[MineralMan]

"It harms us not at all to know that the origin of the root for the word philosophy has that history. Indeed, it expands our awareness of language. "

Hmmm...yet you spell all of this in a non-rational orthography. Try it this way:

It harmz us not at al tu no thet thu origin ov thu rut for thu wurd filosofy haz that histuree. indeed, it ekspandz our awarnus ov langwaj.

There's a rational orthography for you. You choose not to use it, preferring normal English orthography, except for the singly phoneme you wish to alter.

Dilletantism is not the same as objectivism. Ayn Rand would be disappointed.

[Eva]

I don't agree with you, any one who has studied etymology, is dependent on the proper spelling to derrive the meaning of the word. There are so many words that I come across that I would have no idea what they meant if I did not recognize the Latin or Greek root.

[G. Stolyarov II]

"Dilletantism is not the same as objectivism. Ayn Rand would be disappointed."

Every great man in history had been a dilletant. Aristotle, in addition to his filosofy, was a scientist, politician, and a universal tutor to Alexander the Great. Isaac Newton was both a fysicist and a mathematician. Gottfried Leibniz had been a filosofer, mathematician, and scientist, while Frederick the Great was a strategist, politician, filosofer, composer, and literateur. Napoleon intensely interested himself in archeology, mathematics (especially topografy), and Enlightenment thought. Even Alexander Borodin was a chemist by profession. As for Ayn Rand herself, her university education was primarily in history, and her original profession was that of a screenwriter. She later diversified into novel writing and a formalization of her filosofy. The list can go on for pages.

If you continue to make assertions chastizing exceptional dilletantism, you will exhibit the same entrenched mediocrity displayed by Professor Patrick Silk in my mini-play, "The Inexperienced:"

"First of all, you must specialize. The era of universal geniuses, dilettantes into multiple fields, has gone the way of Leonardo, Leibniz, Goethe, and Borodin. It has died over a century ago. And don't you think that any variant of living has not already been tried, analyzed, and assimilated or rejected by the common wisdom on that basis. People have developed specializations and set, standardized, unidirectional career paths from centuries of experience. Learn to adapt to and accept your findings. Do you really think that, however ingenious you may be, you can change or even challenge that accumulation of the collective will? You, who are inevitably a product a product of that will?"

THAT ideology is what your posts have strongly linked to.