NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/2410

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-11 | 15.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!infoserv!momad!siphon
From: [e-mail] (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Response from Katz to Vandenloos, Wingate, and Mendonsa (Was: Rand)
Summary: Everyone but me is w-r-o-n-g !
Keywords: Rand Objectivism Katz Vandenloos Wingate Mendonsa God
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 06:16:56 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: all
Organization: MoDeM MaDnEsS BBS   1-516/295-9435
Lines: 279

Forgive me for responding to two posts in one. Contained are reponses
both to Erich Vandenloos and to Charley Wingate.

Erich writes:

>Earlier I offered my diagnosis of "what makes a man go objecto." You may
>remember it. Now I will jump in again.
>
>SJK writes:
>
>>While he is correct that large corporations prefer to own
>>the intellectual property their employees create, this does not change
>>the fact (and in fact only demonstrates) that intellectual property is
>>the most valuable kind.
>
>Does it in fact demonstrate this? It may demonstrate that knowledge (I will
>not use the term "property" for reasons which will be obvious) is valuable,
>but the unspoken asumption here is that knowledge (or ideas or whatever)
>are property. I'd like to see SJK establish this. I am inclined to say that
>copyright and patent laws, however beneficial they are, are expressions of
>a rather artificial extension of the idea of property. Wingate points out
>that ideas originate in several places. I add that ideas have no physical
>form and so do not seem to resemble other objects to which we attribute
>"ownability." (My apologies to those who love the English language. I really
>couldn't help it). I've never heard anyone say "I own my emotions! You can't
>use them," although with the craze for litigation in this country It's
>reasonable to expect a lawsuit along these lines soon. People feel that they
>must clamor energetically for the sanctity of intellectual "property"
>precisely because its status is so questionable. I say that the concept of
>intellectual property is a socially beneficial fiction.

When a person brings an idea into existence, whether for a work of liter-
ature, an invention, or whatever, he has the right to set forth the
conditions under which it is used and not give the idea to those who
refuse his conditions. He retains this power until someone else develops
the idea independantly or he relinquishes it. He can require those he passes
it onto to require similar restrictions to those they pass it onto. This
could be done by free contract, but in our mixed economy is done by the
government.

In free-market patent theory, his contracts would be binding until someone
else developed the idea independantly. Since this would be difficult to
establish after release, in our society government, and in a free society
companies established to do this (or courts), set a reasonable term.

This is the Libertarian defense to intellectual property. Rand, to my
knowledge, did not provide one explicitly. To my mind, this explanation
serves admirably. To Objectivists intellectual property arises out of
people's freedom to dictate the conditions under which they spread their
ideas. It is not a fiction!

Show of hands (be honest) how many of you have not heard this argument
before?

>>I honestly do not see Mr. Wingate's point regarding incompetence. But as
>>for greed, Rand's characters (heroes) were always greedy. Greed, in the
>>sense of pursuing that which one personally values, Rand considered a
>>virtue and all of her heroes displayed it.
>
>Perhaps this is unfair, but what if I personally value the jailing and
>torture of all "Objectivists," or worse, I personally value only that
>which does not belong to me. Is that heroic? "Greed" ordinarily refers to
>the desire for that which is not rightly yours. It is simply objecto word-
>play to use "greed" the way Rand does.

Your use of the term "rightly" is the problem. If by "rightly" you mean
what most ordinary people mean by rightly, I agree (!!) with you. But
remember, most people believe that "the poor are not paying their
fair share" and so on. If you should give it to the poor it is not
rightly yours. If others are hungry it is not rightly yours. Ad nauseum

Greed could also mean the desire for that which is not *yet* yours and
cannot be made yours easily. This is not an issue worth fighting over.

Randian greed is a necessary condition for Randian heroism. It is not
a sufficient condition. (Did I really need to say that?)

I hope both (all?) sides can refrain from using words that have vastly
different meanings to different people. For my part in this, I apologize.
I will try to define my Objecto-hotlist-words in the future.

>>Any Objectivist will be happy to explain to you why incompetent government
>>officials can do much more damage than incompetent corporate officers.
>>Corporate officers can only damage what they own and are subject to being
>>thrown out if they do not do what the stockholders want. Government officials
>>damage anything and everything and are subject to being thrown out if they
>>are caught in an illegal act or lose in an election.
>
>Thank goodness for those helpful "Objectivists," eh? I can explain, without
>recourse to arcane objecto moral theory why incompetent government officials
>can do more harm...they have more power! Easy as that! One can only ruin
>that which he gets his hands on.

That is exactly what I said, yet it goes deeper. I think it is at least as
important to examine how one got one's power, what one believes one should
do with one's power, what one's official function is said to be, what
conditions increase one's power, who one must answer to, what type of
person is drawn to the position, the character of one' superiors, the
philosophy of the organization one belongs to, the rewards one obtains
for efficient performance, and on and on and on. Weigh each of these points
for government employees (or elected officials) versus corporate officers.

>As to this issue of "what the stockholders
>want," well, SJK, I hate to be the one to tell you that the stockholders
>occasionally want things which are not necessarily beneficial even for
>themselves, let alone society. Furthermore, the turnover rate for elected
>officials (and many appointees) is extremely high compared to that of execs.
>Look how long it took for the GM stockholders to take control of their
>company. Obviously stockholders are not all-wise human-gods or anything.

The stockholders, as you point out, can only damage what they can get
their hands on, and that is theirs to damage. Why *should* they try to
benefit society? Your second point only provides evidence that elected
officials may do their jobs more poorly than corporate officials which was
*my* point. Your last sentence demolishes a straw man.

>>One need not prove a negative, Mr. Wingate. It is incumbent upon those who
>>assert something's existence to provide evidence to support it. The more
>>fantastic the claim (ie: the more it conflicts with what one already knows)
>>the more fantastic the evidence required. I leave it as an exercise for the
>>reader to determine the fantasticness of the claims of religion.
>
>Here's my answer. The claims of religion do not violate anything _I_
>already know, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool empiricist. For the claims of, say,
>Protestantism to contradict what you know, SJK, you must already know that
>Jesus is not the Savior, that the account of events laid out in the New
>Testament is false, and (most unlikely of all) that there is no God. How
>was this proven to you, SJK? I'm not saying you should believe in these
>things without having them proven to you. But disbelief because of lack of
>evidence is much weaker than the certainty which you exhibit. The only
>things religious claims contradict are their opposites, nothing else. I
>challenge you to name one thing in real (empirical) life that would have
>to be different did God exist.

First, re-read my paragraph, but delete the parenthetical, it threw you
off. You missed the point entirely! I don't know what the words "savior" or
"god" mean in the context you are using them. Truth or falsity is besides
the point. We must establish the hypothesis *before* we can test it or
compare notes!

I accept your challenge. My claim is not that I know the claims are
false because I have contradictory evidence but that I am incapable of
believing the claims becuase I do not understand them.

Yet there are claims that religion makes that I understand all too well.
The claim of original sin violates something I already know, that morality
only applies to those situation in which a person can make a choice. You use
empirical in a very limited sense.

>>If he means that Objectivism requires that people be "more good" than
>>they are capable of being, I submit that religion places far more
>>impossible requirements on man than Objectivism could ever hope to.
>
>Well, anyone with a cursory knowledge of Christian theology knows about
>"original sin" and the _essential imperfectability_ of man. Seems to me
>there's a lot of leeway for normal human behavior there.

Original sin forces a man to condemn his excesses (by the religionists
definition) and does not excuse them. Then he must do penance for that
which he has no power over. That was my point.

Again, morality can only apply to volitional choices, and sin is a moral
concept. The requirements I was referring to regard how a person lives
one's life. Religion (really I mean Christianity in specific) places a
preposterous set of restrictions leading to guilt which it then claims to
be able to remove, subject to one's following the restriction. Ad infinitum.

>>People who become Objectivists suddenly find that they can win nearly
>>every political/economic/religous debate that they get in with their
>>former debating equals and even superiors.
>
>Here's a perfect example of why Johnny (Galt that is) can't philosophize.
>Philosophy is not a sport, my friend. Remember back in my little
>diagnostic tract about the "Objectivists?" There I said that "Objectivists"
>believe that demolishing chosen straw men is all it takes to be a great
>thinker. Here you go:

These former debating equals and even superiors take advantage of people
who cannot defend themselves philosophically! We are talking about critical
self-defense here. Not some safe debating game like this group is (by
comparision). When an ordinary person gets into a debate, often their
are philosophical undertones and a lot (in the real world) can be at stake.
Johnny can defend himself from the vultures!

I did not start this point and I do not think it especially valuable
to pursue. But out in the real world, good philosophizing can save you from
being held down by irrational criticism at your job, being attacked (and
viewed as evil) for being selfish, etc... I am not a pragmatist, but
pragmatists must surely find Objectivism powerfully attractive.

By the way, I am not a pragmatist because I tried pragmatism for several
years, and it just did not suit my needs.

>>anyone who has watched an Objectivist debate against an army of Liberals...
>>...I believe it was Assemblies of God) held a debate ...  and a few
>>Objectivists showed up.
>
>Have you ever seen an "Objectivist" debate with a Wittgensteinian, a real
>empiricist, a decent theologian or even a humble Logical Positivist? I
>have, and it was a tragicomedy in the grand style. All of the Randian
>platitudes in the world are of no use against an LP, and talk of intel-
>lectual property will make the most kindly Wittgensteinian chuckle. The
>point here is not that these guys are right. All these positions have
>major problems and yet their adherents can squash "Objectivists" like
>bugs. The point is that demolishing liberals or hapless fundamentalists
>is not grounds for receiving some sort of reward.

How many ordinary people are attacked personally on Wittgensteinian,
empirical, or LP grounds. It is the collectivists and statists who cut
men's throats every day because people cannot defend themselves.

Not for serious philosophers, but for ordinary people leading ordinary
lives, falling victim to collectivist guilt traps and being continuously
manipulated by people's alleged needs, being suddenly able to defend one's
self has many rewards. Again, this point was a pragmatic one and not very
important (in my humble opinion).

I present the collective posts on talk.philosophy.misc as evidence in
the case of the strength of Objectivism versus the rest of philosophy.
I do not know if you are referring to one incident or many and honestly,
I don't really care. This is a straw man argument because we are not
discussing me or the Objectivists 'present'. Who nominated your
mystery Objectivist(s) to represent us?

Not all Objectivists defend their positions well. Further, you perceived
the Objectivist being squashed, I may not have seend it that way. For
example, I presume that you view your arguments in these posts as stronger
than mine, I see it the other way. I see the Objectivists as winning soundly
in this set of posts, I would guess that you disagree.

Now, as promised, my other response
Charley Wingate writes:

>Ray Mendonsa writes:
>
>>From my readings in Atlas, Fountainhead, and A.R. Lexicon, I gathered the
>>point was that nothing observed points to the existence of the supernatural
>>in such a way that one can even postulate upon its nature.

I would rather phrase it that the common definition of "supernatural"
excludes as natural all that exists. Thus, there is nothing left for it
to refer to.

>As I think I said to someone else, the existence of religion is sufficient
>to provide evidence that renders this position untenable.  By no means do I
>want to argue that it requires belief in a supernatural, but at least some
>refutation is required.

The existence of religion does not provide any evidence of the existence
of the supernatural. Anything it provided evidence for could equally be
interpreted as natural or supernatural. How do you know what the difference
is? What is it that you claim requires "some refutation"? I am puzzled.

Until you can define what you mean by "supernatural" you can not even
claim to have evidence of its existence. Do you claim you can define what
you mean by "supernatural"?

Ray seems to think (from other posts not cited) that because I cannot
access your internal mental states I cannot criticise your claims to have
internally derived (non-obervational) knowledge. This is false.

When a person claims that they hold their views because of internally-derived
knowledge, I have every right to consider this in evaluating their claims.
If someone claims Greenland exists because he saw it in twelve atlases and
someone else claims Greenland exists because he saw it in a dream, the
CLAIMS are different.

But this would only apply to a stituation in which the arguer could define
what he meant by Greenland such that I understood him.  Charley cannot, and
in fact will probably say it is impossible to define god, the supernatural,
soul, spirit, etc.. If it is impossible to know god it is impossible to
believe in him. A contradiction cannot be true.



The Siphon ([e-mail])

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, never to live for the
sake of another man, nor to ask another man to live for mine."