HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics of Plato and Parmenides
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 04:51:20 GMT

From article <1992Sep2.042209.17664@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, by hooplet@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (HOOPLE TOM):
>      I am posting this article in order to elicit comment from those who
> find the subject to be interesting.
> -Andrew R. Hoople


   What if Being were a matter of consciousness?  Consider Aristotle's
position:  The genus of things are epistemologically prior whereas
the species of things are ontologically prior.  Being, as such, seems
to arise out of a combination of matter(ontologically) and 
consciousness(epistemologically).  

   	THe primary problem that one 
encounters in terms of the "something from not" is this idea that 
things exist without Dasein.  The real question at hand,
as Heidegger claims, isn't whether or not something  comes from not
but whether something 'is' without Dasein in the first place.  Dasein,
by the way, can be thought of as the essense of consciousness.  For
Heidegger, the real problem of the "something from not" arises not
from the opposites, as Plato would have us believe, but the 
fundamental failure to investigate that which can "question its own 
being." Or, by extension, that which questions Being at all.  But
does "Being" really 'mean' anything without Dasein?  No! Hence,
epistemologically, nothing 'exists' without Dasein in the first place.
(This concurs with Aristotle).  The most critical, and unfortunately
the most difficult, question to ask is 'what about the ontological 
status of Being without Dasein?'  

       If we take epistemological etudes prior to ontological ones, 
then 'Being' doesn't exist without Dasein.  THe necessity of the
divine for Aristotle, and for you apparently, is in terms of the
ontological status of "Being" without Dasein.  

       Thus, the first question to ask is 'what is the ontological
status of the not and the thing?'  Until we reach an ontological
foundation for the 'not' and the 'something' we have no grounds 
for discussing the problem of 'existence' in terms of this particular
pair of opposites.  

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Summary: It cannot be said with certainty that decision to post had a cause.
Keywords: cause effect exist
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:46:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle


     In article <1992Sep4.121542.659@bernina.ethz.ch> stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg
Stettbacher) writes:

=Does anyone now about any event, thing or what ever, that happens,
=exists, or simply is, with no cause. 
=In other words: Do you know an exemple of an effect without cause?

     Is the cause of an effect always an effect itself?  If so, then take
your act of making this post.  It is an effect that most people would
assume has a cause.  It is farely easy to believe that the cause has some-
thing to do with events in your mind.

     However, if we look at those events in your mind as effects in their
own right, it is hardly obvious that they also have causes.

                                     ---Kevin Simonson
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Assasination
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:33:13 GMT

The current discussion on assassination is an application of the religious/
skeptical/nihilist view that life is a constant emergency. No living species 
could survive such a nightmare universe. Life, as understood objectively and
rationally, requires us to deal basically with work, love, friendship, poli-
tics, art, etc. in a normal, day-to-day manner.  "Lifeboat" ethics just
reinforces cynicism as ethics is mistakenly seen as no help for normal liv-
ing. See:"The Ethics of Emergencies" by Rand in her "Virtue of Selfishness."
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: MCD in former satellites
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:30:54 GMT
Organization: Obfuscation Eschewers, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Michael Zeleny) opines:

 As an aside, I submit that the future of MCD is forged as we speak in the
 Eastern Europe, by the disco democrats of FIDESZ and cognate political
 parties.  The old-line dissidents, representing the vestigial remnants of
 moral fiber, are swept aside by this new wave of briefcase-toting, sound
 bite mongers of the Thatcherite ilk.  When these latter are confronted with
 the population hitherto accustomed to 100% employment, free education and
 health care, and other meager benefits of the erstwhile Socialist tit,
 mighty sparks will fly.  Naturally, being on the giving or receiving end of
 justice will not be an issue in the coming confrontation.
 
To say that justice will not be an issue is a bit presumptuous
I think; it seems to me to view the emerging democracies in
black and white terms; also, it seems to ignore the work that
has already been done and is being done in Germany.

Dano
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,sci.logic,cs.logic
From: psgoh@pieman.compserv.utas.edu.au 
Subject: **VIABILITY OF MORAL EDUCATION**
Originator: psgoh@pieman
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston (formerly TSIT)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 23:25:37 GMT

Dear People out there...

As my subject states, how far does it go for us to educate our
future children/adolescents in morality?

How can we be sure what constitutes 'Moral Education' if we don't
know by which principles to follow? And if so, what values does such
person place should a decision be made about incalcating moral education
in schools?

Sometimes I wonder what we mean by moral education in our society that is
so changing and uncertain. In most democratice countries, adults are
allowed to voice their opinion and to take part in making government
policies and decisions that will affect their lives. Democratic society
allows its citizens a certain degree of freedom to control and make 
choices that they are conscious of, to decide what is right and wrong.
To make such moral decisions, they should have the ability to think 
rationally, intelligently etc...

SO - my question is HOW DO WE then proceed to educate our future
children in aspects of rationality..???? Hmm..??

S.C
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: peterb@cs.rug.nl (Peter J. de Bruin)
Subject: Re: a quote from "Alice"
Summary: Solution 2?
Organization: Dept. of Computing Science, University of Groningen
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:16:17 GMT


Yet it seems that I have a meaningful reading of the original phrase:

==================================================== 
] Never						   [
]     "Imagine yourself not to be otherwise than   [
]     what it might appear to others that what you [
]     were or might have been"                     [
] was not otherwise than                           [
]     "What you had been would have appeared       [
]     to them to be otherwise."                    [
====================================================

meaning roughly:

	"Be what you would seem to be"
is always different from
	"What you were is not what you would seem to be."


But I'm not sure whether `that what' is correct English here.

Greetings by Peter from      ,==.
                            /U  |
                           /__ < 
                          ="  `6    .


-- 
 Peter de Bruin             +------------------------------------------+
 University of Groningen    |  Awareness of our Universal Brotherhood  |
 The Netherlands            |  shall irresistably penetrate society.   |
 ( P.J.de.Bruin@cs.rug.nl ) +------------------------------------------+
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Assasination
Date: 23 Aug 92 13:40:09 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Aug21.114541.14978@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu
(Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <170pm0INNsbr@early-bird.think.com> 
>karlr@think.com (Karl Rotstan) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug19.181238.14909@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>>(stuff deleted)
>
>KR:
>>I think there are a few issues to be addressed.  First, what is the purpose
>>of assassinating the individual?  If it is to "obtain justice", then I
>>would be highly dubious of the action, for it allows the accused no chance
>>to defend himself in court.  Also, when we start talking of justice, we
>>need to be very careful of definitions.  Even within the universe of
>>parliamentary democracies there are many variegated interpretations of
>>justice, due process, and individual rights.
>
>To simplify this discussion, let us agree that the purpose is protection of
>innocent lives, and that justice, due process, or individual rights aren't
>forthcoming on the occasion.

that's no longer an issue of morality -- rather one of calculation.
if we are certain that our hypothetical target will be the cause of
multiple death, we would be left with an obvious scale of quantity --
>
>KR:
>>Also, there is a danger that the assassination will backfire, as happened
>>to the young Polish jew who assassinated the German Vice-Consul (I think
>>that was the rank) in Paris in 1938.  This led directly to Kristallnacht,
>>which, I suggest, is not exactly what the assassin wanted.
>
>Perhaps not, but was his action right or wrong, regardless of its
>consequences? furthermore, might it have been right if, instead of
>unwittingly killing an old school liberal democrat, he had killed Hitler
>himself?
>
irrespective of consequences?  surely you must mean _some_ consequences?
for instance, one consequence of assassinating X is that X is now dead.
another is that X will now not be able to kill Y and Z.
to say that this is the only significant consequence seems rather
artificial.  the boundary you propose here seems to lie along an
axis of certainty: we predict that multiple lives will be lost if
we do not kill X -- and you think that we might calculate our
justification based only on this initial prediction.  this would
force our concept of morality to depend on the notion of
'reasonable certainty' or somesuch: adding yet one more vagary
to the matter.

regards,
dave
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher)
Subject: Causality and exceptions
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:15:42 GMT


Hello world

Does anyone now about any event, thing or what ever, that happens,
exists, or simply is, with no cause. 
In other words: Do you know an exemple of an effect without cause?


Thanks for any ideas.
juerg at ethz switzerland
From: gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Aquinas' proof on the Existence of God
Summary: St.Thomas Aquinas's Proof on the Existence of God
Keywords: St.Thomas Aquinas
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:54:45 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway NJ

Can anyone help me out please?

I once took a philosophy class once, and my professor mentioned to me
that St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote a proof on the existence of God.
Can anyone tell me where I can find that proof, or better yet, can anyone
out there give me a succint summary of that proof?

Please respond to me directly,
Srihari Gopal
gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: wpborden@rodan.acs.syr.edu (William P Borden)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 00:47:53 EDT

In article <1992Aug30.010801.9157@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:
>
> 
>   The only entry that I
>considered an attempt at a definition said that freewill is `action without
>antecedent'.

Honestly, I don't know what this means.  I'd like a citation and a chance
to figure out what is meant here.

> 
>It can be said that we have choices but which ever choice is made is the one
>that has the determining factor as its antecedent.  No matter how slight is
>the factor which determines the choice, it is still the DETERMINING factor(s). 
>Thus the concept of freewill is a subjective illusion, it only appears to us
>that we have freewill. Someone who knows us very well can, within the limit of
>their knowledge, both of our past experiences and how these past experiences
>will influence us at this instant, predict our next action. 

It can easily happen that we would wish to choose exactly what has not
been predicted.  In that case, the prediction itself is the deciding
factor, or the prediction of the prediction, or the ...[%].  This recursive
situation is indeterminate in the Godelian sense, or unpredictable in the
Chaotic sense.  No observer can account for all the factors in making
a prediction when the prediction itself is a factor.

It appears to us that we have free will.  If it is not free will, then what
is it that is so subjectively like it?

						William P. Borden
						--------//-------
From: amos@prl.dec.com (Amos)
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Subject: Youri Gargarine
Date: 3 Sep 92 08:42:53 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory

I do not remember how to spell his name correctly, but a rumor says
that this guy has no luck :
he turned about 7 times around earth, and each time he has fallen in USSR..

Amos.
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
From: jewell@Data-IO.COM (Cal Jewell)
Subject: FW: Jake Roberts = Ozzy Osbourne ??
Organization: Data I/O Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:52:31 GMT

I ran across this in rec.sport.pro-wrestling. Come to think of it,
I've never seen Jake Roberts and Ozzy Osbourne in the same room at
the same time. Hmmmm.

In article <3453@ra.nrl.navy.mil> luther@i5160e.nrl.navy.mil (Luther) writes:
#
#So, has anyone ever seen Jake 'The Snake' Roberts and Ozzy Osbourne in
#the same room at the same time? The reason I ask is this: 
#
#Monday night, while watching a recast of this weekend's WCW Pro, I 
#saw two interviews with Jake during which he spouted lyrics from
#Ozzy's songs. In one interview, he began his statement with, "The light
#in the window is a crack in the sky" which is the opening line to
#Ozzy's song "No More Tears." In a later interview, directed at Sting,
#he said, "If he could see inside my head, he'd see that black and white
#is red." This is right out of Ozzy's "Flying High Again". 
#
#So I figure one of the following is true...
#
#   1. Jake and Ozzy are the same person.
#   2. Jake and Ozzy both have the same secret supply of lyric and verse.
#   3. Jake's a closet headbanger.
#   4. Jake's been hunting through heavy metal archives for suitably
#      obscure words to make himself sound wicked.

[...rest of original post deleted for brevity...]

#-----------------------------------------------------------
#" 'Eureka' is Greek for 'This bath is too hot'. "
#               Tom Baker / Doctor Who
#Ken Luther, Mathematician Extraordinaire
#NRL, Code 5162         | Washington, DC. 20375 | (202)767-3149
#1667 S. Hayes St, Unit A | Arlington, VA 22202 | (703)521-6973
#-----------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Cal...                      "Lawyers should never marry other lawyers.
                             This is called inbreeding, from which 
jewell@Data-IO.COM           comes idiot children and more lawyers."
From: naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Subject: Elvis found in crop circle
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:17:18 +0200
Keywords: elvis crop circle easter island stonehenge apartheid french toast fren
Organization: University of Cape Town

Did you hear about the crop circles in Baghdad that looked like Elvis. Similar
crop circles have appeared over Bermuda, as reported in a secret C.I.A.
document. A bright light was spotted at the same time over Stonehenge.

It has also been reported that if you rearange the Easter island statues they
form a chess set.
Xref: sparky talk.rumors:981 rec.music.country.western:3266
From: tim@crash.canon.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.rumors,rec.music.country.western
Subject: Re: Billy-Ray Cyrus
Date: 4 Sep 92 09:05:23 GMT
Organization: me myself and i

In talk.rumors, exusag@exu.ericsson.se (Serena Gilbert,cs,x0364) asks:
|Is it true about him being gay?

no. country and wester singers *have* to wear hats like that. it's
written into their contract.

Tx. [achey breaky f finger]
--
check my header - travelling hard at the speed of thought
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
From: jewell@Data-IO.COM (Cal Jewell)
Subject: FW: Dave Barry running for office?
Followup-To: talk.rumors
Organization: Data I/O Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:10:41 GMT

I found this on seattle.general and I thought it had enough rumor 
content to warrant posting here.

Remeber folks, I'm not making this up and I didn't write the following 
post.

In article <1992Aug25.232031.3188@tc.fluke.COM> dbc@tc.fluke.COM (Dan Carson) writes:
#
#The other night I was flipping back and forth between the Braves' game
#and Get Smart when I caught a glimpse of Dave Barry on some channel in
#between.  I flipped back to find him, only to discover it wasn't Dave
#Barry at all - it was Al Gore!  Anyone else see a resemblance?  Come to
#think of it, did you notice you never see Dave and Al together?
#
#Dan Carson
#
#Disclaimer:  I don't mean to imply that Dave Barry would be any more
#entertaining as a vice president than the current office holder.

Well, have you ever seen Dave Barry and Al Gore together?

-- 
Cal...                      "Lawyers should never marry other lawyers.
                             This is called inbreeding, from which 
jewell@Data-IO.COM           comes idiot children and more lawyers."
From: exusag@exu.ericsson.se (Serena Gilbert,cs,x0364)
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Subject: Billy-Ray Cyrus
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:29:06 GMT
Reply-To: exusag@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

Is it true about him being gay?
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Elvis found in crop circle
Keywords: elvis crop circle easter island stonehenge apartheid french toast fren
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:48:43 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Church of Ill-Repute

naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
# Did you hear about the crop circles in Baghdad that looked like Elvis. Similar
# crop circles have appeared over Bermuda, as reported in a secret C.I.A.
# document. A bright light was spotted at the same time over Stonehenge.
# 
# It has also been reported that if you rearange the Easter island statues they
# form a chess set.

They don't get much better than this.
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: FW: Dave Barry running for office?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:12:30 GMT

In <1992Aug26.151041.2604@data-io.com> jewell@Data-IO.COM (Cal Jewell) writes:

>I found this on seattle.general and I thought it had enough rumor 
>content to warrant posting here.

>Remeber folks, I'm not making this up and I didn't write the following 
>post.

>In article <1992Aug25.232031.3188@tc.fluke.COM> dbc@tc.fluke.COM (Dan Carson) writes:
>#
>#The other night I was flipping back and forth between the Braves' game
>#and Get Smart when I caught a glimpse of Dave Barry on some channel in
>#between.  I flipped back to find him, only to discover it wasn't Dave
>#Barry at all - it was Al Gore!  Anyone else see a resemblance?  Come to
>#think of it, did you notice you never see Dave and Al together?
>#
>#Dan Carson
>#
>#Disclaimer:  I don't mean to imply that Dave Barry would be any more
>#entertaining as a vice president than the current office holder.

>Well, have you ever seen Dave Barry and Al Gore together?

No. But then again, I've read stuff by both...and I don't think Gore
is nearly as funny as Dave Barry.

You should cross-post this to alt.fan.dave.barry (or is it dave-barry?
I can never remember. They'd get a kick out of it.

Michael

>-- 
>Cal...                      "Lawyers should never marry other lawyers.
>                             This is called inbreeding, from which 
>jewell@Data-IO.COM           comes idiot children and more lawyers."



























Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:11:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep01.231720.34638@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <Btx4G6.E2y@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep01.191402.16457@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
>>
>> >And it's not enforcing beliefs, any more than the killing of cattle
>> >being legal enforcing beliefs on those believe cattle to be holy.
>> >They are still free to believe any way they like; what they are not free
>> >to do is act on those beliefs in such a way as to violate the rights
>> >of other people.
>>
>> Interesting.  So human fetuses are roughly equivalent to cattle.
>
>Perhaps you should have someone explain the concept of an analogy to you.


Let's see, I guess old Noah Webster died a few years back, but
maybe his successors could explain the concept of "analogy" to 
this poor person lacking a proper education:

 1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some
 respects they will prob. agree in others

Your position seems to be:

   legal(kill(cattle))  does_not_imply  enforce(belief(unsanctity(cattle)))
   legal(kill(fetus))   does_not_imply  enforce(belief(unsanctity(fetus)))

Well, these agree in "legal," "kill," "does_not_imply," "enforce," 
"belief," "unsanctity," and they seem only to differ in "cattle" vs. "fetus."  
And my guess is that, being an observant person, you claim (implicitly?):

   legal(kill(cattle))
   legal(kill(fetus))


Thus, you seem to claim that both "cattle" and "fetus" lie within the domain
for X in the following statements:

1.   legal(kill(X))       does_not_imply  enforce(belief(unsanctity(X)))
2.   legal(kill(X))
3.   not(enforce(belief(unsanctity(X))))

in which case it is not unreasonable to infer that "cattle" and "fetus" 
probably agree in other respects.

This is not to say that they +necessarily+ agree, nor that you
+implied+ they agree.  But to +infer+ that they probably agree 
is precisely one of the primary effects (and purposes) of analogy.



>I could also say that it's not enforcing beliefs any more than the fact
>that blood transfusions are legal enforces beliefs on those whose
>religion prohibits them.  This is not saying that a fetus is roughly
>equivalent to a pint of blood.

Well, this "analogy" doesn't fit very well into the above "formula," 
since you didn't phrase it as "the killing of blood cells."  Hence 
the number of similar respects is smaller, and I wouldn't +infer+ 
from it that a fetus is roughly equivalent to a pint of blood.  
Check it out, if you like.

One might infer, certainly with less weight, that "kill(fetus)" compares 
to "transfer(blood)," but not that "fetus" compares to "blood."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged