sudanglo:The trouble with Raŭmismo is that it is explicitly defeatist - la oficialigo de Esperanto estas nek verŝajna, nek esenca .... oni havu alternativajn celojn - it demotes Esperanto to the gypsy language of a diaspora, to a mere hobby interest.

I suppose I don't have a real problem with defeatism. Honestly, I don't find it plausible that Esperanto will be in nearly such demand or international usage as English or Chinese anytime in the next century.

That doesn't at all mean I am neutral to the idea of a finvenko - just that I don't like to put myself in any illusions of its likelihood.

Though, it is difficult to decide whether only a change in the image of Esperanto will lead to a substantial increase in the number of speakers, or whether only a substantial increase in the number of speakers will change the image of Esperanto.

Well said. This question is what underlies the debate in this thread, but I failed to identify it. From my perspective: changing the popular image of Esperanto (if there even is one) in Esperantujo's current state is impossible. It is pointless to worry about things out of one's control. So, it is better to just work on increasing the number of speakers on a local, gradual level, person by person.

That is a near-term goal within reach of individual Esperantists - welcome people already interested in the language, help them become proficient, and get in touch with others more likely to already be sympathetic with the ideas and goals of Esperanto.

I've just read this after googling "esperanto fail":

(An answer to the question "Why did Esperanto fail as the universal language?" in the section "Humor & Offbeat" )

Maybe because it was kind of dumb, and mistook denial of all heart, culture, and pride of ethnicity for universal love.

Opinions?

Tempodivalse:
That is a near-term goal within reach of individual Esperantists - welcome people already interested in the language, help them become proficient, and get in touch with others more likely to already be sympathetic with the ideas and goals of Esperanto.

The only ultimate purpose of such goal-setting is the fina venko, cxu ne? I think many people get too caught up in movement X and then become disillusioned for the illogical reason that they can't achieve the goals of movement X overnight (or even in their lifetime). I would say I am for eliminating sexism and racism from our society, but that doesn't mean I should become apathetic to the cause because it won't happen in my lifetime.

I would say that, even if you don't think so, you are a finvenkisto if you have any desire whatsoever to increase the number of Esperantists. My definition of realistic fina venko is that Esperanto is officially and widely used for its original purpose.

I would say that, even if you don't think so, you are a finvenkisto if you have any desire whatsoever to increase the number of Esperantists. My definition of realistic fina venko is that Esperanto is officially and widely used for its original purpose.

At the bottom of it, I suppose I value Esperanto an end in itself as well as a means to other ends. This means I could be content even if Esperanto never went anywhere at all. Would I be pleased if Esperanto becomes very widely used? Yes, very. Something resembling a finvenko would be thrilling. But I would also be pleased with other end-scenarios. They are not mutually exclusive in my mind.

I find Esperanto a highly expressive language that transcends the normal irrational hindrances on self-expression: irregularities, exceptions, arbitrary and pointless distinctions. (I never figured out why I'm on a plane but in a car, other than "That's just how you say it".) For me, it is an excellent exercise for the mind and unlocks a certain intuitive fluency that is not possible with any other non-native tongue. I enjoy its appearance and sound. I enjoy being able to talk to people from other cultures on an equal linguistic playing field, even if fellow speakers are scattered only relatively sparsely throughout the world.

So when I see people take up Esperanto, I don't know if so much pleased that Esperantujo is one step closer to a finvenko (though that certainly occurs to me), as I am pleased that more people will be able to appreciate and value this inherent beauty and simplicity in Esperanto. For me, there is value in both aspects.

I suppose I'm just an old romantic.

I never figured out why I'm on a plane, but in a car

from the Latin planum level surface.

Something resembling a finvenko would be thrilling. But I would also be pleased with other end-scenarios

Like Esperanto dying out?

sudanglo:Like Esperanto dying out?

Come now, that's a false dichotomy.

One can imagine Esperanto continuing to be used and appreciated (and hence, not dying out) without it ever getting to the position in the world currently occupied by English or Spanish or Chinese. The successes already achieved by Esperanto are quite significant - just compare EO to any other IAL, for instance, or look at the literature, original and translated, available in it - both prose and poetry. There is a wealth already. Esperanto hasn't died in 120 years, despite being suppressed and persecuted by multiple governments, and the Internet now has given it a new lease on life. EO is in a far better position than moribund or struggling "minority" ethnic languages like Cornish or Navajo.

Framing it as an all-or-nothing proposition is hardly fair.

One problem with some thinking is that it is based on an either-or model. Since there are more than two people involved in the life of Esperanto, there are just as many ways as there are speakers. Some people use Esperanto as a hobby. Others see it as a form of study. Others see it as an ersatz religion. Some see it as a cause. Still other see in it a personal identification (like me). For some of us, it is a community. There are more aspects - I am just one head thinking - and for many of us it is a combination of things from above and more.
I do not think that we should take a monolithic view of Esperanto, just as we do not of any other language. The first and most important thing is that Esperanto is here for us to enjoy in all of its senses and from there we can move forward on our individual paths, joining with others who think similarly. There is room for the raŭmistoj and room for the finvenkistoj but there is also room for creativity and the human soul.

Tempodivalse:

I would say that, even if you don't think so, you are a finvenkisto if you have any desire whatsoever to increase the number of Esperantists. My definition of realistic fina venko is that Esperanto is officially and widely used for its original purpose.

At the bottom of it, I suppose I value Esperanto an end in itself as well as a means to other ends. This means I could be content even if Esperanto never went anywhere at all. Would I be pleased if Esperanto becomes very widely used? Yes, very. Something resembling a finvenko would be thrilling. But I would also be pleased with other end-scenarios. They are not mutually exclusive in my mind.

I find Esperanto a highly expressive language that transcends the normal irrational hindrances on self-expression: irregularities, exceptions, arbitrary and pointless distinctions. (I never figured out why I'm on a plane but in a car, other than "That's just how you say it".) For me, it is an excellent exercise for the mind and unlocks a certain intuitive fluency that is not possible with any other non-native tongue. I enjoy its appearance and sound. I enjoy being able to talk to people from other cultures on an equal linguistic playing field, even if fellow speakers are scattered only relatively sparsely throughout the world.

So when I see people take up Esperanto, I don't know if so much pleased that Esperantujo is one step closer to a finvenko (though that certainly occurs to me), as I am pleased that more people will be able to appreciate and value this inherent beauty and simplicity in Esperanto. For me, there is value in both aspects.

I suppose I'm just an old romantic.

I would say that some level of this view is the norm for most Esperantists - neither finvenkistoj nor rauxmistoj, but somewhere in between. The definition of rauxmist is very strict in that you must not believe in Esperanto as a means to an end to any extent, but only as an end in and of itself. I suspect there are very few Esperantists who think this way, if any at all. (who first set out to learn Esperanto without at least feeling some of the hope of its true purpose?)