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 the

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.