weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) (07/16/86)
In article <2165@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (a 98% Randroid) writes: >Many years ago, I was a student of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. >I found it to be a breath of fresh air in the fuzzy-thinking culture I >grew up in. Although she made mistakes and antagonized a lot of well- >meaning people, I agree with perhaps 98% of what she had to say. I should point out before beginning that Objectivism is not a philosophy. It is a pseudophilosophy, in exactly the same sense that creationism is not a science but a pseudoscience. Anyone who wishes to debate this is welcome to read net.{philosophy,politics.theory}, where this has been discussed for the past month or two. Like creationism, Objectivism was formed to justify a single pre-deter- mined conclusion. Like creationism, Objectivism tries to sound academic but fails. Like creationism, Objectivism has its Holy Scriptures that answer all possible questions. Like creationism, I don't care if you are into Objectivism, but I strongly oppose both's perversions of natur- al language. In case you are interested, I have read a large chunk of her works, both fiction and non-fiction, so my views are first hand. > In summing up this publication's record, I shall say that I am not > *primarily* an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not > *primarily* an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one > recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, > all the rest follows. [the Prophetess] What a crock. Her reason lets her conclude that pollution is good. She perpetuates the myth that she is a philosopher by saying that pure thought leads to her conclusions. Fuzzy thought and dozens of hidden assumptions do the trick. To avoid ambiguities, I shall follow K Almquist's convention of applying a postfix * to refer to the Randian version of a common place term. Far too often x != x*. For example, "Rand is a brilliant* philosopher*" is true no matter what you believe. (I should point out that ad hominems are an acceptable form of argument to Randroids, so no one can accuse me of being unfair*.) One of the most major defects in her reasoning* is the belief that all concepts* can be quantified. She describes this in great non-detail in her _Introduction to Objectivistist Epistemology_. (See my recent art- icle on "love* and measurement*" in net.{philosophy,politics.theory} for a particular example of how ludicrous this can come out.) Having estab- lished* this truth*, she can proceed to announce that X is indeed more evil than Y, since it follows* from her rational* explanations*. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <2185@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (a 98% Randroid) writes: >>I would say simply that it's easy to think a situation is really not that >>much of a problem if you don't have to deal with it yourself. > >True; but ... I care about many more >fundamental issues of which fair treatment is merely a corollary. But do you know how to do anything about them, as opposed to say some- thing about them? >My impression is that some of the specific actions being pursued to >deal with ethnic imbalances have very bad long-term ramifications, >[...] This is is just the >idea of "leverage"; if > A => B A => C A => D >are all true, then working toward B does not necessarily accomplish A, >C, and D; but working toward A (which is probably harder, but not three >times as hard) would establish all the desired states. But in the situation we are discussing, lack of real education and role models is indeed one of the fundamental hindrances in the first place. There is a vicious circle tying inferior political and societal status to inferior opportunities and education that has to broken somewhere. The two negatives reinforce each other strongly, and your calling the one fundamental and not the other is the typical Randroid reaction that coincidentally keeps the status quo strong. Basically, one has to choose between what is good for the short run, the long run, and the very long run. Randroids always pick what's good for the short run, so that any other criteria is evil*. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <2240@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (a 98% Randroid) writes: >> ... there is no basis for even >> choosing among the middle by *any* objective "fair" means. So what's wrong >> with being generous to minorities in the process? ... > >Discriminating FOR someone on the basis of such an inessential is >wrong for precisely the same reasons as discriminating AGAINST the >person on the same basis. So again you avoid the same fundamental question that I've asked you before. How do you choose between two wrongs? > The LAST thing >that would be advisable would be to stoop to employment of the same >kind of thinking that brought on the evils you're trying to combat. >How can you actually expect to establish good ends with evil means? And if ALL the methods are evil? Your noble sounding "let's be fun- damentally fair" does NOTHING to change the status quo, and hence in my eyes is the most reprehensible of the choices. I do not believe that making choices based on race, sex, etc is evil per se. There are many particular instances where such can be jus- tified. But I do believe that making systematic status quo power and education preserving choices, consciously or not, based on race, sex, etc is evil. >That error of thought was rather thoroughly demolished 43 years ago >in the form of the character Gail Wynand in "The Fountainhead", >which you should read if you need it explained to you. Hahahaha. You Randroids crack me up. When someone did an analysis of philosophy* based on _Atlas Shrugged_ in net.{philosophy,politics. theory}, he was flamed for not using her non-fiction. Now you pre- sent the other side. I suppose blowing up buildings is good*. Haha. Good joke. Everybody laugh. As usual, Randroids just conveniently label things good*, bad*, and evil*, in a way that is perfectly* justified* by reason* and happens by a remarkable coincidence to favor their own politics. As you said, the world isn't fair. But you consistently argue for the one unfairness and not the other. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <2250@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (a 98% Randroid) writes: >> That is to permit this *large* class >>of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing >>the barriers that have been built all around them. > >Nobody has a "right" to power over others. It is doubly wrong to claim >such a "right" on the basis of race or sex. No one was advocating rights to power over others, just *sharing* the power that exists and is used. >>We happen to think it works fairly well. I think it is up to those who >>disagree to put forth their own proposal for a replacement. > >I have proposed what needs to be done. I missed this. You have said little more than deal with the "fundamental" problem, as if this is all that needs to be explained, and as if this is possible, and as if this would in fact work in the first place. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 I have never swerved one inch from the basic teachings of Freud. Never, never, never. Not one inch. I have remained faithful to Freud through thick and thin. That is the justification of all my work. -Dr Karl Anschauung, MD