From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Of apples and their skins
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:40:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.035416.2518@cheshire.oxy.edu> rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:
>
>	I feel a little tickled at defending Russell, but Steve here
>is terribly misrepresenting not only philosophy but even Russell, who
>you'd think Steve would pause to learn something about before mocking
>his philosophical project.  Russell's philosophical intent *was* the
>certainty Steve's looking for; it was a scrupulous attempt to found
>mathematics in logic and so to be able to make rationally intelligible 
>claims about the world.  Steve, if you know anything about Russell
>at all, you should know that he worked extensively to champion very
>"every day life"-type concerns: he protested stupid wars, spoke out
>against oppression, etc.  And he pursued philosophy's abilities to
>rationally guide such "helping people" to the best of his ability.
>I don't see you doing jack, just bitching on an electronic newsgroup.

Russell bitched (sic.) a lot about all kinds of things, but he never
used anything from is own profession to help his arguments: he did not say
"stop the war, because mathematics is rooted in logic".  When it came to
real world issues, his profession was left at the office.  THIS is my point.
Russell might have come out againt certain things, but he really hadn't
much more to offer than your average op-ed writer (to be sure, he was quite a
clever writer--don't get me wrong about that).

Look, in a nutshell, I have a very Greek way of looking at Philosophy, if you
need to FLAME me for this, go ahead:

>	A word from the wiser (than Steve, at any rate): don't make
>claims more hollow than your skull about a subject you're wholly
>ignorant about to pretend to a higher moral ground.
>

Not being at all Polite, Michael then goes on to say:

>	I politely suggest that Steve pay a visit to that true child
>of the Enlightenment, Pol Pot, who will be happy to supply all the
>kinds of answers Steve is looking for.
>
Oh boy, a reading assignment!  I'll be sure to read up as fast as I can...

>
>	As opposed to the virile missionary position in which Steve and
>his ilk would happily provide all the right answers and final solutions.
>
I'm terribly sorry: silly me trying to offer solutions (or at least advocating
the practice thereof).  What should I care if people are dying and I might
be sent to a far away land to fight the War On Drugs--there are no answers
to anything, right?  We can't be sure of anything, so why argue with the
Men in Power?

Seriously, call me naive, but I think that trying to solve problems though
intelligent inquiry is better than nothing at all.  Just because doctors
can't make people immortal doesn't mean they should immediately stop AIDS
research.  I'd happilly provide answers and "final solutions" (if you're going
to call me a NAZI, by the way, just come right out and call me a NAZI,
coward!).  I'm not omnipotent, but at least I try, and I can't help but
think that trying is better than not trying...

_____
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com



Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:2100 sci.logic:1689