irony of your post is as per
>>usual, overwhelming, Eric.
>
>Always glad to be of service. It would be nicer if your reactions
>were actually connected to reality, but I'm happy for small favors.
You often make my day, Eric.
>>I wonder how many lurkers are chuckling at
>>this very moment.
>
>Hopefully, billions and billions.
or more.
John Parker
On Tue, 05 May 1998 22:36:14 GMT, pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>On 5 May 1998 08:53:35 -0700, berg...@big.aa.net (Eric von Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>[snips]
>
>>About the
>>only thing the Weasel enrollees have in common is a witty disdain for
>>blockheadedness, especially of the rightist kind. Beyond that, we
>>have significant differences on many issues.
>
>Just what is this "Weasel" clan anyway. Is it just a coincidence, or
>are you all related somehow?
We suspect it is an underwear swapping organization, since they
continuously claim that there is nothing whatsoever that binds them
together.
John Parker
On Tue, 05 May 1998 18:18:54 GMT, sa...@mdc.net (J. Sasha Stewart)
wrote:
>On Tue, 05 May 1998 13:09:46 GMT, jhpa...@Emailbag.com (John Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>understanding must be proven to work. Yes, an expert can be wrong.
>>>But, simply by virtue of probability alone, he will be more correct
>>>than the amateur. That was the point I was making.
>>
>>...and all of this verification of his expertise is only in the eyes
>>of the people, whoever they are, who grant him the label of "expert."
>
>That statement alone shows the error of your thinking. That statement
>essentially says that there is no objective reality.
You think? But you know, I would never come to the conclusion that a
person who chose to make their own verification of someone's expertise
was saying that there is no objective reality.
> If what a person
>"proves" is only valid if it is acceptable to others, then how does
>one find the "real truth"?
What a person proves may contain accurate data, but the proof
substantiates only that specific data. That a person has proof of
some data, does not constitute proof that everything he says is
equally accurate. Wouldn't the proof be required of each of his
conclusions in order for each to accepted, and if so, wouldn't that
make the fact that some people think he is an expert meaningless?
>Or are you advocating that there is no
>real truth?
Are you suggesting that one might find the "real truth" simply by
listening to other people's opinion of it?
>>>Are you, like, really this paranoid and insecure? My goal is not to
>>>MAKE you accept anything.
>>
>>Then why, indeed, are you bothering with all this nonsense, Dude?
>
>I am here to debate, to learn, and to discover new ways of seeing
>things. But those new ways have to make sense. If they don't, I ask
>for clarification. And if the clear message is obviously illogical, I
>then attempt to explain why.
and what is your purpose of explaining, if not to get me to accept
your conclusion?
>>> I am simply explaining where I see the
>>>error of your conclusions.
>>
>>Curious...and yet you say that you are not trying to get me to accept
>>anything.
>
>Wrong, I'm not trying to MAKE you accept anything. Read my
>statement....it's written a few lines above. I am relying on your
>sense of logic and common sense to take you the rest of the way.
If, as you say, you are not trying to make me accept anything, do you
continually repeat your efforts even though I obviously reject your
conclusions? Why shouldn't I presume that you want me to accept what
you say?
>The purpose of debate is to indeed get the other side to at least see
>or understand, if not agree, with your conclusions. Otherwise, it is
>purely an exercise of people talking to hear themselves talk, and that
>is not productive.
Why must I agree with your conclusions for this to be meaningful for
you? I do not have such a need.
>>> If you won't open your mind to what I'm
>>>saying (and let's be real here, I'm using basic logic and math to
>>>explain myself), it's no skin off my back. I really don't care,
>>>y'know.
>>
>>Oh, I see, you believe that by virtue of somebody calling somebody
>>else an expert being a reason to accept without question what that
>>person says is a logical conclusion? OK, if that's what you want to
>>do, it's perfectly fine with me, too. I prefer to draw my own
>>conclusions however.
>
>I have NEVER said "WITHOUT QUESTION". That's the interpretation YOU
>have put into it.
But what is the purpose of having an "expert" if you must also
question his conclusions anyway?
>Furthermore, I have now decided that you are either completely
>deluded, religiously stubborn, or a complete liar:
Whatever....
>How in the world can you say you draw you own conclusions about
>everything? Did you make the scientific discoveries of light, fire,
>clothing, etc? Have you ever read a book, manual, or textbook to
>learn something? Who's conclusion are you using then? Hmmm? We
>commonfolk rely on the premade conclusions of other people to live.
>It's just that simple. It's just that obvious.
I'm happy that life is that simple for you. Some of us, however, are
not so easily led.
>>>Are you that dim? How has mankind progressed? How could we (yes, I'm
>>>using "we" again) progress if every discoverer, inventor, scientist,
>>>etc., kept his findings to himself. Technology is most often the
>>>result of shared minds. And in the battle for bigger and better
>>>things, a person must prove why his way is better...if he expects to
>>>get anything from it (money, accolades, knighthood, etc.)
>>
>>Perhaps, but why should this necessitate my proving myself to you or
>>anybody else, unless it served my purpose?
>
>Now you understand! "Unless it served my purpose". Your purpose can
>be almost anything: pride, loneliness, vindicitveness,
>self-assurance.
Of course, and it can be many other things, so why would you accept
anything I say, and conversely, why would I accept anything you say,
unless we can see the actual data and reason out the same conclusions?
> I'm starting to get the impression that your
>"purpose" on this newsgroup is to
>
>1) Blow off steam about something, most likely, completely unrelated
>to Objectivism. This is evident in your often-times unnecessarily
>hostile tone (along with the name-calling in strange places).
>
>2) Feel the little bit of pride one gets when someone else agrees with
>you.
>
>3) Find some solution to some unmentionable personal problem (mental
>instability, impotence, thoughts of bestiality...)
>
>This is all perfectly normal behavior, really (well...more or less).
>So don't feel bad. ;)
>
>
>Okay, okay...don't take all that personally (after all, it's not like
>I really know you). But I admit is WAS kinda fun just thinking of the
>possibilities. *wink*
It's good that you got that out. Do you feel better now?
>But back to being serious:
>
>>Nothing I do needs outside approval.
>
>Now it's my turn. BULLSHIT. Perhaps your meaning of "nothing" is not
>as absolute as mine. Are you self-employed? If so, do you pay taxes?
What has any of that to do with outside approval?
>>I wonder how you arrived at the conclusion that debate was an attempt
>>to seek approval? I seek none.
>
>See the above listed 'purposes" I wrote earlier.
see my question above.
>> I have a basket containing a dozen eggs. I believe that there are a
>>dozen eggs in the basket because I looked into the basket and counted
>>them. If I question that I have a dozen eggs in the basket, it
>[...]
>>conclusions concerning the quantity of eggs in my basket and yet, I
>>have in all instances not found it necessary to question any beliefs.
>>The additional information needs to be processed and placed in
>>conjunction with the old information, just as any information needs to
>>be processed and evaluated.
>
>Interesting example, and well constructed to fit your argument. In
>the case of your example...yes, I see how the new information modifies
>the old, etc. etc. But that's because your example with eggs is a
>quantifiable concept. It's pure and simple math.
>
>But how can you quantify ethics, opinions, and beliefs?
Its difficult to explain, but we all must do it. Well maybe not all
of us, but I do.
>>>In order to accept a new conclusion, you have to evaluate your current
>>>one and find that it is indeed in error. I.e., questioning.
>>
>>No, you simply need to add the new information to the old and let the
>>evaluation go where it may.
>
>Ummm, nah. New information doesn't necessarily append itself to old
>info like a leech. Sometimes the new adds to the old. Sometimes it
>subtracts, and sometimes, it completely replaces.
Yes, and your point is?
>>>>conclusions are not cast in concrete, and I am in a continual learning
>>>>mode, but that is so not because I question my conclusions, but
>>>>because I understand that I have not perceived all there is to
>>>>perceive and remain open to new information. The fact that I don't
>>>
>>>A paradox....
>>
>>unsupported opinion.
>
>You just said you make conclusions knowing that you may not have all
>the information there. Earlier you define your conclusions as
>something that has been "put to bed". But you keep yourself open to
>the possibility to change the conclusion, yet you don't question the
>conclusion....
>
>Big paradox.
No paradox, Does not the word "concluded" imply that you have
finished? When you finish something, does it not mean that unless
some outside stimulus comes along and causes you to start it again,
you intend not continue doing it?
>>>>presents itself to me, I am more than willing, perhaps eager to
>>>>re-evaluate the conclusion.
>>>
>>>Yet another contradiction. You're on a roll here. :)
>>
>>Yet another unsupported opinion.
>
>Your use of the word "re-evaluate" says it all.
I see, you think "re-evaluate" is synonymous with "question?" I doubt
that webster agrees, but whatever?????
>>>*Sigh* It is very simple. If it in no way affects you, and you don't
>>>even know it's there, how CAN it matter to you? Answer that for me.
>>
>>The point is not whether or not it is or not, the point is that it is
>>beyond your capacity to know if it is. I don't claim that it is not
>>meaningless, I merely claim that it is not necessarily meaningless.
>>Now if you want to disagree with me, you must prove that it is
>>necessarily meaningless, not the other way around.
>
>No. I have set the parameters and have shown that it is necessarily
>meaningless. YOU have said there are exceptions. Therefore, the
>burden of proof is on you.
As I said, you cannot show that something has no meaning. It equates
to proving the negative, which cannot be done. ...and I did not say
that something does have meaning, I simply said that it doesn't
necessarily have meaning, which is true simply because you cannot
prove otherwise.
>>>Dammit, man! Haven't you been paying attention?!? How can you have a
>>>perception of something that doesn't exist to you?
>>
>>How can you be sure that I cannot?
>
>Oooh boy. I'm not gonna even justify that as a serious question.
You haven't justified anything else, why should you start now?
>>>isn't that you don't have enough information....you don't know it's
>>>even there!! You don't have ANY information! Why is this so hard for
>>>you to grasp?
>>
>>Relax, you will surely hurt yourself. What would you like me to
>>grasp, and why is it so important for you that i do?
>
>The importance, my dear fellow, is that I simply have a hard time
>believing you are that stupid. Do I really care in the long run? No.
>But I would like to think that all the time I've spent on this subject
>was for someone who had the capacity to grasp it.
Do you believe that whether or not person agrees with your conclusion
should depend upon how long you spend trying to convince them?
> Perhaps I am wrong.
perhaps you are simply incapable of understanding, but you needn;'t be
ashamed.
>Scott, I see your point....
Of course you do, you and scott think alike, or perhaps it is more
accurate to say, you fail to think alike.
>>>And when those morals conflict with other people's morals? That is
>>>the point I'm trying to make.
>>
>>...and if their morals conflict with mine? What is the difference?
>>That is the point I am trying to make.
>
>You have done nothing but repeat what I have just said. I said that
>to follow-up my statement about your being alone if you were to
>achieve ABSOLUTE freedom. Absolute freedom means no one can stop you
>from doing anything you want. In order for that to happen, you would
>need to be alone (or emperor of the planet...and even then....).
>Simple group dynamics and psychology show this.
Hehehehe, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. It seems that it is
impossible for you to break the boundaries between what you have been
programmed to think and believe, and original thought. Absolute
freedom does not mean that you would be free to break the laws of
nature, but beyond that and accepting the consequences of your
actions, you are precisely free to do whatever you choose to do.
>>>I couldn't figure that out because that's not what I think. Where are
>>>you getting that idea from?
>>
>>From your assertion that a person who practices total freedom would be
>>very unhappy. Why would a person with total freedom pursue that which
>>makes him unhappy?
>
>Man are you out on a limb or what? I didn't say total freedom would
>require unhappiness. I never used the word happiness. YOU did! I
>said it would require LONELINESS.
....and if loneliness made him unhappy, I presume that he would not
chose a lifestyle that made him lonely. Wouldn't it make more sense
for a person with total freedom to choose a course of action that was
pleasurable to him? If you had total freedom, would you choose to be
lonely?
>Get the bloody comment right before you try to use it against me.
Against you?
>>>>Oh I disagree, I have both, I assume you mean freedom and happiness.
>>>>I also have the piece of mind of knowing that I am what I am, not
>>>>because of what other people want, but because of what I chose to be.
>>>>...and oh yes, I have many friends, and a large family who like and
>>>>respect me.
>>>
>>>That was not in question.
>>
>>Then what?
>
>Look, I have alot of friends and family, I'm single, and I live alone.
>I make a very good living. I can do whatever I want. I'm free and
>happy.
>
>But I'm not totally free.
Too bad, I am.
>I don't want to pay taxes.
So don't pay them.
>I want to claim my own personal parking space all over town.
go ahead.
>I'd like to sun-bathe nude on the Boston Common.
That might free certain body parts, at least.
>I wish I could take this cool computer monitor from work and take it
>home with me.
Tsk, tsk tsk.
>I'd like to do all of this stuff, but I'm not free to. My morals and
>perceived rights begin to conflict with other people's. Other people
>have just as much a right for me to NOT do certain things. This
>causes a clash or whatever. Perhaps I could win out by force, but
>it's highly unlikely. The only way I can do absolutely anything I
>want is to be alone, away from other people.
Now this is what a paradox really is. You say you'd like to do these
things, but your morals, and perhaps your fear of the consequences
prohibit you, yet if these things prohibit you, you really do not want
to do them, do you? What you describe are some conflicting self
interests, but the conclusions you draw from all them is that you
really would prefer not to do them. What you seem to want is to be
free from the consequences of them, which is what I said before and
you rejected. Would you care to reconsider that?