Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <1594@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Jan 90 15:25:31 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <1990Jan14.133458.6501@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <8044@unix.SRI.COM>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 14

In article <8044@unix.SRI.COM> ellis@chips.sri.com.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:
>>I'll vote yes, as long as it's called talk.religion.objectivism.
>
>    Whether we like it or not, Ayn Rand's nonfictional work is
>    actually placed in the philosophy section of libraries and
>    bookstores. She may be treated as a pariah by academic
>    philosophers, but she wrote philosophy all the same. 

Haven't you noticed that the phil sections of bookstores often have
all sorts of pseudo-philosophical religious junk in them or are
actually a combined "Religion and Philosophy" section?  I'm not
inclined to let *bookstores* decide this for me.  Nor libraries.
They don't seem to mind scattering philosophy into all kinds of
separate sections, often on different floors.