Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Keywords: sci.philosophy.objectivism, misrepresentation
Message-ID: <1682@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Feb 90 19:52:32 GMT
References: <8P1157Gxds8@ficc.uu.net. <1990Jan14.155617.19822@twwells.com. <1915@osc.COM> <26240@cup.portal.com> <1660@skye.ed.ac.uk> <7394@tank.uchicago.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 26

In article <7394@tank.uchicago.edu> rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) writes:
>In article <1660@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <26240@cup.portal.com> ROSS_DAVID_HARTSHORN@cup.portal.com writes:
>>>    David Kelley (a former official Objectivist, author of Evidence of the 
>>>Senses, written shortly before he was purged from the ranks by Peikoff):

>>How does Peikoff get to do this?

>   In response, Peikoff wrote an article ("Fact and Value") which argued
>that Kelley's views were not consistent with Objectivism but opposed
>to it, and said that he no longer considers Kelley to be an Objectivist.

It still seems strange to me that a philosophical, much less a
scientific, disagreement would be conducted in those terms.  It
sounds more like a religious disagreement to me.

>>I'm not sure I still want to consider Objectivism a philosophy.
>                      ^^^^^^^
>I don't see why the actions of people associated with Objectivism would have
>any power to alter the fact that Objectivism is a philosophy.

The sad fact is that this discussion has become political.  Some
have argued more or less that it would be an insult to use the talk
hierarchy.  I was willing to say: well, there should be a group --
do I really care where it goes?  So when I said "want to" I meant
I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.