Re: virus: C of V: Another Religion
Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:55:56 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Dave Pape wrote:

> At 10:16 30/01/97 PST, you wrote:
> >
> >Alternatively, axioms are the things you assert because you believe
> >them to be true but cannot prove them. For example, Euclidean
> >geometry asserts the existence and properties of parallel lines;
> >other geometries make different assertions, and one of them is a
> >better description of the planet on which we live than Euclid's.
> >
> >"Existence exists" is very tempting, but the only one of Rand's axioms
> >that I have seen demonstrated to my satisfaction is that I am aware of
> >my own existence. (That goes back at least to Descartes's "cogito
> >ergo sum.") As for "things are what they are," that may be valid, but
> >it's not terribly useful: it doesn't give us any necessary connection
> >between what is and what we perceive, or say anything about the ways
> >in which things change.
> >
> >Vicki
> >


> I think that the triviality (in a way) of these axioms is an indictment of
> logic as a venerated system of thought. I think that cognitive association
> (which includes insight) play a massive role in getting us through our
> lives, and that applies to professional scientists and mathematicians as
> well as industrialists and artists.

Most people don't venerate logic as a system of thought [in any mode,
real or sarcastic].

Who uses pure logic, i.e. content-free thought at work? I know *I* don't.

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd