Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ncar!tank!garm
From: garm@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Garmong)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Summary: Objectivism is a complete philosophy, deserving of an unmoderated
	discussion group in the sci.* hierarchy.
Message-ID: <7297@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 19 Jan 90 02:49:10 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 62
References:

I strongly support the establishment of sci.philosophy.objectivism.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is a complete philosophy, in that it deals with all
the major branches of philosophy, and not with a few out-of-context ideas. 
As such, it is not easily discussed in any compartmentalized forum.  As most
readers of USENET know, those discussions of Objectivism which take place on
such groups as alt.individualism or talk.politics.theory are usually shallow,
at best.  Those few who attempt to discuss Objectivism in such limited
groups usually get it wrong, drastically misrepresenting the philosophy, and
even those who get it right can hardly accomplish anything, in the context
of a restrictive net.

This means that those Objectivists who read and occassionally post to USENET
have been unable to find an appropriate forum for their discussions.  A few
have gone to sci.philosophy.tech, with limited success, and met with great
hostility from the "locals" there.  Others have given up on posting entirely,
and some whom I know never have posted at all (myself included).

The only remedy for this is the creation of sci.philosophy.objectivism.

The Objectivist newsgroup would not belong in the talk.* hierarchy,
because the discussions would not be talk.* discussions.  The fact
that Objectivism is a complete philosophy has an important implication
in this context: Objectivism is complete, in that it deals with every
branch of philosophy, and has important implications for every aspect
of human life, all based on one consistent, integrated philosophic
framework.

This means that it is essential to study the fundamentals of the philosophy,
rather than focusing on the details of application.  All of Objectivism is
based on an integrated set of principles, which one must first understand,
if one is to see its applications to any given concrete situation or event.

It is not inappropriate to study concrete examples--in fact, it is essential
to gaining a grasp of the fundamental principles of Objectivism.  However,
it is the principles of philosophy, the core of the subject, which must be
mastered and studied before one can begin to talk about derivative issues,
such as details of political systems or esthetics.

This is a _technical_ study, scientific in nature.  It is a systematic
process of gathering data, grasping its significance, and developing an
understanding of the world on the basis of that knowledge.  What could more
deserve the title of science than that?

Lastly, the group should be unmoderated.  No one person should be put in the
position of deciding what should and should not be posted as a part of a
discussion of a complex system of ideas.  The level of knowledge of the
philosophy of Objectivism required for such an undertaking would be immense.
What is or is not appropriate?  What is germaine to the issues at hand, and
what is irrelevant?  What is a flame, and what is a reasoned (if impassioned)
criticism of another person's ideas?

If there were anyone reading USENET who had the level of knowledge of 
Objectivism required to make such decisions, would he want to be sifting
through the mountains of postings which he would have to read each day?  His
time would be better spent doing his own work than moderating a discussion
forum on the philosophy of Objectivism.


--Robert Garmong
Undergraduate economics student,
The University of Chicago