HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: "revisiting"+false dichotomies ( Re: Rock n' Refe
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:18:31 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.

In article <kuhekbINNdbc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:

ES:
> In essence you state the equivalent of the following, I believe:
>
> 1) (paraphrase of an MZ proposition)
> A finite physical system embodying "denotational links" can embody such
> links only by virtue of "external causal factors".
>
> 1-b (paraphrase of MZ interpretation of 1)
> Proposition 1) is not consistent with the notion that a finite physical system
> can have UNTO ITSELF complete referential competence.
>
> 2) (paraphrase of the dual MZ proposition )
>    If , in a finite physical system, connotative references
>    ( viz. meaning-laden links) exist, then,
>    there is a contradiction "because"
> 2b:   logically, meaning must depend on transfinite realms.

You completely misunderstand the argument.  Try reading it again, using a
dictionary next time.  Good luck.


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Sets in mathematics
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:12:22 GMT

In article <s7s97INNmmc@agate.berkeley.edu> epfaith@twinkies.berkeley.edu (Edward Paul Faith) writes:
>
>  In article <1992Apr11.165604.13414@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu 
>(Neil Rickert) replies to a comment:
>
>>  My personal view is that mathematics does have intrinsic meaning, value
>>and purpose.
>
>  I have trouble understanding what "intrinsic meaning" means for you
>in this context.  "Meaning" alone I can understand. Mathematical
>results have real consequences for mathematicians.

  This example is not original with me, and may in fact be quite old.

  Pick an integer, preferably a very large one.

  Square it.

  You now have a number which is a square.  If you chose a large enough
number, the fact that it was a square was probably not known before.

  Most mathematicians would dismiss this "discovery of a square" as having
no real mathematical significance.  If you treat mathematics as a mere
manipulation of meaningless symbols, it is hard to understand why they
would react this way.  The result is surely as important as many
published results, and its proof is no more trivial than the proof
of many published theorems.  However it is easy to understand why
this is dismissed if we assume mathematicians do associate intrinsic
meaning to their mathematics.

>  I see now the error of stressing the symbols of
>mathematics. Mathematics is generally explained to fellow
>mathematicians using ordinary language, and it's generally
>done by imagining that there are real things somewhere with
>real properties, and by referring in a normal linguistic way
>to mathematics itself, or so I gather. Ultimately it is
>always formalizable.

  It is probably more correct to say that there is a presumption
that the mathematics is always formalizable.  Until it has all
been formalized, there cannot be more than a presumption.

  The use of informal linguistic descriptions rather than formal
representations may not of itself be all that significant.  These
linguistic descriptions amount to a degree of symbolism.  But,
quite apart from that, most mathematicians have in their minds
some type of mental model which guides them in their thought.
There is no guarantee that two different mathematicians have the
same model, even though they may describe the associated mathematics
in the same words.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940
From: owens@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens)
Subject: Re: "revisiting"+false dichotomies ( Re: Rock n' Refe
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:14:29 GMT

In <1992Apr13.011832.11030@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:


>You completely misunderstand the argument.  Try reading it again, using a
>dictionary next time.  Good luck.

Try writing it again, using a little decency toward someone who
enthusiastically and respectfully seeks to discuss your ideas with
you.  If some genuinely interested person misunderstands your
argument, try meeting him halfway with an explanation of the sticky
parts.

Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:2103 comp.ai.philosophy:4275
From: silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Ahah, Plato from behind (Re: "revisiting"+false dichotomies ... )
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:06:00 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: orfeo

In article <1992Apr13.011832.11030@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>You completely misunderstand the argument.  Try reading it again, using a
>dictionary next time.  Good luck.
>
 Dismissive != discursive

 I think MZ adopts Plato's habit of taking things always from behind
 instead of head on.  

 Personally, I don't think I misunderstand his "argument", and he 
 fails to demonstrate otherwise, so as , I think Victor Hugo, once 
 said in minimalist rejoinder: " ! "
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:01:11 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
> Golly, but with all this focus on the mystical mutterings of  
> Ludwig W., and pronouncements of his such as  
>   
> > Philosophical investigations: conceptual investigations. The essential    
> > thing about metaphysics: it obliterates the distinction between factual   
> > and conceptual investigations"      L.Wittgenstein.    
>     
> I wonder if anyone might be interested in looking back at Carnap's  
> "The Elimination of Metaphysics" which predates Ludwig the Obscure.  
> (Or maybe even try Hume?  Nah!)  For those not of faint heart,  
> "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology" is even better.  Of course you  
> need to be aware that these types of papers are not presented in  
> the Sesame Street cum shopping-list style that Wittgenstein adopted  
> post-Tractatus.  
  
For your info, before I was aware of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, I had   
already been thru most of the works of Russell and Carnap. Actually  
I have discovered L.W. via "Meaning and Necessity" by Carnap where  
Carnap quoted a remark from Tractatus and inflated his book around  
it.   
  
I have to admit that it was real good investment to go through   
Fermat, Peano, Hertz, Frege, Cantor, Kronecker, Richenbach, Sclick,   
Russell, Carnap and Goedel to get oriented to philosophical problems  
that we have inherited in language. Without all that prelude one can  
easily think that what L.W. says is mere "mystical muttering".  
I am not claiming that they are not mystical mutterings, but within  
this rich context of philosophical problems those remarks are like   
sign posts to help us to approximate our whereabouts. They also  
show us the difference between poetry and philosophy.  
Like the following remark sketches us the connection between   
philosophy and politics.  
  
"Philosophy is embodied not in propositions but in a language.        
What has to be overcome is not a difficulty of the understanding,    
but of the will."                                 L.Wittgenstein.    
           ^^^^  
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:568 alt.mythology:1081
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:37:18 GMT
    <1992Apr10.012034.6574@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
    <92100.211821BKF@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <7k5td5@rpi.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 907

In article <7k5td5@rpi.edu>, mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes:
|> I am struck by the extent to which this discussion resembles a myth.
|> 
|> Has western philosophy become merely history of philosophy?  Wittgenstein
|> and Hume might as well be mythic, IMHO.  And which concept needs defense
|> from the other in this debate?
|> 
|> Why no Foucault references?  Too confusing?

You mean the guy with the pendulum or the neo-Marxist blatherer.?
The first seems a bit far afield for whatever this discussion is,
the second is rather too confused than too confusing.

(I'd be distressed to think that Rensselaer has been taken over
by Foucault freaks -- either the one type or the other.

-- Gary Merrill, RPI '69)
 
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,alt.mythology
From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Subject: Re: On Philosophy and Mythology, Beyond LogicalPositivism
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  6 APR 92 12:06:56    


In article <1992Apr6.004800.5640@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com 
(drieux, just drieux) writes...

>then the LogicalPositivists in our Midst would feel less angst
>laden about the full orbed person, and would be able to deal with
>Myth as a REAL part of 'Doing Science' - and not just the sort of
>ArtsyFartsy thing.

A head count of 'logical positivists' might be interesting.

I'm not sure what he point of this impassioned polemic was,
but the implication that any modern science is based on
A. Comte's philosophy shows a need for further study in more
recent science.   Watson and Skinner's theories have not held 
much sway for a number of years.

						todd
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and myth
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:22:48 GMT

In article <75742.39@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de>,
 75742@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de (MARC WACHOWITZ INFORMATIK) writes...
>In article <hr9t2fm@rpi.edu> mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes about
>Tao, the Way that cannot be walked [another translation of the first line].
>>        This appears as darkness.
>>        Darkness within darkness.
>>        The gate to all mystery.
> 
>> There may be philosophy in the moment;
>> Only myths exist through time.
> 
>Existance through time is a myth,
>eternity is in the moment.
>The great Tao has no gate,
>water being - flowing waves.

Ah, the inestimable Lao Tsu. Consider these two near contemporaries:

The scholarly Confucius, the moral philosopher, spends years
composing aphorisms to circumscribe moral behaviour.

The sage Lao Tsu, on his way out through the Great Wall, abandoning
civilization for a life of contemplation in the Gobi, after entreaties
by the gatekeeper, agrees to delay long enough to leave behind some
written wisdom, and bangs out the transcendent Tao Te Ching in an
afternoon.> 

===========================================================================
A cynic's world is comprised                          Pete Vincent
of fools and other cynics

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu (Stephen P Spackman)
Subject: Re: Shurism
Organization: University of Chicago CILS
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 07:47:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.210417.13844@polari.com> haji@polari.com writes:
|	Allright, thanks for the responses.  Now I know where you are at.
|Shurism is more than the theory of happiness, it is metaphysics itself. 
|You see, a relation can be a subject.  That subject can be of a relation
|which is another subject.  And so on.  For example, families are in neig-
|hborhoods, neighborhoods are in cities, cities are in counties, counties
|are in states, etc.  The same goes for sports, business, engineering,
|whatever.  This is how our mind organizes reality, relations being subjects.
|I'm taking that phenomenon and building on it.  This is a perfectly "legal"
|thing to do for I'm adding subjects to the subject of subjects and relations.
|The first subject I'm adding is happiness/unhappiness.  Happiness is the 
|combination of subject and unhappiness is the separation of subjects.

Yup, Category Theory with the nodes relabelled. Considered by some the
most vacuous branch of mathematics, and by others the thing we have
been looking for all these centuries. That's the one...!

|	As for Mr. Spackman, you say:
|> You must never marry someone your own age, with your own hair color, who
|> was born on the same continent as you, has never met you  or is of your
|> species.  
|Well, a woman that has the same hair color as I do is not necessarily 
|related to me.  I know lots of American women that have brown hair and blue
|eyes (as I do) that are not related to me.  Please, Mr. Spackman get a grip.

In that case you are suddenly using "related" in the biological sense
and NOT in the abstract sense of the existence of some relationship -
and so it transpires that the entire application to the ordering of
family life turns on a pun. Can it REALLY be that wherever you have
used the word "relation" you meant "relation by blood"? Do you
honestly hold counties to be related to states IN THE SAME MANNER that
people are related to their families, and in different manner than I
happen to belong to the set of, what, anglicans or dark-haired
persons?

Or perhaps the crucial point is that you do not FANCY marrying a man,
but are rather taken with brown haired, blue eyed women in general,
and so you just KNOW that one is right and the other is wrong....

I'm honestly not clear on which of us lacks a grip....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stephen p spackman         Center for Information and Language Studies
stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu                    University of Chicago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Free Will and Satan
    <1992Apr16.152826.8979@osf.org>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:25:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 2407

In article <1992Apr16.152826.8979@osf.org>, fjc@osf.org (Frank Casper) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr15.201512.7843@news.nd.edu>, Brennan.J.Murphy.53@nd.edu writes:
|> |> In a Philosophy of Religion class I am taking the question arose whether 
|> |> the devil could become good again.  My professor thinks that the answer is
|> |> "no"  because the devil's will has become so flawed to the point where
|> |> it cannot change its course.  My question is what things have to occur for
|> |> a person to lose their free will?   Is it possible to use your free will
|> |> to altrer the nature of all future uses of your free will.  Is the reverse
|> |> true, could I use my free will in such a way as to ensure that all future
|> |> uses of my will will only be towards the good.
|> |> What philosophers have taken on this project?  Are there any working on it 
|> |> now?  Rather, maybe theologians are working on this one.
|> |> Any help will be beneficial to my soul:-)
|> |> Brennan
|> 
|> This is not meant to be a flame, but I'm dumbfounded that this kind of talk
|> goes on in a philosophy department in an American university. Even theologians
|> don't talk that way. I'd have serious reservations about the caliber of
|> education being offered by a school in which such a discussion is engaged
|> in seriously. 
|> 
|> Sorry
|> fjc
|> -- 
|> 
|> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|>   Philosophy is the self-correction by consciousness of its own initial 
|> excess of subjectivity....
|>   Kant made the world totally dependent upon the categories of thought, 
|> completely oblivious to the scarce supply of thinking...
|> 						A.N. Whitehead
|> 
|> "We are the most powerful planet on Earth." -- Vice-President Dan Quayle

I am dumbfounded by your dumbfoundedness.  Seriously, I'm really curious
about what you think is odd here.  Just so we all go into this with our
true colors flying, keep in mind that I am a long-time atheist who
taught philsosophy for 10 years at both the graduate and undergradute
level in a Jesuit university.  I have always been fascinated by philosophy
of religion -- though of course no one ever let me teach much of it.  So
what's your beef?

-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:30:16 GMT
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 609

In article <3671.1019221337@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:

|> "Philosophy is embodied not in propositions but in a language.        
|> What has to be overcome is not a difficulty of the understanding,    
|> but of the will."                                 L.Wittgenstein.    
|>            ^^^^  

This is offered as a *good* example of Wittgenstein?  Please!
Even I could do better.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: haji@polari.com
Subject: Shurism
Summary: Emotions
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:35:15 GMT

Mr. Spackman,
     You say, "Do you honestly hold counties to be related to states IN
THE SAME MANNER that people are related to their families, and in a 
different manner that I happen to belong to the set of, what, angilcans
or dark-haired persons?"
     You miss my point.  Isaac Newton said something to the effect that,
all of communication occurs from the reality around us and our emotions.
I am proposing a theory of emotions.  It is a theory that counties-states
and people-families have in common.  It categorizes things like pride,
embarrassment, jealousy, sadness, etc. and shows how they are all related.
The only way to do that is by having subjects and relation as the basis.
We need to perfect this theory in order to have a common understanding
about the emotional half of the action of communication.  This is what 
metaphysics is all about.  I propose to you a question, " Is dignity to
jealousy as modesty is to pity?"  Can you not answer this without a theory
or don't you think this is important.
                                                      -- John Huber
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:57:45 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <3671.1019221337@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki
>   
> |> "Philosophy is embodied not in propositions but in a language.          
> |> What has to be overcome is not a difficulty of the understanding,      
> |> but of the will."                                 L.Wittgenstein.      
> |>            ^^^^    
>   
> This is offered as a *good* example of Wittgenstein?  Please!  
> Even I could do better.  
> --   
  
I have offered this remark about "will" as one of *the best* example of  
Wittgenstein, it is because it shows a connection between Philosophy and  
Politics which I haven't seen that clearly before in any literature.  
Now here to make the scene more clear, I will quote the following from  
Ibn Rushd:  
  
"We say: This science, known as practical science, differs  
essencially from the theoretical sciences. Now this is clear  
inasmuch as its subject differs from the subject of each and every  
one of the theoretical sciences and its priciples differ from their  
principles. This is because the subject of this science is  
volitional things, the doings of which is within our power, and the  
principle of these things is WILL and choice;"  
  
Averroes on Plato's Republic  
trans. Ralph Lerner, Cornel University Press 1975.,p.3.  
(Capital letters in WILL are mine.)  
  
If you can't see the importance of the above quotations, then perhaps  
you should revise your language reading heaps of literature where the  
word "will" is employed. I don't say that you can't do it better,  
but WILL you?  
  
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Myth
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:00:34 GMT
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 <10215@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.180218.3388@news.eng.convex.com> Peter Cash writes:
>>Since the only true and proper role of philosophy is the clarification of
>>questions (to the point where these questions disappear), philosophy
>>has--of course--nothing at all to do with myth.

>Can you cite an example of philosophy where a question was clarified to the
>point where it dissappeared? Aren't PhD's still argueing over whether 1 + 1 =2?

The fact that people are debating over a question doesn't mean that it's a
good question, a clear question, or one that hasn't been either resolved or
"dissolved". Philosophy isn't a science.

>Philosophy and Mythology both try to answer the difficult questions, the
>questions that we may never know the answers to.

As a lifelong lover of mythical stories and folk tales, I find this notion
that myth exists to "answer questions" to be one of the most overblown
pieces of pseudo-intellectual humbug ever perpetrated. The world would be a
much better place if Bill Moyers had been a sports commentator, and Joseph
Campbell had found honest employment as an advertising writer.

> Go read the Mahabhrata and
>tell me it's not philosophical. And BTW, which came first, night or day? 8^)

Go read it yourself, and this time take it to be what it is. 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:553 alt.mythology:1063