Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!shelby!portia!harris
From: harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <8284@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 16 Jan 90 20:42:05 GMT
Sender: Joe Harris <harris@Portia.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 27


     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
harris@portia.stanford.edu