Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism Message-ID: <1990Jan20.141010.18797@twwells.com> Date: 20 Jan 90 14:10:10 GMT References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <1990Jan14.133458.6501@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <8044@unix.SRI.COM> <9702@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 40 In article <9702@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: : Rand's work has never been philosophy, despite the claims of a few : people who don't read philosophy. Rand's work has almost always been philosophy, despite the claims of a few people who don't read philosophy. Apparently, like yourself. Continually asserting a falsehood as fact merely makes you look stupid. : It has always been political in : nature. This is only half true. Which is to say: Rand's work is roughly half political, either philosophy or political commentary. The remainder deals with a large number of subjects which have nothing directly to do with politics. Later Objectivists have dealt far less with politics than other areas. You know, you'd make a better case if you didn't make stupid statements that anyone with half a brain could verify as being false. Anyone who cares can go look up Rand in a library and discover that she had lots to say about many other subjects than politics. And that her works, whatever the flaws, are philosophy. Your saying otherwise does not change the facts. At this point, I've concluded that you are either essentially ignorant of Objectivism or you are a liar and a stupid one at that. In any case, you clearly have nothing worthwhile to say on the subject. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_