atrent@guardian.UUCP (Adam Trent) (01/18/90)
In regards to the proposed new Objectivism News Group:
I agree with Joe Harris. Sci.philosophy.objectivism makes more
sense to me because it better emphasizes the focus I would like to
see in an Objectivism discussion group. A talk.philosophy.objectivism would,
by its position in the heiarchy (near talk.bizarre, etc.), tend to invite
more of the Rand bashers. I most emphatically disagree with recent posters
who claim that Objectivism is not a philosophy. Having all objectivists move
to sci.philosophy.meta is not the answer. A newsgroup with "objectivism"
in the name is needed. As Bill Wells has mentioned, there will be enough
conflict and possible flaming in the new group among Objectivists themselves.
As much as I dislike flame wars and Randroid ravings, at this point I
support an unmoderated new group called sci.philosophy.objectivism.
I think that it is likely that after some initial nasty conflict between
the Randroids and Kelleyites, the caliber of the discussion could go up
rather than down. This seems to be happening now in the Objectivist
movement at large. This would attract earnest students of
Objectivism whose focus might more aptly reside in a
sci.philosophy.objectivism. The new group is for Objectivists to
discuss Objectivist issues and for any outsiders to visit and learn
about Objectivism as a movement and a philosophy. Bill Wells has
described the "great Objectivist Schism" and I think that precisely
because of it we should not moderate the new Objectivist group.
I don't welcome the flaming that is sure to come, but this conflict
should be left free for open discussion without moderation.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Adam Trent atrent@guardian.hf.intel.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan) (01/20/90)
In article <353@guardian.UUCP> atrent@guardian.UUCP (Adam Trent) writes: [ stuff removed ] >sci.philosophy.objectivism. The new group is for Objectivists to >discuss Objectivist issues and for any outsiders to visit and learn >about Objectivism as a movement and a philosophy. Bill Wells has If you can learn anything about a philosophy from those who claim follow it, I think by this point we've probably all learned as much about Objectivism as we can reasonably hope to stomach. I mean, if your philosophy works so well in making y'all so gosh darned _rational_ it must be good for _everybody_, no ? For me, I'll stick ObjecTIONism, and along those lines, I object to anything you or anybody else says about this matter. Don't misunderstand me, though. I firmly intend to stick to my vow to vote "Fuck Yes !" to anything anybody proposes, but please could somebody propose something reasonable this time ? Say, dunking the entire Objectivist camp into a large vat of "Fluffernut" ? "it's too late to fall in love with sharon tate and its too soon to ask me for the words i want carved on my tomb" - jim carroll Gilbert W. Pilz Jr. gil@banyan.com