xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/17/90)
After reading this group with flashing "k" key for a couple of months, again, and seeing groups proposed for which no earthly excuse can be put forth, I have realized that the news heirarchy forest needs a new top level; "talk" just doesn't carry the freight for some of these new groups, and arguments over sci, talk, soc, misc, rec, and so on as a place to root a new group are just symptoms that the appropriate root does not now exist, a root that fully describes the expected level of importance of the articles posted thereunder. I hereby propose new top level "blather", into which "philosophy.objectivism" (a novelist trying to create a coherent philosophy is like an actor trying to be a president) will be a perfect fit. Gads! Don't you kids have homework to do? Rooms to clean? -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/17/90)
In article <10463@saturn.ADS.COM>, xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: > > I hereby propose new top level "blather", What's blather to a pseudosophisticate may be talk to someone else. > "philosophy.objectivism" (a novelist trying to create a coherent > philosophy is like an actor trying to be a president) will be a perfect > fit. You have it backward. She was a philosopher using fiction to present her philosophy -- just as Jules Verne used fiction to present science. Jeff -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/18/90)
> You have it backward. She was a philosopher using fiction to present > her philosophy -- just as Jules Verne used fiction to present > science. Even when Verne was writing his books, the science in them was known to contain huge amounts of dubious or just plain erronious information. Verne was a writer of adventure fiction with a sprinkling of good science and a lot of handwaving. If Ayn Rand's work is indeed of this quality, I really doubt this group has a place in 'sci'. What's wrong with putting it in 'misc'? Or even 'talk'? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/18/90)
In article <2M41O75xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Even when Verne was writing his books, the science in them was known to > contain huge amounts of dubious or just plain erronious information. That may be true, but it's irrelevant. What's relevant here is whether he was a novelist trying to be a scientist, or a scientist - of whatever accuracy - presenting his ideas via fiction. Ditto for Ayn Rand. She was a philosopher presenting her views via novels and plays and screenplays for the quite sensible reason that more people read fiction than monographs. Jeff Daiell A partial bibliography, in case anyone wants to do research before any vote on the newsgroup: ANTHEM WE THE LIVING THE FOUNTAINHEAD NIGHT OF JANUARY 16TH ATLAS SHRUGGED FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Also, if any philosophy is included under sci, then it's only fair that this one be, also. But I can see the point that some postings would be less technical, which is why I suggested the theoretical group under sci and the applications group under talk. -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) (01/18/90)
In article <2M41O75xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> You have it backward. She was a philosopher using fiction to present >> her philosophy -- just as Jules Verne used fiction to present >> science. > >Even when Verne was writing his books, the science in them was known to >contain huge amounts of dubious or just plain erronious information. Verne >was a writer of adventure fiction with a sprinkling of good science and >a lot of handwaving. If Ayn Rand's work is indeed of this quality, I >really doubt this group has a place in 'sci'. No, Ayn Rand's work is not of that quality. Her using fiction to present her philosophy is only a part of her works. She later published several non-fiction works that defined her philosophy, Objectivism. See, for instance, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness (deals with objectivist ethics and politics), The Romantic Manifesto (esthetics). -- --Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu) "To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/18/90)
In article <4M410G2xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc (jeff daiell) writes: >A partial bibliography, in case anyone wants to do research before >any vote on the newsgroup: >ANTHEM >WE THE LIVING >THE FOUNTAINHEAD >NIGHT OF JANUARY 16TH >ATLAS SHRUGGED >FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL >CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL >THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS >THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION >Also, if any philosophy is included under sci, then it's only >fair that this one be, also. Why? "Sci" is not some sort of award, it is supposed to be descriptive of what goes on in the group. There is nothing particularly scientific about Ayn Rand's books. 'Atlas Shrugged' could be called science fiction, but the science (perpetual motion machines, super-metals, etc.) is not taken seriously, and anyway science fiction itself is under the "rec" heading. But if you think there is some special cachet to the "sci" heading, why not take Greg's advice and move to sci.philosophy.meta? >But I can see the point that some postings would be less >technical, which is why I suggested the theoretical group under >sci and the applications group under talk. There is nothing scientific about Objectivism, period. It is not science. It is not even close to being science, which was more or less the excuse used to create sci.skeptic and sci.aquaria. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we *show*. We do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) (01/18/90)
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: | >But I can see the point that some postings would be less | >technical, which is why I suggested the theoretical group under | >sci and the applications group under talk. | There is nothing scientific about Objectivism, period. It is | not science. It is not even close to being science, which | was more or less the excuse used to create sci.skeptic | and sci.aquaria. I'd have preferred to use the word 'reason' rather than 'excuse', but Gene's point should be well taken. There is nothing _scientific_ about Objectivism... it is philosophy. There might be an argument for creating a new top-level, 'phil', and I stress might since I cannot see one, but Objectivism would hardly even belong there given the content and method of inquiry. Pseudo-science, at best--peudo-philosophy, one might also convincingly argue. talk.objectivism!! It prevents begging the question as to whether it is philosophy or punditry. nrg -- York University | "Philosophers who make the general claim that a Department of Philosophy | rule simply 'reduces to' its formulations Toronto, Ontario, Canada | are using Occam's razor to cut the throat _________________________| of common sense.' - R. Harris
bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) (01/19/90)
>"philosophy.objectivism" (a novelist trying to create a coherent >philosophy is like an actor trying to be a president) "If all philosophers were required to present their ideas in novels, to dramatize the exact meaning and consequences of their philosophies in human life, there would be far fewer philosophers -- and far better ones." -- Ayn Rand ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gramstad bfu@ifi.uio.no -------------------------------------------------------------------
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/21/90)
In article <ZJ41_G1xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >> "philosophy.objectivism" (a novelist trying to create a coherent >> philosophy is like an actor trying to be a president) will be a perfect >> fit. > >You have it backward. She was a philosopher using fiction to present >her philosophy -- just as Jules Verne used fiction to present >science. Horse pucky. One of my relatives lived near her. She would sit there, cigar in her mouth writing this stuff cackling with glee, saying things like ``God, what I'll do to pay the rent'' and ``God, I can't believe people lap this stuff up''. I became rather disillusioned with her works when I heard this. She and L. Ron Hubbard would have got along well.
jeremy@milton.acs.washington.edu (Jeremy York) (01/22/90)
In article <CMM.0.88.632763380.bfu@skakke.uio.no> Thomas Gramstad <bfu> writes: >"If all philosophers were required to present their ideas in novels, >to dramatize the exact meaning and consequences of their philosophies >in human life, there would be far fewer philosophers -- and far better >ones." > -- Ayn Rand And a lot more really bad novels! jeremy@klahhane.stat.washington.edu -- jeremy@klahhane.stat.washington.edu
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/22/90)
In article <25075@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > Horse pucky. One of my relatives lived near her. She would sit there, > cigar in her mouth writing this stuff cackling with glee, saying > things like ``God, what I'll do to pay the rent'' and ``God, I > can't believe people lap this stuff up''. > > I became rather disillusioned with her works when I heard this. > Ah, this must be where the celebrated case of cancer came from. Really, Tricky Dicky, can't you do any better? If you're going to lie, you have to make it at least credible. Next thing you'll say is that aquaria belongs in sci! -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg