"E. Shaun Russell" wrote:
> Brian Atkins wrote:
> >Well that's the real catch isn't it? I just don't see how you can logically
> >say that simultaneously you disagree with certain parts of a philosophy
> >yet still call yourself a member of it? Is that like calling yourself a
> >catholic and then having an abortion when it suits you?
> While I agree with some of what you have said, I do balk at the idea of an
> "all or nothing" philosophy such as you apparently suggest. As Natasha and
> Nadia both touched on, it is the constant influx of challenging ideas that
> keeps a philosophy such as Extropianism healthy and growing. This is the
> same reason why the philosophy of Objectivism has not grown in the last few
> decades...there is no room or desire for new ideas and growth.
> While I must admit that I personally agree with all the Extropian
> Principles and have been an ExI member for a number of years, I have no
> desire to close the door on other viewpoints which may not explicitly fit
> the philosophy or support the principles. I would, however, like to see
> most people who call themselves "Extropian" become actual members. It is a
> relatively cheap way of putting one's money where one's mind is.
Agreeing to describe yourself as an Extropian does not mean you have to
close the door on other viewpoints. If you find some other philosophy
that you identify with more, or you find yourself in disagreement with
one of the extropian principles then you can simply declare yourself to
no longer be an extropian and proceed from there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:55 MDT