HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jeff.C.Risher@dartmouth.edu (Jeff C. Risher)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: This whole abortion thing.
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:11:05 GMT
 <1992Sep29.170222.812@news.eng.convex.com>  
 <1OCT199209385238@rigel.tamu.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1OCT199209385238@rigel.tamu.edu>
pww9211@rigel.tamu.edu (WINFREY, PHILIP WAYNE) writes:

> The argument seems to rest on this assumption:  It's a bad idea
>     to outlaw something if a lot of people are going to break the
>     new law. 

It is when the activity that will occur anyway does MORE harm with the
law intact than not - which I believe was his point. Most laws that
have been repealed were ones that did just that.


> If you assume here that abortion is an evil, and should
>     be outlawed

Assuming that abortion is evil does not necessarily mean that one
thinks it should be outlawed. I think it is evil to FEEL hatred toward
someone because of their race, but I certainly wouldn't want it
outlawed. No one argues that satanic worship is evil (not even
satanists, really), but would you outlaw it. I think that your reply
rests on a false assumption.

>, arguing that people may as a result endanger their
>     lives by breaking the law is beyond the responsibility of the
>     conscientious lawmaker.
> 
>     The woman who seeks an illegal abortion would be a criminal and
>     responsible for any injury to her or her unborn child.
> 
>     Hopefully, such a scenario will not come to pass.

If you mean that hopefully no such law will come to pass, well said!!
 
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: shelly@cwis.unomaha.edu (Michele Ruth Smith)
Subject: Classical GREEK  sig
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:38:55 GMT


Does anyone   know    of a a   SIG dedicated   solely   to  GREEK  PHILOSOPHY??


I know there  is   one   dedicated to  DERRIDA!!



--
From: fxlof@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Liam O Forbes)
Subject: Re: re: GOOD and EVIL
Reply-To: fxlof@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:30:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.004530.21482@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  
simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:

>      If the moral of the story of the Garden of Eden is that because of
> what our "forefathers" did, this vindictive being is going to hold us  
"to
> paying for the forest," then what exactly is the difference between that
> being and the one that provided the temptation to eat the apple?
> 
>                                      ---Kevin

I think I missed my own point.  

=In article <1992Oct13.145310.1581@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  
=simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
=>  Actually Christianity probably pro-
=> vides a lot of interesting material for a discussion about who God  
might
=> be and what She/He might be like, but you can't seriously include  
=original sin (as presented above) as part of that material.

I am backing up right now Kevin so bear with me.
	Why can't original sin be included as part of the material for a  
dicussion about who God might be and what She/He might be like.  As I  
fumblingly said before, it is the actions of a person {godly being} that  
do a great deal of defining who or what that person {godly being} is.  If  
I wander around randomly punching people, you may/would begin to think  
that I am not that great of a person.  If God is going to hold us  
responsible for the sin(s) of our "forefathers"  (I guess it is kind of a  
strange word Kevin, isn't it) than that action would help to form an  
opinion of who or what God is.
There, I think that was a better go at my argument, don't you Kevin?
-Liam
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: fxlof@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Liam O Forbes)
Subject: Re: re: GOOD and EVIL
Reply-To: fxlof@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:26:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.145310.1581@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  
simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
>  Actually Christianity probably pro-
> vides a lot of interesting material for a discussion about who God might
> be and what She/He might be like, but you can't seriously include  
original sin (as presented above) as part of that material.
> 
>                                      ---Kevin

Why not.  In the Catholic faith, original sin is part of every person's  
birth.  Up until they are baptised they have original sin to account for.   
Admitedly there are contradictions and I am probably presented a skewed  
interpretation (thank you's to Sister Joyce :-)), but if you want to know  
what someone, even God, is like, won't their actions reveal much more than  
anything else.  (Of course the assumption is made that the bible would be  
the actions of God in some part.  And the first three letters of  
assumption is....)  So if we accept that one of God's actions is to hold  
us to original sin immediately upon birth, don't you start to draw  
conclusions about who or what kind of {person, being, personality} God is.   
Kind of vindictive wouldn't you say.  
	"Your forefathers ate my apple, so I am holding you to paying for  
the forest that I had to burn down because I don't like people eating my  
apples!"
	I am probably stating this badly, but what the hey.  I disagreed  
so I spoke up.  Life goes on.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:52:35 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <Bvr9D7.AFG@news.udel.edu> absolut@ravel.udel.edu (Jamie D. Campbell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24@news.ysu.edu> ag138@yfn.ysu.edu (Richard Gott) writes:
>>Is God omnipotent?
>>Is God omnibenevolent?
>>Is God omniscient?
...
>	  First of all, I don't believe that there exists a "God."  Having
>said that, let's assume that the opposite is true.  This "God" created
>the world and all life within and therefore has the power to destroy it
>(via flood, storm, etc...)  I would call this omnipotence.

You can call it what you like. However, a being who can do all this might
just be extremely powerful and not omnipotent; it is possible to imagine
there is one even more powerful (i.e., one who can beat him at
pinkie-wrestling). Logically, the concept of omnipotence requires that
there can only be _one_ omnipotent entity. (The proof is left as an
exercise for the reader.) 

>	  Omniscience would require that "God" can read minds and predict
>the future.  I do not see how this is possible even though He/She/It
>did create the human mind and can alter the future.  I think this rules
>out omniscience.

Because _you_ don't see how it's done, this proves that it can't be done? A
little weak, that. 

>	  Omnibenevolence?  I imagine that would depend on one's personal
>feelings towards "God."  I think religion comes into play there.

I'm not sure what's meant by "omnibenevolence". Certainly the God of
Abraham isn't benevolent towards Adam after the fall. I don't see why
"omnibenevolence" is a requirement for God. Usually, one says that God is
"good". Being "good" does not rule out punishing evildoers. 

The best definition of the God of Abraham that I've ever seen is Anselm's:
"God is a being than which none greater can be conceived". (Note that the
definition does _not_ ride on what you or I or anyone else _can_ imagine;
it is a logical sense of "conceiving" that Anselm invokes.)

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: bcanning@reed.edu (Benjamin Canning esq.)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom Died
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:01:19 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Oct10.200711.329@news.wesleyan.edu> RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
% In <1992Oct10.081205.16227@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu writes:
%                                               ^^^^^^
%                                              ******
% 
% >In article <1992Oct10.022506.5128@midway.uchicago.edu>
% >coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
% > 
% >>For those of you who do not know, Allan Bloom died yesterday.      
% >>His death is a terrible loss to this university, the University
% >>of Chicago, and to the field of political philosophy as a whole.
% > 
% >It escapes me altogether just in what sense Bloom's death can be said
% >to affect the field of political philosophy, as distinguished from
% >polemical journalism.  No Leo Strauss, he.
% 
% Have you no decency, you ubiquitous moron?  You don't write a critical
% rejoinder in response to someone's obituary, no matter who they are, and no
% matter who you are.
% 
% ------------------------
% Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
% Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA

Hear, hear. 
-- 
Benjamin Canning 		|  
Philosophy/Religion Student     |  The mills of God grind slowly,
Reed College     		|  but they grind exceedingly small.
Portland, Oregon		|
Organization: Junior, Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:12:57 -0400 
From: "Anthony J. Defigio" <ad1y+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
	<009618BD.0CFEA920@Msu.oscs.montana.edu>



In article <1992Oct2.111644.13419@odin.diku.dk>, lunatic@diku.dk (Philip Hoelga
ard) writes:

>I would like to hear the nature of your thoughts and emotions in
connection to 
>the subject of the very PROCESS of dying. How do you expect you will
feel when 
>eventually in the process (apart from bad..) and have you got any idea
of what 
>goes through the mind of those who are dying?  

     You're in the process of dying right now, Phil.  You tell me: how 
does it feel?

*******************************
Anthony deFigio
Carnegie Mellon University
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Question About Abortion Debate
Summary: This is "Philosophical"
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:09:13 GMT
Distribution: dfw
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.


Just when I thought I had attained a clear position on the abortion
question, I read a nice article by someone defending this or that
point, and again I have to wonder how best to classify the position
I have actually settled on.

LEGAL VEIW:
How would you describe the position of some who holds that our laws 
should countenance a women's right to have an abortion but that since there 
may be acts of unjustified abortion, it should be left up to the states 
to settle specific allegations and to prosecute cases as they arise.  In 
other words, there should be no constitutional ammendment, nor any Federal 
law regarding abortions whatsoever.

MORAL VIEW:
What would be a case of an unjustified abortion?  I'm not sure I can answer 
this in a general way.  But a case might be made against a women who 
decided to have an abortion in the third trimester just to avoid having to 
postpone a trip to Europe, for example.  Because this sort of thing is 
entirely possible, and I personally would find it monstrous,  I think 
the idea of abortion on demand as a blanket constitutional right protected 
by law would not be a morally defensible position. 

Well, am I pro-life, pro-choice, what?  Perhaps I'm just confused. Most 
likely, I not in the right newsgroup!  Yeah, yeah. 
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: mcpeabo@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: re
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:15:38 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

God is.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Summary:  Why omni{pot,sci,benevol}ence
Keywords: god omnipotence omniscience omnibenevolencce
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 15:39:25 GMT

     In article <exukjb.294.718496243@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se
(ken bell) writes:

=It would be interesting to consider, whether or not you believe in "God"--
=where that is a religious word--whether there can, in logic, be a being
=omnipotent, omniscience, and wholly good.  I believe there cannot be. 
=If there is a god at all, such a being must be limited in one or the other 
=of these attributes, and perhaps in all three.

     Ken might be right, though I don't think I would ever assert some-
thing so strong.

     My question is, what is the motivation for thinking of God as OOO
(omni{pot,sci,benevol}ent})?

     I assume that the word God with a big 'G' came from the word god (with
a little 'g').  The idea of god(s) were beings who had some degree of power
and immortality, but no omniscience or omnibenevolence to speak of.  Does
anybody have any idea what the reasons were for society to add OOO to the
word when it capitalized it?

     Actually, of the three I like omnibenevolence best, but I'm not really
sure the concept of God _needs_ the other two.

                                     ---Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: GOOD and EVIL
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:53:02 GMT

In article <1b9lo8INNjbv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:
>
>The doctor was about to perform a life-threatening delicate operation. 
>The members of the patient's family gather around the doctor.  One of 
>them said, "With God's help the operation will be a success".  The 
>doctor said, "Don't say that.  If the patient lives, you'll thank God.
>If the patient dies, you'll blame me."  HE WHO TAKES CREDIT FOR THE
>GOOD, MUST TAKE BLAME FOR THE BAD!!  Even God cannot escape this 
>responsibility. 

  As if our pleas to God's help really affect God's taking responsibility.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: re:GOOD and EVIL
Date: 11 Oct 1992 16:45:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


The doctor was about to perform a life-threatening delicate operation. 
The members of the patient's family gather around the doctor.  One of 
them said, "With God's help the operation will be a success".  The 
doctor said, "Don't say that.  If the patient lives, you'll thank God.
If the patient dies, you'll blame me."  HE WHO TAKES CREDIT FOR THE
GOOD, MUST TAKE BLAME FOR THE BAD!!  Even God cannot escape this 
responsibility. 
-- 
Intelligent life on Mars? 
I didn't think there was intelligent life on Earth!
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: absolut@ravel.udel.edu (Jamie D. Campbell)
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:24:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep24@news.ysu.edu> ag138@yfn.ysu.edu (Richard Gott) writes:
>Is God omnipotent?
>Is God omnibenevolent?
>Is God omniscient?
>[stuff deleted]
>
>Any input?

	  First of all, I don't believe that there exists a "God."  Having
said that, let's assume that the opposite is true.  This "God" created
the world and all life within and therefore has the power to destroy it
(via flood, storm, etc...)  I would call this omnipotence.
	  Omniscience would require that "God" can read minds and predict
the future.  I do not see how this is possible even though He/She/It
did create the human mind and can alter the future.  I think this rules
out omniscience.
	  Omnibenevolence?  I imagine that would depend on one's personal
feelings towards "God."  I think religion comes into play there.
	  This reflection is on a non-religious plane, so I'm sure that
anyone instilling personal beliefs into this discussion would 
disagree with me.
      Finally, I apologize for the incoherence.  I awoke far too early
this morning.  I am not accusotomed to this side of noon.

Jamie Campbell
absolut@brahms.udel.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: yasmin@midas.demon.co.uk (Yasmin Prabhudas)
ReplyTo: yasmin@midas.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.16 $
Organization: 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:54:16 +0000

I think "death" always gets a bad press. I'm very curious about what
it would be like to be dead, rather than afraid. You don't have to believe in
any sort of afterlife to feel like this - it's just a matter of looking at
the unknown with a different attitude. Death, whatever it is, whether there
is an after life or none, is an exciting concept precisely because it is the
unknown.

Also, the term "death" as the opposition to "life" is part and parcel of
traditional polarities, such as "black"/"white", "bad"/"good",
"nature"/"culture", "woman"/"man". These polarities are obsolete these days;
these categories are no longer valid. The dissolution of these polarities would
mean the death of "death" as an opposition to life and the birth of "death" as
an alternative to life. All the negativity associated with the term
disappear.

Yasmin
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: louray@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Panayiotakis)
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:05:39 GMT

When I'm dead, no worries should trouble me.  In fact, nothing should trouble me.  When you die, everything goes.  the Doors put it best:

"No ore money, no more fancy dress, this other kingdom seems by far the best 
until it's other jaw reveals incest and loose obedience to a vegetable law.
I will not go:  prefer a fist of friends to the giant Family."

or something of that sort.



"...He's not the one you have to wind up on Sundays."  (Jethro Tull)
From: CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CXAD)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: re:GOOD and EVIL
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:24:12 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1b9lo8INNjbv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:
>
>The doctor was about to perform a life-threatening delicate operation.
>The members of the patient's family gather around the doctor.  One of
>them said, "With God's help the operation will be a success".  The
>doctor said, "Don't say that.  If the patient lives, you'll thank God.
>If the patient dies, you'll blame me."  HE WHO TAKES CREDIT FOR THE
>GOOD, MUST TAKE BLAME FOR THE BAD!!  Even God cannot escape this
>responsibility.
>--
I assume this is an argument that God is "personally" responsible
for the evil in the world, and thus can't be all Good.

I would put forward, however, that God is responsible for giving
humans the choice to choose between Good and Evil, but is not
to be identified with the choices we make.  Ford Motor Co. may
make the car, but that doesn't make them liable for every car
accident (but give the US legal system a few years ...)

Tony D
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: fxpcd@ix.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Peter Dolan)
Subject: Re: re: GOOD and EVIL
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:01:30 GMT

In article <1b9lo8INNjbv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu  
(Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:
> 
> The doctor was about to perform a life-threatening delicate operation. 
> The members of the patient's family gather around the doctor.  One of 
> them said, "With God's help the operation will be a success".  The 
> doctor said, "Don't say that.  If the patient lives, you'll thank God.
> If the patient dies, you'll blame me."  HE WHO TAKES CREDIT FOR THE
> GOOD, MUST TAKE BLAME FOR THE BAD!!  Even God cannot escape this 
> responsibility. 
> -- 
Okay, near as I can tell, you are assuming that God is responsible for  
every action that occurs.  If this is true, then I suppose God is, by  
definition responsible for all good and bad, but if you are holding that  
what God does is good, then every action that occurs, must be good,  
regardless of whether we in our limited capacities perceive it as such.   
Of course, I'm not quite sure what that has to say about sin, and hell.   
If we're running our discussion out of the axioms from a certain type of  
Christianity, then we are responsible for our actions, even some over  
which we have no control (or at least, this is how I extend the  
interpretation of the concept of original sin).  These two statements seem  
to contradict themselves (at least to me):  God is responsible for every  
action... I am responsible for all of my actions.  Does this mean I am  
God?  Or is responsibility shared?  If responsibility is shared, then I  
suspect one person could take the responsibility for an aspect of an act,  
and another person could take responsiblity for a different aspect of that  
act.  So... I suppose God could be responsible for the good in an act, and  
yet, still be not responsible for the evil.
Organization: TECHNION - Israel Institute of Technology.
Date: Friday, 16 Oct 1992 11:30:45 IST
From: Uri Zakai <RPR1ZAK@TECHNION.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: masters degree

hello

im thinking of coming to study my masters degree in the us.
can anyone recommend a university with a good philosophy dept. ?
i would appreciate it if you will be able to specify the field
for which that dept. is best known for .

thanks
uri zakai