HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: Pompous Ignorance (Re: The Writings of Socrates)
Keywords: pompous ignorance,enilges
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:11:40 GMT

>
>	It is getting really hard to keep up with Mr. Nilges's postings
>these days. In the interests of eliminating any confusion as to Ed's
>professional instincts, I'm crossposting this to those subscribers on
>talk.politics.misc and talk.politics.theory who haven't set up their 
>kill files yet.

o sweet jesus please don't 

please tell me you didn't

o christ why did you do this to me  

all i want is to read about books 


bless me father
From: mehrl4986@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: REGISTERPhilosophical influences on psychology
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:58:10 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Philosophical relationships to psychology are emphasized in my class "History
and Systems of Psychology".  Do you know of any current philosopical movements
or theories that should be considered important in psychology?

I am not a philosopher in training, but, I would like opinions and viewpoints
on mind and consciousness, and any books(introductory) on cognition.
                                        Thank you,
                                        Mary "Inquisitive" Mehrl

Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:1515 sci.philosophy.meta:1395
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Free will
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:04:52 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 <l7btbtINNjk1@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM| tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
|In article 3821@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP, tmkst6+@pitt.edu (Theodore M Kostek) writes:
||In article <1992Jul21.200956.13790@news.eng.convex.com| cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
||As I think about it, free will wasn't really exactly what I was asking.  
||A better (maybe :| )way to ask my question would be as follows: is 
||there something special about 'me' such that what I do is does not 
||necsessarily follow from a purely scientific, physical description of me
||and my surroundings.

This was not written by me.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Subject: Re: Free will
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:06:20
	<1992Jul19.014518.13885@pellns.alleg.edu>
	<1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com>

In article <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

   In article <1992Jul19.014518.13885@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina) writes:

   >  I also don't see the conflict between physics and free will. Physics  
   >does not deal with any living or self-ordering system which is the only  
   >thing that can have a free will.

   Yes, I share your puzzlement. I simply don't understand how people can
   discuss "free will" in this thread without ever telling anyone what it is,
   and I have no idea whatever what physics has to do with this "free will".

Is this an in-joke about definition (or word-games, or
deconstruction)?  Well if it isn't, I have the same problem with
"share" and "puzzlement", to say nothing of "understand" and "tell"
and "idea" and "do".  And what the hell is this "physics" stuff?  (If
Peter Cash merely feels that more terminological clarity is needed, he
should attempt to provide it, rather than just Socratically---and
rather pompously---complaining.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:22:55 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 <1992Jul27.054647.26559@StarConn.com> agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray) writes:
...
>Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
>on Judeo-Christian mythology?

Aristotle (NICOMACHEAN ETHICS). Plato (REPUBLIC). John Stuart Mill.
Immanuel Kant. John Rawls. ...

By the way, is an action good because God says it is, or does God say it's
good because it _is_ good? 



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Free will
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 07:54:22 GMT

From article <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com>, by cash@convex.com (Peter Cash):
> In article <1992Jul19.014518.13885@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina) writes:
> 
>>  I also don't see the conflict between physics and free will. Physics  
>>does not deal with any living or self-ordering system which is the only  
>>thing that can have a free will.
> 
> Yes, I share your puzzlement. I simply don't understand how people can
> discuss "free will" in this thread without ever telling anyone what it is,
> and I have no idea whatever what physics has to do with this "free will".

  I made a reply to Frisina's comment above, but I am not sure if it
made it out there.  In sum, the connection between physics and 
life-ordering systems is made quite strongly in several fields of
biology.  One will note that even the beginning biology text includes
a discussion of physics.

  However, in terms of the "conflict" I had already stated in my
original posting something to the effect that one shouldn't reconcile
physics and free-will simply because they weren't meant to be.

  Apropos Cash's demand for a definition, we find a strong relevence
here.  To establish what is meant by freewill, we first must reconstruct
Being, establish Dasein's position within Being(ie, as in the care 
structure of Heidegger), and realize the necessity to choose as a result
of Dasein's throwness.  These ideas can become clear if one takes
the time to actually read _Being and Time_ and not assume that it is
nonsensical.  In terms of ontic descriptions of free will, we find
that "choosing" is the only thing that exists.  However, I am trying
to claim, along with Heidegger, that the original conflict between
physics(I say "original" not the one I am discussing) and free will
is a result of relying on purely ontical facts.  This is a requirement
of physics, but not necessarily so of free will.  The ontic origination
of the sciences creates any perceived conflict in the first place as
we fall into an Interpretation of free will in the present-at-hand
mode of Being.  From this point onward, when I refer to free will
I refer to the notion of 'choosing from throwness' which permeates
Heideggers initial text.  Beyond that, I can't give much of a defintion
as it only takes Heidegger 300 pages to develop one.

BCnya,
  Charles 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
 
Sorry guys, no quote from C. G. Jung for now...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Free will
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:09:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
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 <LEE.92Jul21150620@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
...
>   Yes, I share your puzzlement. I simply don't understand how people can
>   discuss "free will" in this thread without ever telling anyone what it is,
>   and I have no idea whatever what physics has to do with this "free will".

>Is this an in-joke about definition (or word-games, or
>deconstruction)?  Well if it isn't, I have the same problem with
>"share" and "puzzlement", to say nothing of "understand" and "tell"
>and "idea" and "do".  And what the hell is this "physics" stuff?  (If
>Peter Cash merely feels that more terminological clarity is needed, he
>should attempt to provide it, rather than just Socratically---and
>rather pompously---complaining.)

Well if the question is so simple, then why don't you answer it? What _is_
"free will"? I've already admitted that _I_ don't know what you're talking
about--could it be you don't either?




-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Hand)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:28:14 GMT

Andrew J. Gray writes:
  > The Spinoza text I was reading is an abridged version, from an
  > anthology, but it is entitled "Ethics", and the first chapeter is called
  > "Of God".  Following the first chapter, he lays down a foundation for
  > ethics that is built on what he says in the chapter "Of God".  So,
  > perhaps something is missing from my text, but it looks like Spinoza is
  > using God as a basis for Ethics.

Suppose that Spinoza used the term "George Bush" instead of "God" 
in Book I of the ETHICS (which would be called "Of George Bush" 
I guess), but said all the same things, merely using the different 
name.  Would you conclude that Spinoza uses our president as a basis 
for ethics?

B-o} Michael
_______________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hand                     phone (409)845-5660, fax (409)845-0458
Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ, College Station TX 77843-4237 U.S.A.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:54:14 GMT
Subject: Re: intro to phil
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc

In talk.philosophy.misc, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:

> 	Religion or faith is standard accepted by most, even skeptics.   

Even Rand.

> Dogmatists claim divine omniscience or ignorance are only alternatives.

Rand claims blind faith in totally free markets and the goodness
of capitalistic spirit.

> claim:within certain context, judgements are absolute. Not divine, out-
> of-context absolutes, but contextual absolutes. Not skepticism nor dog
> matism but objectivism: choice to be logical about real.  

Denies that fact that perception can be decieved.

> 	Most philosophy splits existence, then constructs bizarrely elaborate
> symbol-system to connect poles of contradiction. Many intellectually trap
> buted in pseudo-rational attempt to overcome contradictions. But existence 
> is identity, not contradiction. Real philosophy is elaborate, difficult
> but much, much less than mainstream of contemp. phil. 

In fact, existence is not self evident, but it can be assumed
to be so.

> 	Kant-I have limited knowledge therefore, to make room for faith.
> 	Rand-Something exists of which I am conscious. i must discover its
> identity.
> 	make your choice

But as you read Rand, especially Atlas Shrugged, pay close attention
to Ayn's distortion of the reality of human spirits.  Pay close
attention to the straw man she constructs and admire its strawness
as she proceeds to destroy it.

doug

From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:42:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The philosophical basis for Affirmative Action (was Re: ...at the Y
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
From: tmkst6+@pitt.edu (Theodore M Kostek)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Free will
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:31:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul21.200956.13790@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>In article <LEE.92Jul21150620@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>...
>>   Yes, I share your puzzlement. I simply don't understand how people can
>>   discuss "free will" in this thread without ever telling anyone what it is,
>>   and I have no idea whatever what physics has to do with this "free will".
>
>Well if the question is so simple, then why don't you answer it? What _is_
>"free will"? I've already admitted that _I_ don't know what you're talking
>about--could it be you don't either?
>

Well, since I was the one who started this whole free will thing, I guess
I should try shed some light on what I meant by it.  

As I think about it, free will wasn't really exactly what I was asking.  
A better (maybe :| )way to ask my question would be as follows: is 
there something special about 'me' such that what I do is does not 
necsessarily follow from a purely scientific, physical description of me
and my surroundings.

What I mean is, when I make a decision (blue or green shirt today) is 
there something special thing (spirit, soul, holoistic interpretation
of a physical human being) that makes the choice, or is it a set of 
(non-linear, chaotic) equations.  Of course there are lots of ideas
here that could use further clarification, but I hope that some
sort of common sense notions can suffice. (I kinda doubt it, though.)

More succinctly, am I more than the sum of my physics/chemistry/biology.
In the course of trying to sort this out with a friend of mine, he said
"No, you don't have 'free will', physics dictates/describes everything, but
that's no way to live a life."  

Several people have said that I should look into chaos theory, but 
I think that by reworking the question I have made this irrelvant.
Several other people pointed out that at the microscopic scale many
events are only probablistic.  I'm not entirely sure how I think this
affects things, but I tend to think it doesn't matter since over the 
large samples I would think that it would average out.

Feel free to let me know if I have made some glaring error; but of
course, as shown by previous experience, you don't have a problem with
that.


			TEd
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: tel1568@tamsun.tamu.edu (Thomas Edward Landrum)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:09:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.054647.26559@StarConn.com> agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray) writes:
>
>Can anyone provide pointers to a discussion of ethics that is NOT based
>on Judeo-Christian mythology?
>
>Andrew Gray
>agray@starconn.com

When I took a philosophy course in ethical theory, one of the books we used
was called 'Human Rights' by Alan Gewirth.  In it, he constructs an ethical
theory based on (of all things) reason.  He also has another book which I
think is called 'Reason and Morality'.  I'm not sure about the title, I never
read it, but remember it was mentioned in 'Human Rights'.


-- 
****  Tom Landrum
****  tel1568@tamsun.tamu.edu
****
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Ethics -- a quest
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Jul29.150408.5032@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:32:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.150408.5032@beaver.cs.washington.edu> simonson@cs.
washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:

  >Andrew, did Spinoza make any mention in "Ethics" of his reasons for
  >bringing up God in a treatment of the subject?

  It's not a matter of "bringing up God" in a treatment of the subject of
ethics. God was fundamental to Spinoza's argument, and to learn what he
meant by ethics you must turn to his writings. All simple descriptions
of Spinoza's philosophy - e.g. that his God was a personification of the
forces of nature - are grossly misleading.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina)
Subject: Re: Free will
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:55:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.075422.27506@a.cs.okstate.edu>  
onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
> From article <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com>, by  
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash):
> > In article <1992Jul19.014518.13885@pellns.alleg.edu>  
frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina) writes:
> > 
> >>  I also don't see the conflict between physics and free will. Physics  
> >>does not deal with any living or self-ordering system which is the  
only  
> >>thing that can have a free will.
> > 
> > Yes, I share your puzzlement. I simply don't understand how people can
> > discuss "free will" in this thread without ever telling anyone what it  
is,
> > and I have no idea whatever what physics has to do with this "free  
will".
> 
>   I made a reply to Frisina's comment above, but I am not sure if it
> made it out there.  In sum, the connection between physics and 
> life-ordering systems is made quite strongly in several fields of
> biology.  One will note that even the beginning biology text includes
> a discussion of physics.

   I still disagree that there is a conflict. The kind of demterminism you  
need to destroy free will doesn't exist at all on the microscopic level or  
in a macroscopic living system. Use whatever laws of physics or biology  
you wish; you will havbe no idea what I will do next. You could apply  
psychology, sociology, or any other socxial science but they arfe far from  
deterministic. 
    The physics in a biology text offers no determinism either. It  
predicts nothing about the organism's action. Physics is still at peace  
with free will.
---
Vince
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: hjjcl@usho77.hou281.chevron.com (J.J.Clyde)
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Flipper Eaters
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:07:44 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <UeP8yOS00WBLQ6N4VE@andrew.cmu.edu> lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) writes:
>Very well! I'm clearly at sea, here. But how do we know now that the
>dolphins in the tuna nets are the hairy kind? Maybe yuppies like all
>dolphins. 
. . . I think yuppies just DISLIKE tuna.

>What kind says things like "PHA LAHV PA!"?
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^
The same that says "PHA (Ranger) LAHV (Rick) PAHVA (is being kidnapped)
PHAD (by psycho communist marine scientists!)."


-- 
*************************************************************************
GEAUX TIGERS!!!!!!!!      | "You may have a city slicker haircut,
GEAUX SAINTS!!!!!!!!      |  but your heart is shaped like a bowl."
James Clyde     LSU '91   |                   -- Frisco Darlin
From: bijal@garnet.berkeley.edu (Bijal C. Modi.)
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Saddam Hussein
Date: 21 Jul 1992 20:12:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul21.183459.23824@ee.gatech.edu> wung@puttgen.ee.gatech.edu writes:
>A collegue just came in to say that Hussein has been assasinated by a body guard, any truth to this rumor?
>
>Pete Wung
>wung@ee.gatech.edu


 Neither of BBC World Service and Radio Moscow reported this in their 2000GMT
(1.00PST) news broadcasts.


-Bijal.

-- 
-Bijal.
 bijal@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
From: mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: Re: Saddam Hussein 2
Summary: grep '^p....$' /usr/dict/words | fmt
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:55:46 GMT

In article <5560004@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> selee@hpcc01.corp.hp.com writes:
>
>Yeah, I think they have also severed his p---- !

paddy padre paean pagan paint palsy pampa panda panel panic pansy panty papal
papaw paper pappy parch parry parse party pasha passe paste pasty patch pater
patio patty pause peace peach peaky pearl pecan pedal peepy penal pence penis
penna penny peony peppy perch peril perky peste petal petit petri petty pewee
phage phase phlox phone phony photo phyla piano picky piece piety piggy pilot
pinch pinto pious pique pitch pithy pivot pixel pizza place plaid plain plane
plank plant plasm plate playa plaza plead pleat pluck plumb plume plump plunk
plush poach pocus podge podia poesy point poise polar polio polis polka pooch
poppy porch posey posit posse pouch pound power prank preen press prexy price
prick pride prima prime primp print prior prism privy prize probe prone prong
proof prose proud prove prowl proxy prune psalm psych puffy pulse punch punky
pupal pupil puppy purge purse pussy putty pygmy

marshall
-- 
------- (c) 1992, Marshall Gene Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
------------- 40 Linden Ln., Princeton, NJ 08540, 609-921-0962 ------------
- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psychology Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-6739 (w) -
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
From: CCENS03@USLVM.USL.EDU
Subject: Re: Olympic Rumors
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:46:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.143421.558@news.acns.nwu.edu>
mmass@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Michael Massing) writes:
 
>
>Much ado has been made about the powerful Chinese swimmers in the Olympics.  I
>believe they are on Steroids -- anyone agree?
>
No -- Their compact body types make them naturally physically superior in this
area.
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
From: bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson)
Subject: Re: QUAYLE STEPS DOWN
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:39:55 GMT

In article <84323@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <Brvopt.HnF@me.utoronto.ca> steinman@me.utoronto.ca (David Steinman) writes:
>>
>>You heard it here first :-)  Dan Quayle will take himself out of the
>>running before Sept 30th.  While he and Georgie-boy have steadfastly denied
>>a "dump Danny" campaign, Quayle is just too much of a liability.
>>Especially if he has to debate Al Gore.
>
>Well, he could always pull out a pithy line like the one he used
>at the United Negro College Fund.
>
>-- 
>===============================================================================
>Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
>"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being very
>wasteful.  How true that is."--J. Danforth Quayle to United Negro College Fund 

I think he did. On Larry King's show he said he would respect his daughter's
actions if she were to become pregnant. (Marilyn: No he wouldn't). If the
conservative wing thinks that Dan has become pro-choice they will scream
for his dismissal.

--
 ___________________________________________________________________________ 
|wats@nyx.cs.du.edu |   "To the extent that it doesn't use mathematics;     |
|   Bruce Watson    |               it is not a science."                   |