sci.philosophy.objectivism
Joe Harris
It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that a suitable alternative
to creating a separate Objectivist newsgroup would be to have Objectivists
post to sci.philosophy.meta. In my judgement, this could only mitigate
the situation temporarily; it is not a solution at all. What is needed
is sci.philosophy.objectivism, a newsgroup where individuals interested
in Objectivism can discuss the philosophy.
The revolution which Ayn Rand created in philosophy was primarily
epistemological, not political or ethical. Her single greatest achievment,
in my judgement, is her theory of concepts. This theory makes it possible
to understand in explicit terms the cognitive processes by which a human
abstracts from perceptual data, and consequently makes possible an
unprecedented level of clarity in the physical sciences and in the humanities.
This is why sci.philosophy.objectivism is justified--because the central
problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is the relationship of
perceptual data to abstract ideas.
If it is true that sci.philosophy.meta is unused, why not dismantle
it? The resulting unused newsgroup could become sci.philosophy.objectivism.
Of course, sci.philosophy.meta would have to be completely gone--the
name would be sci.philosophy.objectivism and the charter would be completely
different. Those who have suggested that Objectivists post to sci.philosophy.
meta, is this acceptable? If not, why not?
Joe Harris
har...@portia.stanford.edu
Norm Gall
| The revolution which Ayn Rand created in philosophy was primarily
| epistemological, not political or ethical. Her single greatest achievment,
| in my judgement, is her theory of concepts. This theory makes it possible
| to understand in explicit terms the cognitive processes by which a human
| abstracts from perceptual data, and consequently makes possible an
| unprecedented level of clarity in the physical sciences and in the humanities
Well, let's nip this in the bud. Ayn Rand's 'revolution in
philosophy' has had practically no effect at all in 20th century
epistemology and of 50 philosophy departments in North America if
there are 10 philosophers doing serious work in her epistemology, I'd
be surprised.
However, I will say that one of the more philosophically relevant
portions of her writings is the 'Theory of Concepts.' 6
~?~?~?~?~?~?~?~?~
| This is why sci.philosophy.objectivism is justified--because the central
| problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is the relationship of
| perceptual data to abstract ideas.
Hmmmmmm...... why is this a _scientific_ problem.... sounds like a
philosophical one to me.
--
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
Mehul Dave
because it is unused right now and would be ideal instead of creating
sci.philosophy.objectivism. The reason why it would not be proper to
use sci.philosophy.meta is because it is not exclusively for discussing
Objectivism. A newsgroup for discussing Objectivism, the philsophy of
Ayn Rand, is what is needed. Of course, if sci.philosophy.meta was to
be renamed to sci.philsophy.objectivism, it would be all right but then
there have been some discussions in sci.philosophy.meta and I doubt if
the posters there would be willing to lose that newsgroup.
--
--Mehul Dave-- (INTERNET :- meh...@apee.ogi.edu)
"To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand
Gregory Nowak
} It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that a suitable alternative
}to creating a separate Objectivist newsgroup would be to have Objectivists
}post to sci.philosophy.meta. In my judgement, this could only mitigate
}the situation temporarily; it is not a solution at all.
Please explain to all of us, especially to Mr. Stubblefield, why
sci.philosophy.meta is less appropriate than sci.philosophy.tech for
objectivist postings. Over 90% of the objectivist postings to 'tech
have been his. Those of us who are only interested in getting
objectivist postings out of 'tech can't see why they are less
appropriate in 'meta than in 'tech.
}What is needed
}is sci.philosophy.objectivism, a newsgroup where individuals interested
}in Objectivism can discuss the philosophy.
I have no problem with this. Until it appears, could the objectivist
discussion move to 'meta, and respect the topic of 'tech by not
posting objectivsit messages to it?
}This is why sci.philosophy.objectivism is justified--because the central
}problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is the relationship of
}perceptual data to abstract ideas.
This is much more of a philosophical question than a scientific one,
but that's irrelevant right now. All of your arguments that
objectivism needs its own newsgroup can also be interpreted as
arguments that objectivist postings are inappropriate in 'tech.
} If it is true that sci.philosophy.meta is unused, why not dismantle
}it? The resulting unused newsgroup could become
}sci.philosophy.objectivism.
This is not how the net works.
}Of course, sci.philosophy.meta would have to be completely gone--the
}name would be sci.philosophy.objectivism and the charter would be completely
}different. Those who have suggested that Objectivists post to sci.philosophy.
}meta, is this acceptable? If not, why not?
Because it would take six weeks to create sci.philosophy.objectivism.
If the objectivists are in such dire need of a newsgroup, why don't
they move into 'meta, and then work on renaming it? Surely so rational
person as Ayn Rand would not refuse to move into an otherwise
acceptable house merely because there was a defect in the sign giving
its street number. The rest of the net is creaking and straining under
the weight of countless objectivist postings yearning for a newsgroup
of their own. Sci.philosophy.meta could _be_ that newsgroup, STARTING
TOMORROW, and then you'd just have to change the name. This route to
your goal has a much higher likelihood of success than an attempt to
create sci.philosophy.objectivism from scratch.
...!rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg
Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
Gregory Nowak
}Greg Nowak suggests that objectivists should use sci.philosophy.meta
}because it is unused right now and would be ideal instead of creating
}sci.philosophy.objectivism. The reason why it would not be proper to
}use sci.philosophy.meta is because it is not exclusively for discussing
}Objectivism.
THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings
don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. Please explain this to R.W.
Stubblefield; perhaps he will accept this coming from a fellow
objectivist. As of now he has refused to discuss the issue, and has
decided for himself that his postings are appropriate there.
}A newsgroup for discussing Objectivism, the philsophy of
}Ayn Rand, is what is needed. Of course, if sci.philosophy.meta was to
}be renamed to sci.philsophy.objectivism, it would be all right but then
}there have been some discussions in sci.philosophy.meta and I doubt if
}the posters there would be willing to lose that newsgroup.
There is almost no activity there; the only articles I found in its
spool directory were those in the widely-crossposted "proving programs
correct" thread. Of course, the story you tell is exactly the case
with sci.philosophy.tech, an active newsgroup which has been invaded
by inappropriate objectivist postings, mainly coming from RW Stubblefield.
Metafont Consultant Account
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'.
xant...@well.sf.ca.us xant...@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 <-
Mehul Dave
>In article <900116234...@apee.ogi.edu> meh...@apee.ogi.edu (Mehul Dave) writes:
>}Greg Nowak suggests that objectivists should use sci.philosophy.meta
>}because it is unused right now and would be ideal instead of creating
>}sci.philosophy.objectivism. The reason why it would not be proper to
>}use sci.philosophy.meta is because it is not exclusively for discussing
>}Objectivism.
>
>THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings
>don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. Please explain this to R.W.
>Stubblefield; perhaps he will accept this coming from a fellow
>objectivist. As of now he has refused to discuss the issue, and has
>decided for himself that his postings are appropriate there.
Now, wait a minute. The chronology of events is like this. Mr.
Stubblefield posted to sci.philosophy.tech judging it to be the most
appropriate newsgroup for his postings relating to Objectivism because
he could not find any other newsgroup appropriate for it. Then there
was the suggestion to start a new newsgroup for postings related to
Objectivism in sci.philosophy.tech. The call for discussion was for
talk.philosophy.objectivism and I suggested that it should be
sci.philosophy.objectivism and then you suggested that objectivists
should post to sci.philosophy.meta and hence my post quoted above. I
didn't say anything about where Mr. Stubblefield's postings should go
and that is not the issue being discussed. The issue is creating SPO.
We are asking for SPO because there seems to be some support from it
even from people who oppose objectivism. That has little to do with
whether Mr. Stubblefield should post on SPT right now or not.
Obviously, he will not post there if there was
sci.philosophy.objectivism.
>}A newsgroup for discussing Objectivism, the philsophy of
>}Ayn Rand, is what is needed. Of course, if sci.philosophy.meta was to
>}be renamed to sci.philsophy.objectivism, it would be all right but then
>}there have been some discussions in sci.philosophy.meta and I doubt if
>}the posters there would be willing to lose that newsgroup.
>
>There is almost no activity there; the only articles I found in its
>spool directory were those in the widely-crossposted "proving programs
>correct" thread. Of course, the story you tell is exactly the case
>with sci.philosophy.tech, an active newsgroup which has been invaded
>by inappropriate objectivist postings, mainly coming from RW Stubblefield.
I have been reading that newsgroup for a while and there was a big
discussion about "I do not exist" (!!!???). Then, suddenly, it
subsided and there were some postings off and on till the subject you
mention. In any event, that is not relevant. The discussion going on
here was about creating a new newsgroup called
sci.philosophy.objectivism. Posting to sci.philosophy.meta is just a
temporary solution. We would like a newsgroup to discuss Objectivism.
You also mentioned in your reply to Joe Harris that it would take six
weeks to establish sci.philosophy.objectivism. Quite true. But it
would establish a newsgroup for Objectivism and it would be a permanent
solution. (BTW, Objectivism would prefer this latter solution because
it is long range as opposed to the pragmatic version of it :-)
> Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540
Joe Harris
Reply-To: har...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris)
Distribution: news.groups
Organization: Stanford University
<82...@portia.Stanford.EDU>
In article <12...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, gr...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
(Gregory Nowak) writes:
>Please explain to all of us...why
>sci.philosophy.meta is less appropriate than sci.philosophy.tech for
>objectivist postings.
In article <12...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, the same author writes:
>In article <900116234...@apee.ogi.edu> meh...@apee.ogi.edu (Mehul Dave) >writes:
>}Greg Nowak suggests that objectivists should use sci.philosophy.meta
>}because it is unused right now and would be ideal instead of creating
>}sci.philosophy.objectivism. The reason why it would not be proper to
>}use sci.philosophy.meta is because it is not exclusively for discussing
>}Objectivism.
>THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings
>don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech.
As far as I can tell, neither sci.philosophy.tech or sci.philosophy.meta
is inappropriate for Objectivist postings. All the postings to sci.philosophy.
tech by Objectivists have been technical, scientific expositions, from my
postings on the sciences of mathematics and physics to other postings on
the science of ethics. I have never understood why technical discussions
of Objectivism are less appropriate in sci.philosophy.tech than those of other
philosophies.
However, the propriety of Objectivist postings on a given newsgroup is
not the issue. It has become increasingly clear that a newsgroup specifically
for discussions on Objectivism is needed. Objectivist postings to sci.
philosophy.tech bother the others on that subgroup, for whatever reason.
The only way to be sure that this type of problem cannot arise again is to
create a specifically Objectivist newsgroup, not ask students of the philosophy
to move to a newsgroup which is more appropriate.
I fear that, regardless of where students of Objectivism post, we will
have to deal with people who wish to disparage our ideas. However, if we
have a newsgroup of our own, we will at least be able to avoid antagonizing
those who are willing to leave us alone.
Joe Harris
har...@portia.stanford.edu
Hans Huttel
>to creating a separate Objectivist newsgroup would be to have Objectivists
>post to sci.philosophy.meta.
In my judgement, this could only mitigate the situation temporarily; it is not
a solution at all. What is needed is rec.humor.objectivism, a newsgroup where
individuals who (like the author of this postings) are not impressed by
Objectivism can ridicule the Objectivist postings.
The `revolution' which Ayn Rand created in the minds of some people is
catastrophical and least of all ethical. Her single great achievement, in
my judgement, is that of getting a large number of devoted followers, the
so-called `librarians'. These people find it possible to go on and on in vague
terms about `the cognitive processes by which a human abstracts from perceptual
data', and consequently makes possible an unprecedented number of postings in
newsgroups devoted to the physical sciences and the humanities.
This is why rec.humor.objectivism is justified--because the central
problem which Objectivism offers the answer to is how a discussion of the
relationship of perceptual data to abstract ideas (or Central America or
what have you) can provide us with a good laugh.
If it is true that rec.humor.funny is unused, why not dismantle
it? The resulting unused newsgroup could become rec.humor.objectivism.
Of course, rec.humor.funny would have to be completely gone--the
name would be rec.humor.objectivism but the charter would be completely
unchanged. Those who have suggested that Objectivists post to rec.humor.funny,
is this acceptable? If not, why not?
| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: ha...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.e...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
jeff daiell
> 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 da Silva
> 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. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeff daiell
> 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.
Gregory Nowak
}In article <12...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Greg Nowak writes:
}>THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings
}>don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech. Please explain this to R.W.
}>Stubblefield; perhaps he will accept this coming from a fellow
}>objectivist. As of now he has refused to discuss the issue, and has
}>decided for himself that his postings are appropriate there.
}Now, wait a minute. The chronology of events is like this. Mr.
}Stubblefield posted to sci.philosophy.tech judging it to be the most
}appropriate newsgroup for his postings relating to Objectivism because
}he could not find any other newsgroup appropriate for it. Then there
}was the suggestion to start a new newsgroup for postings related to
}Objectivism in sci.philosophy.tech. The call for discussion was for
Welcome to usenet. Your chronology is faulty. It lacks a front end.
Mr. Stubblefield began posting to sci.philosopy.tech MONTHS ago. He
was informed that his postings were inappropriate there by several
people who were around for the newsgroup's creation, and knew that it
was for discussion of "technical applications of philosophy to
science". (Eg, metalogic, formal languages) It was suggested that
objectivist discussions, being philosophical, and not otherwise having
their own newsgroup, belonged in talk.philosophy.misc, or the
objectivist mailing lists. It later developed that Stubblefield had
been on these lists and departed due to some squabble. At any rate, he
continued to post his inappropriate articles to sci.philosophy.tech.
}talk.philosophy.objectivism and I suggested that it should be
}sci.philosophy.objectivism and then you suggested that objectivists
}should post to sci.philosophy.meta and hence my post quoted above. I
}didn't say anything about where Mr. Stubblefield's postings should go
}and that is not the issue being discussed. The issue is creating SPO.
The issue is where objectivist postings belong. If they don't belong
in sci.philosophy.meta, fine, I'll agree to that the minute they're
rooted out of sci.philosophy.tech. Until there is an explicitly
objectivist newsgroup, such articles belong in talk.philosophy.misc,
not sci.philosophy.tech. (Note that the newsgroup we're discussing
this in is news.groups, ie for any articles relating to newsgroups,
not just to ones discussing their creation.)
}We are asking for SPO because there seems to be some support from it
}even from people who oppose objectivism. That has little to do with
}whether Mr. Stubblefield should post on SPT right now or not.
Mucxh of the support of non-objectivists for your group would
evaporate if it did not also guarantee the disappearance of
objectivist postings from sci.philosophy.tech.
}>There is almost no activity there; the only articles I found in its
}>spool directory were those in the widely-crossposted "proving programs
}>correct" thread. Of course, the story you tell is exactly the case
}>with sci.philosophy.tech, an active newsgroup which has been invaded
}>by inappropriate objectivist postings, mainly coming from RW Stubblefield.
}I have been reading that newsgroup for a while and there was a big
}discussion about "I do not exist" (!!!???). Then, suddenly, it
}subsided and there were some postings off and on till the subject you
}mention. In any event, that is not relevant. The discussion going on
Sci.philosophy.meta is effectively empty; it has no regular discussion
and no native constituency. Its only content is articles crossposted
to it from other newsgroups. It is highly relevant to the newsgroups
issue of where objectivist postings belong. They certainly do not
belong in sci.philosophy.tech -- and objectivists desirous of their
own newsgroup could do well to signal their good faith by immediately
ceasing their unwarranted invasion of sci.philosophy.tech.
}here was about creating a new newsgroup called
}sci.philosophy.objectivism. Posting to sci.philosophy.meta is just a
}temporary solution. We would like a newsgroup to discuss Objectivism.
Fine. Please adopt the temporary solution until we can put the
permanent one into place. That's what being "temporary" means, isn't
it? Posting to sci.philosophy.tech isn't even a temporary solution,
since it clearly bothers the native population, and doesn't serve any
good that sci.philosophy.meta doesn't serve. Please explain why a
_temporary_ move of objectivist discussions to sci.philosophy.meta is
worse than leaving them in 'tech.
}You also mentioned in your reply to Joe Harris that it would take six
}weeks to establish sci.philosophy.objectivism. Quite true. But it
}would establish a newsgroup for Objectivism and it would be a permanent
}solution. (BTW, Objectivism would prefer this latter solution because
}it is long range as opposed to the pragmatic version of it :-)
Again, why don't you demonstrate your good faith, and perhaps earn
some support, by implementing the _temporary_ solution as a
_temporary_ measure until the permanent solution can be implememented?
It seems better to do that than to spend at least six weeks having no
solution at all.
...!rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg
Gregory Nowak
} In article <12...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, gr...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
} (Gregory Nowak) writes:
}>Please explain to all of us...why
}>sci.philosophy.meta is less appropriate than sci.philosophy.tech for
}>objectivist postings.
}>THANK YOU. This is a perfect explanation of why objectivist postings
}>don't belong in sci.philosophy.tech.
}
} As far as I can tell, neither sci.philosophy.tech or sci.philosophy.meta
}is inappropriate for Objectivist postings. All the postings to sci.philosophy.
}tech by Objectivists have been technical, scientific expositions, from my
}postings on the sciences of mathematics and physics to other postings on
}the science of ethics. I have never understood why technical discussions
}of Objectivism are less appropriate in sci.philosophy.tech than those of other
}philosophies.
There is no "technical discussion of other philosophies" in 'tech. You
misunderstand the newsgroup. If you see no distinction between posting
objectivist articles to 'meta and to 'tech, please perform a courtesy
for those who do see a distinction, and are bothered by their
appearance in 'tech, by posting them to 'meta. The reason that they
are inappropriate is that 'tech is not for "technical, scientific,
expositions": leaving aside the fact that ethics is not a science,
sci.philosophy.tech was created explicitly for discussing "technical
applications of philosophy to science". The charter ruled out
explicitly general maunderings known as philosophy of science, (eg
Kuhnian stuff), and gave examples of appropriate topics as metalogic,
formal languages, etc. The phrase "technical philosophy" has a
specific meaning; you can't just make up your own. There may in fact
be "technical discussions of Objectivism", but they aren't appropriate
to sci.philosophy.tech; right now, they belong in
talk.philosophy.misc. If objectivism has a position on the issue of
higher cardinals, then that would be an appropriate discussion of a
facet of objectivism in 'tech. What we have now is a complete
exposition of Objectivism in 'tech on the shaky ground that "it's a
technical philosophy" (irrelevant) "it makes ethics a science"
(irrelevant) or "it discusses science too" (also irrelevant).
} However, the propriety of Objectivist postings on a given newsgroup is
}not the issue. It has become increasingly clear that a newsgroup specifically
}for discussions on Objectivism is needed. Objectivist postings to sci.
}philosophy.tech bother the others on that subgroup, for whatever reason.
Because they're inappropriate there, as we've been saying for months.
}The only way to be sure that this type of problem cannot arise again is to
}create a specifically Objectivist newsgroup, not ask students of the philosophy
}to move to a newsgroup which is more appropriate.
It may be true that this is the only permanent solution. Until this
happy day comes to pass, could the objectivists indicate their good
faith by departing 'tech, where they are an annoyance, and temporarily
moving to sci.philosophy.meta, where they will bother no one, since
there is no one there to bother? You yourself said you saw no
distinction in appropriateness of objectivist postings to the two
groups. So why not perform a courtesy over which you have no qualms?
} I fear that, regardless of where students of Objectivism post, we will
}have to deal with people who wish to disparage our ideas. However, if we
}have a newsgroup of our own, we will at least be able to avoid antagonizing
}those who are willing to leave us alone.
Gracious of you to note the distinction. If you moved into 'meta as a
stopgap measure, you could avoid antagonizing those who are willing to
leave you alone as early as tomorrow.
Jeff Daiell
> In article <2M41O7...@ficc.uu.net>, pe...@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.
>
Let me clarify this, so as to eliminate any confusion. My point is that
Verne, regardless of whether his science was accurate, was motivated
to write fiction so as to broaden the audience for what he thought
were scientific facts. Similiarly, Rand, who authored dozens of essays
and edited a long-running philosophical newsletter, also used novels
as a means of presenting her philosophy to a broader audience. Thus,
she was not, as was charged, a novelist trying to be a philosopher,
but, rather, a philosopher who doubled as a novelist.
Of course, one could also note that the original snidery against
Rand was irrelevant anyway. Why should a novelist be any less
qualified to formulate philosophy than anyone else? Certainly
there is nothing intellectually debilitating about composing a
novel.
To continue the clarification, let me re-present the partial
bibliography, asteriskizing the non-fiction works.
> 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 *
>
BTW, THE FOUNTAINHEAD was made into a movie, for which Rand
herself wrote the screenplay. It starred Patricia Neal and
Gary Cooper, among others. There was talk of a miniseries
of ATLAS SHRUGGED on NBC, at one point slated for September of
1980. The deal fell thru --- a shame; it would have been
fascinating to see what effect, if any, it would have had
on the elections that year.
Jeff
Mehul Dave
>}Now, wait a minute. The chronology of events is like this. Mr.
>}Stubblefield posted to sci.philosophy.tech judging it to be the most
>}appropriate newsgroup for his postings relating to Objectivism because
>}he could not find any other newsgroup appropriate for it. Then there
>}was the suggestion to start a new newsgroup for postings related to
>}Objectivism in sci.philosophy.tech. The call for discussion was for
>Welcome to usenet. Your chronology is faulty. It lacks a front end.
>Mr. Stubblefield began posting to sci.philosopy.tech MONTHS ago. He
>was informed that his postings were inappropriate there by several
>people who were around for the newsgroup's creation, and knew that it
>was for discussion of "technical applications of philosophy to
>science". (Eg, metalogic, formal languages) It was suggested that
>objectivist discussions, being philosophical, and not otherwise having
>their own newsgroup, belonged in talk.philosophy.misc, or the
>objectivist mailing lists. It later developed that Stubblefield had
>been on these lists and departed due to some squabble. At any rate, he
>continued to post his inappropriate articles to sci.philosophy.tech.
You're saying that Mr. Stubblefield's postings are not appropriate to
SPT as if this was a matter of fact when that is what you (and some
other readers of SPT) think. There have been some discussions related
to his postings and even some support (some others also thought it was
inappropriate, however). I am not going to get into this argument of
whether objectivist postings belong to SPT or not. I think they do and
you think they don't. In any event, this newsgroup is for the
discussion of new newsgroups (at least as far as I can tell). The
discussion was for the creation of a newsgroup relating to
objectivism. You're bringing up an issue that does not belong here and
I am not going to contiue along those lines.
Mehul Dave
>> 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).
John Ockerbloom
>Also, if any philosophy is included under sci, then it's only
>fair that this one be, also.
Why? I had thought (judging from its description in the newsgroups list)
that the rationale for 'tech being in sci.* was that it was supposed
to deal with philosophy relating to science and math.
From what I've read of Objectivism, it does not relate to science and
math any more than do other general philosophies, so I would think
an Objectivism newsgroup would go in the same hierarchy as the general
philosophy newsgroup-- talk.
Would someone care to enlighten me on why 'objectivism should go
in sci instead of talk or one of the other hierarchies?
John Ockerbloom
--
==========================================================================
ocker...@cs.cmu.edu ...!uunet!cs.cmu.edu!ockerbloom
oc...@yalecs.bitnet (forwarded) 4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217
Gregory Nowak
}You're saying that Mr. Stubblefield's postings are not appropriate to
}SPT as if this was a matter of fact when that is what you (and some
}other readers of SPT) think.
Sure. All the original readers of SPT, those who were there for its
creation and remember the charter, find them inappropriate. Those
"readers" of SPT who followed Stubblefield think otherwise. They lose.
They don't know what they're talking about. At any rate -- you're
undercutting your own position. The extent to which objectivist
postings are appropriate in SPT is the extent to which they don't
deserve a new group. BTW, we're BOTH in favor of a new group for
Objectivist postings -- anything to get them out of SPT where they
don't belong
} There have been some discussions related
}to his postings and even some support (some others also thought it was
}inappropriate, however). I am not going to get into this argument of
}whether objectivist postings belong to SPT or not. I think they do and
}you think they don't.
If they do, why do you need a new newsgroup? IF they don't, get them out.
} In any event, this newsgroup is for the
}discussion of new newsgroups (at least as far as I can tell). The
I'll tell you again: Welcome to USENET. This is news.groups, for
discussion of all issues relating to newsgroups, whether they're new
or now, what postings are appropriate where, whatever. It so happens
that a lot of the discussion is given over to discussion of new
newsgroups, but that's not the only thing it's for. I'm sorry you have
a hard time grasping this, but it seem that Objectivists in general
have a hard time grasping the concept of appropriateness of topics
within newsgroups.
rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ
"Most news readers are not UNIX sophisticates and do not have the
capability of using KILL files or even know that such a thing is
possible." -- Tim Maroney
Gene W. Smith
>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
Norm Gall
| >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
Dan Veditz
>Over 90% of the objectivist postings to 'tech have been his. Those of
>us who are only interested in getting objectivist postings out of 'tech
>can't see why they are less appropriate in 'meta than in 'tech.
about it. People don't post to the ether and will go away when they
stop getting responses.
-Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz
Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dve...@ashtate.A-T.com
Dan Veditz
>Mr. [whoever] began posting to sci.philosopy.tech MONTHS ago. He
>was informed that his postings were inappropriate there by several
>people who were around for the newsgroup's creation, and knew that it
>was for discussion of "technical applications of philosophy to
>science". (Eg, metalogic, formal languages) It was suggested that
>objectivist discussions, being philosophical, and not otherwise having
>their own newsgroup, belonged in talk.philosophy.misc, or the
>objectivist mailing lists.
Yes, they should go in a .misc group, but until they do you have two
choices:
1) put the objectivists in your KILL file. The group, for you, becomes
much quieter.
2) Flame the objectivists in email until they leave. Flaming them with
postings will put YOU in people's KILL files.
Thomas Gramstad
>"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 b...@ifi.uio.no
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Sexton
>
>> "philosophy.objectivism" (a novelist trying to create a coherent
>> fit.
>
>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 York
In article <CMM.0.88.63...@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!
jer...@klahhane.stat.washington.edu
--
jer...@klahhane.stat.washington.edu
jeff daiell
> 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!
jeff daiell
> har...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes:
>
> | The revolution which Ayn Rand created in philosophy was primarily
> | epistemological, not political or ethical.
> Well, let's nip this in the bud. Ayn Rand's 'revolution in
> philosophy' has had practically no effect at all in 20th century
> epistemology and of 50 philosophy departments in North America if
> there are 10 philosophers doing serious work in her epistemology, I'd
> be surprised.
I suspect there are at least that many, since it seems that more than
that many are seeing print with their views on the subject, both
pro and wrong. {|8^)]
But that's not relevant. Whether *any* work is correct or valuable
cannot be judged by how popular it is. After all, only a minority of
people in the British Empire in 1776 approved of The Declaration
of Independence!
Jeff Daiell
Jeff Dalton
>is inappropriate for Objectivist postings.
Everyone seems to have forgotten this, but way back when .meta was
first created someone asked about Objectivism there, was told that
the group was inappropriate and that they should try talk.phil.misc,
and that was then end of it. No endless discussions.
>All the postings to sci.philosophy.tech by Objectivists have been technical,
>scientific expositions, from my postings on the sciences of mathematics and
>physics to other postings on the science of ethics. I have never understood
>why technical discussions of Objectivism are less appropriate in
>sci.philosophy.tech than those of other philosophies.
Sci.phil.tech is not for technical discussions of philosophy but for
technical philosophy, which is meant to be something else. Several
people have explained this already.
Some people have pointed out that sci.phil.tech includes philosophy
of science. (I agree.) But that doesn't mean that all philosophical
discussion of everything that might be claimed to be a science is
appropriate.
It is far from clear to me that all the Objectivist postings in
sci.phil.tech have been appropriate. Consider, for example, the
one entitled "Philosophy and Current Trends in Communist Countries".
The article is basically a political commentary with some philosophy
of history thrown in. Sure, the article claims philosophical ideas
are the "most important causal factors in history", and the article's
written from that perspective. But that doesn't make it technical
philosophy. If it spent more time on this philosophy of history,
maybe it would be; but it doesn't.
-- Jeff
Gene W. Smith
>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.
I was suggesting 'hum' for the humanities, but so far the
response has been ho-hum. Since *.philosophy.misc is in talk, it
would be logical to put *.philosophy.objectivism there. The
difficulty with this is that Stubblefield would probably ignore
it. One the other hand, it clearly does not belong in sci.
A compromise between Stubblefield's proposal and Bill Wells'
proposal would be a (hopefully unmoderated) group,
soc.objectivism. Since Objectivism has some of the
characteristics of groups now in soc, this seems to me to be
reasonable.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Without NNTP, the brahms gang itself would be impossible" Erik E. Fair