HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi ()
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: The Clam of Reason Ltd.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:57:07 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep1.230233.3132@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.092733.15142@abo.fi> CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi () writes:
> 
> >I think the point is that when we talk of emotions, we aren't merely 
> >talking of how we feel. (I don't think it is wrong to say that emotions are 
> >feelings - I just don't see what we add to our understanding of 'emotion' 
> >by saying it.)
> 
> I'm more than a little mystified by this. I'm not just confused about what
> you're saying to clear things up; I'm confused about what is being cleared
> up. When we talk about emotions, are we talking about feelings? Why or why
> not? I don't know how to think about this. Am I supposed to be able to
> think about it?
> 
> Could you possibly provide some examples to help me find the way? 

Ah, no... I must have been thinking with my brain again... I wonder what it 
was I tried to say? 

Well, one thing: someone introduced the expression "emotions are feelings", 
and that seems to me to be a very UNhelpful thing to say. But then I 
thought that what was really meant by the expression was "love, hate, etc. 
are feelings", so I restated the position I was leaning towards, namely 
that when we talk of love, we are not merely talking of how we feel. But 
that's not quite right either, is it? I seem to have thought of feelings as 
some kind of a state of mind, or as some certain inner sensations, or 
whatever. (I do have a little problem with the words 'feeling', 
'experience', 'sensation', 'emotion'. My ear doesn't always tell me which 
is the correct one, and my dictionaries are only entertaining.) Someone 
might ask, "What are your feelings towards NN?", and we might answer, "I 
hate his guts!" or (admittedly less probable), "I love her". And there is 
absolutely nothing wrong in speaking of feelings and love/hate in the same 
breath.
 
Thanks, Peter!

(Oh, and I still haven't got that other reply sent off - it's on a machine 
I can't reach from here (home). Sorry.)

 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>              |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
> Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Chris Burman, cburman@abo.fi
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:36:00 +0000

"The important thing is to choose a path with heart"

"And how would a man know if he has chosen a path with heart Don
Juan?"

"Don't be silly: Any fool knows that. The problem is that no one
stops to ask the question"

(from memory of something Castanedaish)

Love is what you think it is. It is the maximisation of your
personal value judgement. It's feeling good. If you can't tell the
difference between feeling good and bad then the question and answer
are both unnecessary and meaningless for you.
From: gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Aquinas' Proof on the Existence of God
Summary: Help on Aquinas' Proof on the Existence of God
Keywords: Aquinas, Proof
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:58:27 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway NJ


I once took a metaphysics class, and my professor mentioned that St. Thomas
Aquinas wrote a proof on the existence of God, much like how Socrates prooved
the immortality of the soul.

Does anyone know where I can find this proof, or better yet, can anyone out
there give me a succint summary of the major points of that proof. Your
help will be immensely appreciated.

Respond to me directly please.
Srihari Gopal
gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu
From: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:39:22 GMT
Reply-To: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems  (Billerica, MA)

>I still don't like that 'deciding what to feel' business... Are you sure
>that 'Am I in love?' is like 'Do I believe that p?' I think we need a
>context for the question. (The more I think about this, the odder the
.>question seems. Who asks it? When? What sort of answers might satisfy him? 
>A simple 'yes' or 'no'?)

Hello all.  Used to be posting from osf.org but changed and just recently 
got tapped into news....

Perhaps deciding what we feel in the case of love is not so much a
choice about what we want to feel but more an inquiry about what
is actually already being "felt". That is, has anyone ever had the 
experience of "discovering" they were in love. A friend once said to
me that he kept asking himself why it was he kept thinking about
a certain person all the time. He seemed genuinely confused about it.
Confused, that is, until it occured to him that he was "in love".  If
a decision had been made about how he was going to feel about this
person occured, it apparently occured at a level "below consciousness"
somewhere. He was in love, but he did'net seem to "know" it,  but
that "knowledge" was the answer to a persistent and bothersome
question. Why does this person always seem to be on my mind?

fjc
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 27 Aug 1992 17:46:25 GMT
Organization: Fools for Love, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(ken bell) writes:

 I think it is very dangerous to equate love with feelings, of however a 
 a noble kind. For feelings are evanescent, while love (I'm in one of those 
 moods) is usually thought to be something stable and a stablizing influence 
 on humankind.

That's interesting. If Love isn't a feeling which informs 
one's existence, actions and response, what is it? How
could Love not be a feeling?

Dano
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:06:36 GMT
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.

Love is an emotion proceeding from the evaluation of an existent as a positivevalue and as a source of pleasure, acc/to Ayn Rand.

The above is positive. Below is negative.

"All you need is love." [Beatles]
"We love they." [Rolling Stones]
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: meta-physical speakers???
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:38:21 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug28.191004.8918@uc.msc.edu>, wes@uf.msc.edu (Wes Barris) writes:
|> 
|> Posted for a friend...
|> 
|> Hi,
|> 
|> I am a member of a small study group in Minneapolis, MN.  This study group
|> is a part of an organization called the "Association for Research and
|> Enlightenment".  We are interested in finding a speaker to address up to
|> 100 people on any of the following topics: meta-physical, new age, or holistic
|> healing.
|> 
|> I am interested in hearing any recommendations from anyone.  Any additional
|> information such as contacts, costs, etc. would be most helpful.
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> 
|> Lori
|> -- 
|> ===============================================================================
|> Wes Barris                                                   PH: (612) 626-8090
|> Minnesota Supercomputer Center                               Email: wes@msc.edu

I recommend that you contact Douglas Stalker (I believe he is still at the
University of Delaware, Dept. of Philosophy).  He gives (or at least used to)
a marvelous presentation.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Heidegger, Hitler, Racism and logic.
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:28:47 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Aug24.103950.16097@sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1193@kepler1.rentec.com> andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
> writes:
>
>   >I believe there were two very strong pure mathematicians who were convinced
>   >Nazis, (Teichmuller and Bieberbach) and this is the best I can think of.
>
>  Gentzen! Think of Gerhard Gentzen.

I didn't know that he was a serious Nazi. But is he as important as T. and B.?
All I know that he did was use transfinite induction to get consistency of
arithmetic and nobody seems to rely on this result that I can tell. Is he
actually much heavier duty than I know?

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:23:30 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug27.173922.23216@mips2.ma30.bull.com> fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper) writes:
>From: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
>Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
>Date: 27 Aug 92 17:39:22 GMT

>>I still don't like that 'deciding what to feel' business... Are you sure
>>that 'Am I in love?' is like 'Do I believe that p?' I think we need a
>>context for the question. (The more I think about this, the odder the
>.>question seems. Who asks it? When? What sort of answers might satisfy him? 
>>A simple 'yes' or 'no'?)

>Hello all.  Used to be posting from osf.org but changed and just recently 
>got tapped into news....

>Perhaps deciding what we feel in the case of love is not so much a
>choice about what we want to feel but more an inquiry about what
>is actually already being "felt". That is, has anyone ever had the 
>experience of "discovering" they were in love. A friend once said to
>me that he kept asking himself why it was he kept thinking about
>a certain person all the time. He seemed genuinely confused about it.
>Confused, that is, until it occured to him that he was "in love".  If
>a decision had been made about how he was going to feel about this
>person occured, it apparently occured at a level "below consciousness"
>somewhere. He was in love, but he did'net seem to "know" it,  but
>that "knowledge" was the answer to a persistent and bothersome
>question. Why does this person always seem to be on my mind?

>fjc

Ah, but this assumes a much closer tie between love and emotion than I am 
prepared to admit.  I see your point, and you offer a nice counter-example.
I don't know how I will eventually respond to it.  To the extent that "being 
in love" involves sensations and feelings, I admit your point.  I guess the 
deeper disagreement here is over whether or to what extent love involves 
feeling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, Aug.4
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:07:36 GMT

From article <1992Aug12.204436.8690@cis.umassd.edu>, by pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU:
> 
> Metaphysics or existence just exists. It exists. Existence exists. And 
> existence is:all of the things it is, including points, talk, beer, logic, 
> metaphors, a priori, whole, bits, god, math, good, mental structures, etc.
> All those things exist, they all exist equally (no meta. privilege), and they
> are what they are (existence is identity). 

  "Metaphysics or existence just exists."  iff you accept metaphyics
as a branch of knowledge pertaining to existence.  Otherwise you 
are equivocating the word "Metaphysics."  Furthermore, what you are
refering to is not necessarily metaphysics but seems to look a lot more
like phenomenology(provided your apparent equivocation is not a real one.)
Please distinguish the two if you feel that I am in error.

> If you like existence  
> as known by linguistic analysis, deconstructionism, etc, that is fine, but
> don't think that you have some out-of-context absolute, neutral criticism 
> of Objectivism. It's in a context (meta., a limit), its in some context. 
> Identify your context and remain within its limit.

  Please identify the limitations of Objectivism and why you would
feel that it offers a priority of truth.  The priority is assumed by your
need to assert that the rest of us must remain within our limits.
Otherwise, it sounds to me like you are really purporting a philosophy
of Realitivism under the guise of Objectivism.


> 	Library closing. Tomorrow exists. Stephen Grossman
                         ^^Not 'till I see it.

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: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:45:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.124028.1383@bernina.ethz.ch>, stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher) writes:
>Hello world
>
>Does anyone know about a thing, an event or anything else that 
>exists, happens or simply is with no cause.
>In other words: Can you tell me about an effect without cause?

    You have transcended the limit of effect (which includes cause) in asking
for for an effect without cause. Car tires exist within the limit of cars.
Effects exist within the limit of cause. Try defining effect without even in-
direct reference to cause. It cannot be done unless you have also transcended
objectivity, reason, and logic, a popular course in contemporary philosophy. In
that limit, you can claim anything. Children without parents (including scien-
tific creation of life) are an example.
    Causality does not involve Humean events but Aristotelian substances and
actions. Cause-relation between a thing and its actions, unless, of course, you
accept miracles or Saul Kripke's secular substitute, "possible worlds" or The
Beatle's "Yellow Submarine."
    Cause-not a relation among prior and later events. A tree acts like a tree,
not a rock. 
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: CBURMAN@finabo.abo.fi ()
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: The Clam of Reason Ltd.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:27:33 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <6294@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu writes:

> Chris Burman writes, in response to Ericsson:
>         Hampshire's point is, I take it (long time since I last read
>         him too), to get rid of the idea that things like love, respect,
>         hate, contempt, etc. are 'merely' feelings (some kind of inner
>         sensations, or whatever), and that seems to me an important
>         thing to do.
> 
> If it is wrong to say that emotions are feelings, then what does Stuart
> Hampshire suggest instead?  (I haven't read his stuff, unfortunately.)
> Does he say it is a conscious choice?

I think the point is that when we talk of emotions, we aren't merely 
talking of how we feel. (I don't think it is wrong to say that emotions are 
feelings - I just don't see what we add to our understanding of 'emotion' 
by saying it.)



Chris Burman, cburman@abo.fi
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, Aug.4
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:33:14 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep2.161911.2974@cis.umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, Aug.4
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 12:19:11 EDT

^^^^^^^^

Dare I flatter myself by supposing that this is in response to my
previous posting concerning Mr. Grossman's grammar?  I must concede
that he has indeed submitted a grammatically flawless posting on
this occasion.  He should be encouraged to persevere.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Reply-To: fjc@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Frank Casper)
Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems  (Billerica, MA)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:15:18 GMT

Peter Cash writes:
>I'm more than a little mystified by this. I'm not just confused about what
>you're saying to clear things up; I'm confused about what is being cleared
>up. When we talk about emotions, are we talking about feelings? Why or why
>not? I don't know how to think about this. Am I supposed to be able to
>think about it?

As a follow up to my last post on this subject I'd like to venture the observation
that these are curious questions given the debate in this group about the 
epistemological status of "objective reality". I don't mean to impune ideas
and opinions to Peter. I don't know what his views are on these issues. But
on the whole it seems that the majority view is at best agnostic about knowledge
of the "external world".  Correlate that with one dominate tendency of this
particular thread, that love,  like everything else, is wholly "subjective", but
not something we seem to know much about, than one could get the idea that
we know next to nothing about either our "subjective" or "objective" 
experience. That is why Peter's question as to whether we are supposed
to be able to think about this stuck me so. I mean,  as I read this thread and
the debate about the "external world", I'm struck that as a culture, if I 
can be that broad, we don't seem to allow that we know how to think about
either our outer or inner "worlds".  If true,  and there is reason to think
so, that kind of disconnect sounds like a fairly serious moral crisis. That,
it seems to me, is why we should be able to think about this.  It concerns
the very simple but profound issue of what it is we share.  I don't mind
starting with what seems to be the dominate model for thinking about
the world, ie, the model of quantum physics .  I don't pretend to understand
the science of it, but it apparently  leaves many wondering whether we can 
think about anything resembling mutuality.  But I take Whitehead to
be the guide here,  that philosophy is explanatory of abstraction, and not
of concreteness. In other words, it is the business of philosophy to explain 
how the more abstract things emerge from the more concrete things. 

fjc


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Obj, Exist
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Aug27.201349.1671@cis.umassd.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:28:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.201349.1671@cis.umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
 (Stephen Grossman) writes:

  > What opinions and where are they???

  Why are you having such trouble understanding the article in
question? It put forth the empty opinion, a most profound comment on
your utterances regarding the existence of existence.
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: What Is Love?
Date: 30 Aug 92 11:56:34 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <30AUG199203184218@reg.triumf.ca> 
vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes

>I hold that love is a name for the ground of being
>=====================================================================
>Only love is real; everything                          Pete Vincent
>else is illusion.  
>                    -Carole King


	Doubt thou the stars are fire;
	Doubt that the sun doth move;
	Doubt truth to be a liar;
	But never doubt I love
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary evolutionary
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:21:53 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <6442@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski) writes:
|> 
|> The topic of evolutionary epistemology is just dripping with the juice
|> of interesting ideas, but since I haven't read anything about it before
|> this thread, I have a request and a question: could the knowledgeable 
|> parties post some specific examples of how scientific disciplines have 
|> evolved?  (Or is the topic purely theoretical at this era?)  Also, does 
|> evolutionary epistemology concern how an idea changes, or how thinking 
|> changes, or both?

I can refer you to the bibliography in a previous posting of mine.
Stephen Toulmin's _Human_Understanding_, Vol 1 is what comes to mind
right off.  Examples are given in there.  There is more recent work
by David Hull (and others) for which I cannot very easily get
references.  This may be confined to the journals.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
From: tel1568@tamsun.tamu.edu (Tom Landrum)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Evolutionary Epistemology?
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:43:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: tamsun.1992Sep2.174306.22166
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

I've been following these threads and still haven't figured out what exactly
y'all are talking about.  Would someone (besides Grossman) post a brief
definition/description of evolutionary epistemology?

Thanks,
Tom

-- 
****  Tom Landrum
****  tel1568@tamsun.tamu.edu
****
****  The perversity of the universe tends toward a maximum. - Niven
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology?
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:59:38 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep2.174306.22166@tamsun.tamu.edu>, tel1568@tamsun.tamu.edu (Tom Landrum) writes:
|> I've been following these threads and still haven't figured out what exactly
|> y'all are talking about.  Would someone (besides Grossman) post a brief
|> definition/description of evolutionary epistemology?
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> Tom

Okay, real quickly, with perhaps more detail to come:  Evolutionary
epistemology is (to my recollection) a view (or theory, or whatever)
concerning how concepts (and similar things, such as theories,
conceptual schemes, etc.) change and (one hopes) progress.  It
is not so much a *kind* of epistemology as it is an attempt to
account for the changes in our (usually scientific) theories
and the "progress of science".  If you suspend a highly critical
attitude for a moment and just go with the flow you can see how
it might be attractive to think of a concept (or conceptual
scheme) as "evolving" over time, as being subject to "selection
pressures" (among them, for example, empirical considerations,
but also political considerations, funding, etc.).  The "fit"
concepts and theories (in whatever environment they find themselves
in) survive and "reproduce" (or spawn "offspring" in some sense).
Others are dead ends in the history of science.

Even though I don't care for this approach, I must point out that
the above paragraph does not do service to the view as it has
been promulgated at some length in the literature.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm