25 ms·

Arguably, there is no _denotation_ of blindly following someone in the word "disciple," but I certainly feel that there is a _connotation_ of that. I would als

by javert 13y ago

Arguably, there is no _denotation_ of blindly following someone in the word "disciple," but I certainly feel that there is a _connotation_ of that. I would also reject being called a "follower" or "adherent." All of these seem to me to have a connotation of _blind_ following, faith, or believing something just because you _trust_ some "authority" figure. People who agree with Darwin are not called "disciples" of Darwin. I acknowledge that the word "disciple" _is_ sometimes used to describe people who agree with a certain intellectual thinker, but I still think it generally has a negative connotation. Anyway, regardless of your opinion on the word, Objectivists are likely to interpret you as being openly hostile if you use it to describe them. Though I can't speak for everyone, as I am a particularly sensitive person. For instance, Your "don't hold your breath" point was right on target, but I initially interpreted it differently than the way I now think you meant it.

philwelch 13y ago
Darwin didn't advance a comprehensive philosophical system but rather a unifying theory of biology. And it was not a theory that was unique to him; he only published his theory of natural selection when it was independently developed by another scientist. He gets the credit in the same sense that Newton (or is it Liebniz?) gets credit for calculus--it has simply passed into accepted truth and it's merely a question of history as to who came up with the theory of natural selection. Rand, on the other hand, advanced a large, comprehensive philosophical system that has never been independently arrived at. Every Objectivist becomes such by reading and becoming convinced by the works of Rand and her associates. And very little disagreement with Rand is tolerated--certainly no disagreement with what she clearly incorporated into her philosophical system itself. This is the behavior of disciples, not simply people who agree with a philosopher. This is not to say that they are wrong, but that they are engaging in a behavior--namely wholesale acceptance of another person's thoughts--that fits, for me, the denotation and connotation of the word "disciple". And it doesn't bother me one bit that some disciples of Rand bristle at that word, because the word fits.
- javert 13y ago
  Under your description, people who agreed with Newton or Leibniz would be called "disciples" until the work has "passed into accepted truth," at which point they would not be. I don't think that's right. I don't think it's relevant that Darwin didn't publish until someone else agreed with him. I think it's a minor detail, and it's certainly irrelevant to whether or not something is true. In summary, I think the distinction you're making is a false one. It's certainly possible for a philosopher to develop a system that is faith-based, but that is not the case here. > And very little disagreement with Rand is tolerated--certainly no disagreement with what she clearly incorporated into her philosophical system itself. There are lots of people who disagree with Rand. It's not a religion. You can't be banished. There is no enforcement. So to say that little disagreement is "tolerated" is painting an incorrect picture. > wholesale acceptance of another person's thoughts That is a correct characterization of some people, but not everyone who agrees with Ayn Rand. Presumably, some people who agree with her acutally agree with her, rather than just "accepting" her thoughts. I would say that about myself. > And it doesn't bother me one bit that some disciples of Rand bristle at that word, because the word fits. If you think the word fits, I don't blame you for using it, but you're incorrect to think that it fits. It's bad to insult people based on _your_ own mistake.

by javert 13y ago

philwelch 13y ago

Darwin didn't advance a comprehensive philosophical system but rather a unifying theory of biology. And it was not a theory that was unique to him; he only published his theory of natural selection when it was independently developed by another scientist. He gets the credit in the same sense that Newton (or is it Liebniz?) gets credit for calculus--it has simply passed into accepted truth and it's merely a question of history as to who came up with the theory of natural selection. Rand, on the other hand, advanced a large, comprehensive philosophical system that has never been independently arrived at. Every Objectivist becomes such by reading and becoming convinced by the works of Rand and her associates. And very little disagreement with Rand is tolerated--certainly no disagreement with what she clearly incorporated into her philosophical system itself. This is the behavior of disciples, not simply people who agree with a philosopher. This is not to say that they are wrong, but that they are engaging in a behavior--namely wholesale acceptance of another person's thoughts--that fits, for me, the denotation and connotation of the word "disciple". And it doesn't bother me one bit that some disciples of Rand bristle at that word, because the word fits.

javert 13y ago
Under your description, people who agreed with Newton or Leibniz would be called "disciples" until the work has "passed into accepted truth," at which point they would not be. I don't think that's right. I don't think it's relevant that Darwin didn't publish until someone else agreed with him. I think it's a minor detail, and it's certainly irrelevant to whether or not something is true. In summary, I think the distinction you're making is a false one. It's certainly possible for a philosopher to develop a system that is faith-based, but that is not the case here. > And very little disagreement with Rand is tolerated--certainly no disagreement with what she clearly incorporated into her philosophical system itself. There are lots of people who disagree with Rand. It's not a religion. You can't be banished. There is no enforcement. So to say that little disagreement is "tolerated" is painting an incorrect picture. > wholesale acceptance of another person's thoughts That is a correct characterization of some people, but not everyone who agrees with Ayn Rand. Presumably, some people who agree with her acutally agree with her, rather than just "accepting" her thoughts. I would say that about myself. > And it doesn't bother me one bit that some disciples of Rand bristle at that word, because the word fits. If you think the word fits, I don't blame you for using it, but you're incorrect to think that it fits. It's bad to insult people based on _your_ own mistake.