jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/14/90)
I would prefer that the group be unmoderated, but, if it is to be moderated, Bill Wells is a good choice. What's your problem (with Bill, that is), Mehul? In nomine Homo, Jeff Daiell -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/14/90)
In article <8P1157Gxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
: I would prefer that the group be unmoderated,
For that matter, were things different, so would I.
However, there is a good reason for moderation. There are, of the
people concerned with Objectivism, several groups whose
interactions will result in flames. And more flames.
I expect that an unmoderated Objectivism group would quickly
become inhabited only by the flamers.
Though, if it comes down to it, I'd support an unmoderated group
before I'd support one moderated by one committed to orthodox
Objectivism. Submission to authority leads to sterility.
Objectivism, partly due to the ignorance or rhetorical style of
most of its proponents, and partly due to the dullness or
laziness of most of its opponents, is not well understood.
Anyway, some of its opponents are all too frequent flamers.
And then, of course, there are the Randroids. These are people
who tend to take Objectivism, including the errors made by certain
of its proponents, along with the character of Rand the person,
including *her* personal flaws, as gospel. This kind of thing can
lead to, for example, the perversion of taking certain
Objectivist-derived ideas and using them to support racism! No, I
didn't make that up. I was recently forwarded a posting from a
European newsgroup wherein one Randroid did just that. Ugh.
And finally, there is the "great Objectivism schism" :-)
There are, essentially, two different schools of Objectivist
thought, one, orthodox, holding that one defines Objectivism as
only what Ayn Rand said it is, and one saying that Objectivism is
a living school of philosophy, that starts with Ayn Rand, yet
must be continuously explored, added to and, if necessary,
corrected.
The former school is much given to moralizing and to damning
those who disagree with them; as such, they will flame. And,
naturally, some of those who are the targets of their flames will
respond in kind.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comtma@osc.COM (Tim Atkins) (01/22/90)
In article <1990Jan14.155617.19822@twwells.com. bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
.
.And finally, there is the "great Objectivism schism" :-)
.
.There are, essentially, two different schools of Objectivist
.thought, one, orthodox, holding that one defines Objectivism as
.only what Ayn Rand said it is, and one saying that Objectivism is
.a living school of philosophy, that starts with Ayn Rand, yet
.must be continuously explored, added to and, if necessary,
.corrected.
.
.The former school is much given to moralizing and to damning
.those who disagree with them; as such, they will flame. And,
.naturally, some of those who are the targets of their flames will
.respond in kind.
.
.---
.Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
.bill@twwells.com
Hmmm. Bill, I know that there are various Objectivists who do not think
critically enough about Objectivism, although Objectivism requires critical
thinking. I realize there is a sort of war afoot between the "official"
Objectivism and those who rightly or wrongly depart from the "official"
version in various ways. Frankly I find this war incomprehensible.
Obviously Objectivism is an evolving philosophy. I have never heard Peikoff
claim that all branches of the tree were already perfect and complete.
Obviously there will be disagreements on the meaning and implications of
Objectivism. There may even be disagreement on some of the more derived
parts of the philosophy. But to declare a war over disagreements that
should be open to rational discussion is repulsive in the extreme.
When it comes to flames I have received far more heat from the "revisionists"
when I come out in support of an "official" position than I've ever received
from the supposed dogmatist when I espouse a position at odds with "official"
wisdom.
Hopefully the new group will be open to all persuasions. While I would love
to escape the perpetual flamers I would hesitate to have the group moderated
by an individual who seems to have more than a slight persecution complex.
Hopefully the new group will be open to discussions of both the philosophy
and its real world application. I would also hope that it will not be
afflicted with the sterility of waiting until one's magnum opus is ready
before posting. Too many Objectivist I have met seem almost afraid to
apply the philosophy to real-world events without generating ten pages of
theory to back themselves up.
- Tim Atkinsmeo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (01/29/90)
dschein@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Dinah B. Schein) writes: | Thinking that it is best to post my vote publicly, I stand firmly |in favor of SCI.philosophy.Objectivism. As has already been explained on |here, philosophy is indeed a science. No one's screams to the contrary |will change this fact. This begins to sound like talk.abortion. Properly, I should follow up by screaming back, "As has already been explained on here, philosophy is indeed NOT a science. No one's screams to the contrary will change this fact." Which, of course, proves neither less nor more than the original posting. The man asked for EMAIL'd votes. Is this such an emotional/religious issue that you react thusly? You can't be *objective* enough to email your vote and then carry on the discussion here? Dinah - I'm not singling you out. You are neither the first nor the worst offender. -Miles