Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Having to believe
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:32:44 +0000

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes..


>In article <memo.544674@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
 writes:

>|> results (capitalism?) is completely contrary to the assumption of the
>|> Islamic fundamentalist, - namely that what is important is to live,
>|> and if necessary to die, correctly and according to a spiritual code.

>Shades of Aristotle! The unexamined life is not worth living. All
>men, by nature, desire to know. Striving for the golden mean, ...
>These are hardly "non-Western" values or goals. (Also, of course,
>shades of Aquinas, Kant, et al.)

Well you may say that. You may even LIVE that way. Or you may even
understand that OTHERS might have been programmed that way.

But I don't hear anybody shouting it at George Bush, or Margaret
Thatcher (Margaret who? - well that's politics :-)) loud enough for
them to pay any mind.  My complaint is that the intellectuals have
abandoned the popular mind to the tender ministrations of the
capitalist ethic, the fundamentalist cult, and the science fiction
writer.

People like Hawkins don't help either  - they are just peddling
different dogmas :-)

I'll challenge you to last ten minutes with Aquinas in
soc.religion.??? :-)


>|>
>|> So Gary (If you are still with me, and whoever else is left :-)) my
>|> intention is not to preach 'I am right - I have THE correct
>|> interpretation of reality' - but more to say :-

>Yes, I did actually get this far. It is nice to see someone outside
>of academia devote so much time and effort at striving for a coherent
>and precisely articulated account of his world view (though I think
>this goes on much more often than most academics expect). Much of
>what you say of course echos a great deal of the history of
>philosophy. Reading it I recall bits and pieces of Aristotle,
>Aquinas, Kant, Hume, Quine, ... I point this out only as a
>justification for not having any "response" to your remarks in this
>venue -- though I think none is called for.

Hmm. It would have been great for someone to say 'no you are wrong
because of X' or 'you are right and I am changing the way I do things
becauise you have convinced me' However the final outcome seems to be
'you are entitled to choose your own philosophy' as long as it is
broadly within rational limits :-)

>I would suggest that you are mistaken in one fundamental view, and
>that is when you claim that your "forays into philosophy" have not
>answered your questions. To the contrary, it would appear that *your*
>foray into philosophy has been of great benefit to you in answering
>these questions, in even being able to phrase the questions, and in
>making your views reasonably clear to others. This is what philosophy
>(as distinct from merely reading the history of philosophy) is
>*supposed* to do for you. To some significant degree, it appears to
>have succeeded.

Huh? I had it all worked out a different way before that. I came to
THIS newsgroup hoping to get facts or new logic: Actually all I got
was a new vocabulary. And a dissapointing sense that philosophy is
now merely a check on scientific theory making and a little bit of
use to neural scientists. It does _not_ offer better views of life
and the human condition, just extremely _precise_ ones. This is of
value to theoretical physicists, but I think it is the New Ager and
the Politician who might benefit a little more :-)




Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta