Re: virus: Nateman vs. Prof Tim

Tim Rhodes (
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:49:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Nathaniel Hall wrote:

> > > Why must it be so? Do you keep the axiom regardless of the evidence
> > to
> > > the contrary?
> >
> > You do if you're an Objectivist! :-)
> With what non-sense do propose to counter the evidence of the senses?

What experiment would satisfy you, Nateman? What is we did an experiment
and got different results based not on the phenomena being observed, but
on the nature of the observer? Would that show that results are dependent
on the observer *and* the observed?

> To say the earth is round is to imply that 1) something exists out
> there in which to know2) We found some way to learn about it. What
> Realm do you find yourself in?

The one that finds tautologies useless.

> > The universe doesn't give #@%$ about axioms, Nateman, it has much
> > better
> > things to do with its time. Axioms are human creations, nothing more.
> >
> > And they retain many of the same failing of all human creations.
> So we are in agreement then! The universe must out there (I.E.
> Objective) in order for it not to give a #@%$ about us or to do better
> things with its time!

"Existence exists" proves nothing else in Objectivism. "Existence exists"
is also central to Shamanism. Do you believe that as well?

> > > You have two choices :do contradictions exist or do
> > > contradictions not exist.
> >
> > There are always more than two choices. You may be denied access to
> > some
> > of them by your own choice of words, however.
> So then Professor enlighten me: what is a third choice?

Contradictions exist in some settings and not others. Dualism is seldom
an accurate depiction of the real world.

> > > If one assumes contradictions do exist as in
> > > the thought experiment one needs go no further. Reason , logic
> > argument
> > > is all pointless. One doesn't have to make sense. Anything goes.
> >
> > This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT! And you have failed to make it
> > convincingly, Nateman!!!
> Since we cannot even agree on existence existing that does not surprise
> me.
> > If one assumes contradictions can exist, why is reason pointless?
> 2+2=5 that sounds reasonable now doesn't it? After all it's only a
> contradiction!

I included all this to show you that you failed to answer the question.
Obviously just an over site. I'm sure you're not side-stepping the issue.

> > (Ever heard of fuzzy logic?) Why doesn't one have to make sense? Why
> > does anything go?
> If I said the moon was made out of green cheese and inhabited by angry
> packs of red pokka-dotted lawyers , that may contradict with what you
> think the moon really is, but since contradictions are valid and good,
> who are you to say any different?

See above. For having found "the Absolute Truth" you seem awfully afraid
to address a few simple questions, my good Nateman.

> > These are non-sequiturs and they employ the same thinking that
> > Christians
> > use when they say, "If there's no God, one needs go no further.
> > Reason,
> > logic, hope, it's all pointless! One doesn't need to have ethics. If
> > there is no God anything goes!"
> What are non-sequiturs your talking about? You lost me here.


1) if the universe is not objective
2) than everything is meaningless, pointless and up for grabs

1) if there is no God
2) than everything is meaningless, pointless and up for grabs

Show me how 1) follows from 2) in your example, but not in the Christians,
if you could. I'm very interested.

> > Why does the objectivity or non-objectivity of the universe imply
> > these
> > conclusions any more than the presence (or not) of a "God"?
> Again you lost me. what conclusions are you writing about here?

For being grounded in the senses you get lost a lot, Nateman. Maybe your
*map* is at fault, and not the terrain.

As for conclusions, see above (meaningless, pointless, et al)

> > Indeed, especially since the real world is full of contradictions (at
> > least the world I live in, I can't speak for yours).
> So in your world ice freezes at 100 C and water boils at absolute zero?(
> Only on odd days when the moon lawyers are cutting the cheese. Am I
> right?)

Just because contradictions exist does not mean *everything* is
contradictory. A very limited approach from one as wise as you. Just
because green cheese exists, does that mean *everything* must be made of
green cheese.

> > Again, that is not a proof. I say "A=A is contradictory by its very
> > nature". Does that make it so? Why do you get to pull axioms out of
> > your
> > ass and I can't mine? ;-)
> Because I'm right and your wrong ! :-)

HA HA Hahahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!

I love you Objectivists! You're such fun!!!

So, despite all your talk of objective reality and proofs and what-not, it
all boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong", huh?

Sorry, Nateman, I got tired of that game around, oh, say... third grade?
How old are you again?

> > Whether that internal
> > consistency
> > jives with the rest of the universe is always (you guessed it)
> > subjective.
> Jiving with the rest of the universe. Hummmm , does that mean there's
> some universe out there in order to jive with?

Whether or not there is, does not imply your impression of it is
necessarily an accurate one. No, Identity does not follow from Existence.
DHR has tried to make that point, but you don't seem willing to prove how
Identity must follow from Existence for him. Will you for me?

> > Now, just because you have this nifty set of axioms, why should I
> > think
> > yours are any more valid than the Christians?
> Mine you experience first hand. Something you could deduce even if you
> were the only person on earth. Aristotle figured it out. Did Aristotle
> or his contemporaries figure out christianity?

No, Zeus and Mount Olympus. So Objectivists believe in the Greek
Pantheon, huh? Real old-school of you guys! My complements!!!

> > Such is the stuff of dreams--coming up with decent ideas to explain
> > the
> > results of experiments. So of us call that dream Scientific Theories,
> > however.
> And what do you call nightmares?


> > > This is so. But it is true regardless. It's axiomatic. Truly
> > axiomatic
> > > and not just something that I claim to be so.
> >
> > Hahahahahahhaahahahha!!!!!
> Hahahahahahhaahahahha!!!!! Yourself! (Insert picture of tongue sticking
> out here)

Ahhh! Now were getting somewhere....

> If something has a definite existence (objectivity) then how can it be
> anything else than what it is?

But "what it is" is the point in question. Or more to the point, "what we
can know about what it is".

> If it was something and something else at
> the same time doesn't that seem contradictory to you?

Wave or particle, Nateman? Wave or particle?

There are just some things in which your experience alone can convince
you. If you really believe that A equals A I'll admit I'm powerless to
convince you otherwise. Only the knife edge experience of many realities
cutting into your false premises is going to convince you otherwise. But
since you don't believe in things beyond your limited senses why don't you
give me all your love, devotion, trust, mystery, hope, etc since they are
just figment of your imagination and not "real". I'm sure I can put them
to REAL use.

-Prof. Tim