jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/03/90)
Robert,
If a non-O or anti-O posts to *.p.o, it might cause us to
recheck our premises, thus (a) spurring the extension of
Objectivist thought to new ground, and/or (b) strengthen
our understanding of, and support for, Objectivism. And
our replies might help the poster either (a) realize the
validity of Objectivism, or (b) better understand the
philosophy (as misunderstanding might well be the cause of
her/his not accepting Objectivism).
Jeff Daiell
--
"She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of
course, that's no reason for getting married."
-- C. E. "Billie" Daielldjoslin@bbn.com (David Joslin) (02/05/90)
In article <T8I1KIGxds8@ficc.uu.net> (jeff daiell) writes: >If a non-O or anti-O posts to *.p.o, it might cause us to >recheck our premises, thus (a) spurring the extension of >Objectivist thought to new ground, and/or (b) strengthen >our understanding of, and support for, Objectivism. Jeff, When I read this I wondered why you didn't include (c) cause some O'ists to realize that they have been in error. It made it sound like you didn't think there was any possibility of O'ism being incorrect. Then in another article you wrote: >Still, this is a quibble. Why don't we hold *one* vote: >(1) I prefer sci.philosophy.objectivism ___ >(2) I prefer talk.philosophy.objectivism ___ >(3) No Objectivism group; I hate Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem ___ Do you mean to imply anyone who rejects O'ism lacks (or even hates?) Self-Esteem? That only O'ists appreciate Reason? David djoslin@bbn.com
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/05/90)
In article <51700@bbn.COM>, djoslin@bbn.com (David Joslin) writes: > In article <T8I1KIGxds8@ficc.uu.net> (jeff daiell) writes: > >If a non-O or anti-O posts to *.p.o, it might cause us to > >recheck our premises, thus (a) spurring the extension of > >Objectivist thought to new ground, and/or (b) strengthen > >our understanding of, and support for, Objectivism. > > Jeff, > > When I read this I wondered why you didn't include > (c) cause some O'ists to realize that they have been in error. > It made it sound like you didn't think there was any > possibility of O'ism being incorrect. Well, if it is, they have each other to point it out! {|8^)] > > Then in another article you wrote: > > >Still, this is a quibble. Why don't we hold *one* vote: > >(1) I prefer sci.philosophy.objectivism ___ > >(2) I prefer talk.philosophy.objectivism ___ > >(3) No Objectivism group; I hate Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem ___ > > Do you mean to imply anyone who rejects O'ism lacks (or even hates?) > Self-Esteem? That only O'ists appreciate Reason? {|8^)] for the humor impaired. Jeff Daiell -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell