From estephen@emf.emf.net Wed Sep 13 19:14:29 PDT 1995
Article: 44490 of alt.philosophy.objectivism
Path: news.emf.net!emf.emf.net!estephen
From: estephen@emf.emf.net (Faux Zeigen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: The Battle Begins (was: Re: Footprints in the Sand)
Date: 14 Sep 1995 02:14:14 GMT
Organization: Winter Weather, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <43835m$l40@emf.emf.net>
References: <42bcb2$for@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <42qqb3$o88@degas.ICSI.Net> <4362o7$jbp@emf.emf.net> <437ukq$8lo@degas.ICSI.Net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.149.0.20

John Alway <jalway@icsi.net> wrote:
|     It's hard to know _what_ you are getting serious about.
|     If there are no facts your point collapses at its core.
|     End of discussion... game over.

Okay, that's a start.  "Facts" are simply opinions.  Due to debates, we
can arrive at new opinions.  Based on consensus, people may choose to
believe that certain opinions are more likely to be "true."

You and I can agree, for example, that the name of this newsgroup is
alt.philosophy.objectivism.  That is an example of a shared opinion
that allows a common reference point.

However: Opinions, I believe, should not be mistaken for "truth."
There is no such thing as objective truth, since there would have to be
some non-subjective being capable of evaluating the truth-value of a
particular opinion.

Since there is no such being, there are no truths and thus no facts.
Just strong opinions and weak opinions.

I can go on, but let's see how we feel so far.  John?  Anyone?
__________________________________________________________________________
-- Zeigen                                                 estephen@emf.net
   Post # 3                Zeigen's Dilemma: http://www.emf.net/~estephen/
                                      It's my opinion that I'm hungry now.