Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    See: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~andrej/objectivism/ I have not read it till its end yet, but it seems very nice. Regards, Shlomi Fish ... Shlomi Fish
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 3, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      See:

      http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~andrej/objectivism/

      I have not read it till its end yet, but it seems very nice.

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
      Home E-mail: shlomif@...

      "Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
      "Wait a second - is n a natural number?"
    • Chen Shapira
      Hi, Strange, at first I was sure it was a parody. After several readings, I m not quite a sure. Parts of it are absurd and funny, but he seems to be serious...
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 3, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        Strange, at first I was sure it was a parody. After several readings, I'm
        not quite a sure. Parts of it are absurd and funny, but he seems to be
        serious... Well, I guess I'm a bit humor impaired (Side effect of the
        testing season).

        I clicked on "similar pages" on my Google bar, and found an Objectivism
        Mockery page.

        Apparently it was a list of Objectivist humor.
        http://walkingfish.com/objectivism/

        Some of it is quite good.

        Shlomi's own "One with Fountainhead" is in their list as well.

        Thanks,
        Chen.

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:shlomif@...]
        > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 7:26 PM
        > To: Philosophy-IL
        > Subject: Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps
        >
        >
        >
        > See:
        >
        > http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~andrej/objectivism/
        >
        > I have not read it till its end yet, but it seems very nice.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Shlomi Fish
        >
        > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
        > Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
        > Home E-mail: shlomif@...
        >
        > "Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
        > "Wait a second - is n a natural number?"
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > philosophy-il-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Nadav Har'El
        ... Ok, let s take an example: pred = can fly x = dogs not pred(x) is dogs cannot fly pred(not x) is not-dogs can fly I don t see how one follows
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 15, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, Jul 15, 2002, Ofir Carny wrote about "RE: Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps":
          > I refer to the 13 steps of logic to prove man should be egocentric, one of the steps uses the following method:
          >
          > not pred(x) => pred(not x)

          Ok, let's take an example:
          pred = "can fly"
          x = "dogs"

          "not pred(x)" is "dogs cannot fly"
          "pred(not x)" is "not-dogs can fly"

          I don't see how one follows from the other...

          Unless I misunderstood what you meant.

          --
          Nadav Har'El | Monday, Jul 15 2002, 7 Av 5762
          nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
          Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |You may only be one person to the world,
          http://nadav.harel.org.il |but may also be the world to one person.
        • Ofir Carny
          A serious question: Is the not propogation a valid concept (at least in objectivist theory) and why? ... From: Shlomi Fish
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 15, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            A serious question:

            Is the 'not propogation' a valid concept (at least in objectivist theory) and why?

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:shlomif@...]
            Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 7:26 PM
            To: Philosophy-IL
            Subject: Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps



            See:

            http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~andrej/objectivism/

            I have not read it till its end yet, but it seems very nice.

            Regards,

            Shlomi Fish

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
            Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
            Home E-mail: shlomif@...

            "Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
            "Wait a second - is n a natural number?"


            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            philosophy-il-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



            *
            *******************************************************
            This email has been scanned by Port Authority.

            ********************************************************
          • Chen Shapira
            ... What is the not propogation concept?
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 15, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > A serious question:
              >
              > Is the 'not propogation' a valid concept (at least in
              > objectivist theory) and why?

              What is the "not propogation" concept?
            • Ofir Carny
              I refer to the 13 steps of logic to prove man should be egocentric, one of the steps uses the following method: not pred(x) = pred(not x) ... From: Chen
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 15, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                I refer to the 13 steps of logic to prove man should be egocentric, one of the steps uses the following method:

                not pred(x) => pred(not x)

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Chen Shapira [mailto:chen@...]
                Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 5:44 PM
                To: 'philosophy-il@yahoogroups.com'
                Subject: RE: Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps



                > A serious question:
                >
                > Is the 'not propogation' a valid concept (at least in
                > objectivist theory) and why?

                What is the "not propogation" concept?




                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                philosophy-il-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                *
                *******************************************************
                This email has been scanned by Port Authority.

                ********************************************************
              • Ofir Carny
                I agree, that s why I asked the question in the first place. ... From: Nadav Har El [mailto:nyh@math.technion.ac.il] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 5:22 PM To:
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 15, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree, that's why I asked the question in the first place.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:nyh@...]
                  Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 5:22 PM
                  To: philosophy-il@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps


                  On Mon, Jul 15, 2002, Ofir Carny wrote about "RE: Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps":
                  > I refer to the 13 steps of logic to prove man should be egocentric, one of the steps uses the following method:
                  >
                  > not pred(x) => pred(not x)

                  Ok, let's take an example:
                  pred = "can fly"
                  x = "dogs"

                  "not pred(x)" is "dogs cannot fly"
                  "pred(not x)" is "not-dogs can fly"

                  I don't see how one follows from the other...

                  Unless I misunderstood what you meant.

                  --
                  Nadav Har'El | Monday, Jul 15 2002, 7 Av 5762
                  nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                  Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |You may only be one person to the world,
                  http://nadav.harel.org.il |but may also be the world to one person.


                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  philosophy-il-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                  *
                  *******************************************************
                  This email has been scanned by Port Authority.

                  ********************************************************
                • Ofir Carny
                  from: http://www.objectivethought.com/objectivism/morality.html: (1) |- man(x) animal(x) & rational(x) [definition] (2) |- man(y)
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 16, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    from: http://www.objectivethought.com/objectivism/morality.html:
                    "
                    (1) |- man(x) <==> animal(x) & rational(x) [definition]
                    (2) |- man(y) [hypothesis]
                    (3) |- y = y [by Axiom of Identity]
                    (4) |- rational(y) [by (1) and (2)]
                    (5) |- knows(y, y=y) [by (3) and (4)]
                    (6) |- rational(y) & value(y, v) ==> v [Rational Value Theorem]
                    (7) |- egoist(x) <==> value(x, x = x) [definition of egoism]
                    (8) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(value(y, y = y)) [from (7) instantiating x = y]
                    (9) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> value(y, not(y = y)) [by not-propagation]
                    (10)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(y = y) [by (9) and (6)]
                    (11)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> false [by (10) and (3)]
                    (12)|- egoist(y) [by (11) ad absurdum]
                    (13)|- man(y) ==> egoist(y) [by (2) and (12) by ==> introduction]
                    "

                    what I was tring to understand is the reasoning of step 9

                    any objectivist here care to explain?


                    ********************************************************
                    This email has been scanned by Port Authority.

                    ********************************************************
                  • Nadav Har'El
                    ... What do these step mean??? Where is this value expression defined? What does (6) mean?? In particular x=x is always True (according to the same
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 16, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, Jul 16, 2002, Ofir Carny wrote about "RE: Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps":
                      > (6) |- rational(y) & value(y, v) ==> v [Rational Value Theorem]
                      > (7) |- egoist(x) <==> value(x, x = x) [definition of egoism]

                      What do these step mean??? Where is this "value" expression defined?
                      What does (6) mean??

                      In particular "x=x" is always True (according to the same reasoning in
                      statement 3), so in (7) we actually have that x is an egoist if and only
                      if "the value of x is True", or something like that. What the heck does
                      that mean? Why write "x=x", when "x=x" is simply a tautology, always True,
                      and as we see later we indeed use that fact?

                      Sorry, but this whole "proof" looks like hogwash to me...
                      (but maybe I'm missing something...)

                      > (8) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(value(y, y = y)) [from (7) instantiating x = y]
                      > (9) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> value(y, not(y = y)) [by not-propagation]

                      I'm still waiting to hear what this "value" expression does, and how come
                      you can propegate a NOT into its second argument...

                      > (10)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(y = y) [by (9) and (6)]
                      > (11)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> false [by (10) and (3)]

                      Ok, so *finally* y=y is written as True. why was it necessary to write it
                      as y=y in the first place?? just to make it look more complicated??

                      This proof appears to me as valid as the following proof, that dogs can
                      fly:

                      (1) dog(x) <=> bark(x) & has_a_tail(x) [definition]
                      (2) dog(y) [hypothesis]
                      (3) arctan(1)=PI/4 [from math class]
                      (4) has_a_tail(y) [by (1) and (2)]
                      (5) can_fly(x) <=> altitude(x, arctan(1)=PI/4) [definition of flying]
                      (6) has_a_tail(y) & altitude(y, v) ==> v [Having-a-Tail Theorem]
                      (7) not(can_fly(y)) => not(altitude(y, arctan(1)=PI/4) [instantiating x=y]
                      (8) not(can_fly(y)) => altitude(y, not arctan(1)=PI/4) [not propegation]
                      (9) not(can_fly(y)) => not (arctan(1)=PI/4) [by (8), (6) and (4)]
                      (10) not(can_fly(y)) => false [by (9) and (3)]
                      (11) can_fly(y) [by (10) ad absurdum]
                      (12) dog(y) => can_fly(y) [by (2) and (11) by ==> introduction]

                      For those wondering how come I "proved" dogs can fly, well, it all rests
                      on my silly made-up definitions and theorems, like "definition of flying",
                      "having-a-tail theorem", and "not propegation" :)

                      --
                      Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Jul 16 2002, 7 Av 5762
                      nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                      Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |A man is incomplete until he is married.
                      http://nadav.harel.org.il |After that, he is finished.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.