flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (05/30/85)
Lines marked with one '>' are McKiernan's; the rest are mine. > The word 'tautology' is used to mean two things. In its most general > sense, it refers to an assertion which does not add knowledge. Frequently > (perhaps most often), it refers to such a statement which is useless and/or > misleading. > Given the first meaning, a tautology can be useful in making knowledge > MORE MANAGEABLE. It can be empty of new knowledge, yet full of insight. Hmm. I always thought "tautology" referred to any logical truth (or sometimes, to any "analytic" truth (true by virtue of logic and meanings)). Many philosophers apparently hold that all logical truths are "tautologies" in your sense too -- i.e., that they do not "add knowledge". But that assertion seems dubious to me, unless "adding knowledge" is defined in such a way as to exclude logical truths. > The Randian attempt to derive ethics is in 'The Objectivist Ethics', > reprinted in *The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism*. If I > understand it correctly, then it's a botch. Just recently, I read part of _Atlas Shrugged_ (part of the long speech by John Galt); apparently Rand's attempt to derive ethics is there at least in outline. There are gaping holes in what I read, so unless there's much more to the argument, I agree, it's a botch. --The developing iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, (soon at) umcp-cs!flink