HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Nietschze
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:30:43 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

More (recent) books on Nietzsche.

_Nietzsche's Teaching_ by Laurence Lampert.  A massive (370 page) study
of Nietzsche's thought through a detailed, passage by passage analysis
of _Zarathustra_ (Yale Univ. Press, 1986).  Without doubt the most
ambitious study of Nietzsche to date.

_The Importance of Nietzsche_ by Erich Heller.  A collection of essays
by one of the foremost scholars of German culture.  The essays are truly
superb studies, and include "Nietzsche and Goethe", "Burckhard and
Nietzsche" on the key relationship between Nietzsche and his Historian
mentor in Basel, "Wittgenstein and Nietzsche" which draws a number of
interesting analogies and contrasts, "Yeats and Nietzsche: Reflections
on Aestheticism and a Poet's Marginal Notes".  It is fairly well known
that the great Irish poet read Nietzsche, but his marginal notes reveal
some surprising connections. (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1988)

Most of Nietzsche's works are now available in English translation, many
by Kaufmann or Hollingdale in paperback as Penguin Classics.  It is a
shame to read Nietzsche in English, however, and one should make an
effort to read this perhaps very greatest stylist of German in his
original language.  It is no less excusable to read him only in English
than to do so with Heidegger.

Penguin has brought out _A Nietzsche Reader_ that collects some of his
best aphorisms by topic.  A good introduction to the ideas of a
disturbing and all-too modern thinker.

-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Of apples and their skins
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:01:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.152516.9175@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>
> [Skeptacism of the senses rhetoric deleted]
>
>When Moore holds up an apple, and asks, "Do you see this apple?"--then one
>should wonder what he is asking. It _sounds_ like a grammatically correct
>question--one that could be asked in a variety of circumstances.  But what
>does Moore mean when he asks it, standing behind his lectern?
>

I would liken this to Bertrand Russel's "The sentence and am now making is
false.", what does he mean?  It's just gibberish to confuse the weak
minded...  This kind of word-construct is just there to confuse people
and make the speaker sound profound: in reality, it gets you nowhere--it can
hardly be called a form of communication--at least not of a human form...

The purpose of philosophy is to help people understand things--or, at least it
used to be.  Now, since the whole concept of "understanding" has been
discredited, just what are these philosopher doing?  Well, those "sentences"
are good examples: mentally masturbating...

I'm one of those romantics that thinks that philosophy should have a PURPOSE...

_____
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: The search for Truth and the Good
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:04:37 +0000

v066ram3@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark J Stuhlmiller) writes..


> **   What is the purpose of being alive?

Is there one at all?
If so whose?
Or What's?

Lets get the basic premises right before we argue over details.

And what do you mean by being alive? Are you implying that _you_ are?
What gives you that impression?

Etc. Etc.
:-)
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: talk.humanism? (Was Re: Of apples and their skins)
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:16:52 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct12.184001.10855@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>
>Look, in a nutshell, I have a very Greek way of looking at Philosophy, if you
>need to FLAME me for this, go ahead:
>
>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
>_____
>Steve Thomas
>steveth@rossinc.com

The post previous to this one talked about the recent presence of Death in the
newsgroup's questions. Has there ever been discussion about a 
talk.humanism group? It seems to me that a lot of these questions about
philosophy and ideas and what they mean within the context of a human life
indicate that there is room for such a group.

Tom

******************************************************************************
         Tom Price  |  tp0x@cs.cmu.edu  |  Simplicity, simplicity
******************************************************************************
 plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney)
Subject: Re: Of apples and their skins
Summary: Philosophy =/= Mental Masturbation
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:54:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.091451.15840@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>If Russell was a mathematician, what was he doing calling himself a
>philosopher?  That, really, was my point.  What Russell, and most other
>Moderns call "philosophy" is simply mathematics or linguistics (or
>gibberish).  People--normal everyday folks, not mathematicians--look to
>philosophy to help them in their every day lives.  Of course the
>business of helping people would involve certainty--a thoroughly
>unfashionable concept amongst those who displace philosophy departments
>these days.

	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.

>
>(A word to the Wise: these linguists and number-crunchers have no hope
>of offering real solutions to real problems: don't accept the premise
>that Humankind's most important study is actually a series of word games.)

	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.

>
>When push comes to shove, the world will NEED people with answers.  People
>will NEED philosophers that give them an explanation that is not, "there
>is no answer".  

	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.

>
>Modern philosophers will be the first against the wall when the 
>revolution comes...

	Again, I refer Steve to Pol Pot.

>
>Russell WAS one of these modern philosophers.  That was the point I was
>trying to make: if he's not providing solutions to the world's problems
>then he's just mentally masturbating--and charging addmission to watch...

	As opposed to the virile missionary position in which Steve and
his ilk would happily provide all the right answers and final solutions.

>_____
>Steve Thomas
>steveth@rossinc.com

Cordially,

Michael S. Rooney
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: The search for Truth and the Good
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:37:58 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Oct15.162409.9528@panix.com>, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
|> In <183877@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul
Collacchi) writes:
|> 
|> >Campbell suggests that All world mythology points the way
|> >toward our having a profound and continuing experience of connection to
|> >the river of Life, our own inherent completeness.
|> 
|> If I am inherently complete, why do I need an experience of connection
|> to the river of Life or to anything else?
|> -- 
|> Jim Kalb 		"The trouble with the modern world is that
|> (jk@panix.com)		 stupidity has begun to think."  (Cocteau)

I don't think the issue is "need", you don't, so I'll address the deeper,
seeming paradox of one blocking oneself from having experience.  In this case,
the suggestion is that the realization of the completeness is not fully
experienced.  The so-called "peak" experiences or profound insights or
other moving moments are examples of instances in which the experience
of completeness is not being blocked.  Most of the time there is the
experience of separate identity, or separation, also called "dualism". 
People seem to be profoundly satisfied when they have experience of
"connection" and so I suggested the continuing "full experience" of life
as being its purpose.

You certainly don't need to have this experience if you don't want to.

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: The search for Truth and the Good
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:43:52 GMT
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.

(Mark J Stuhlmiller) writes..

**   What is the purpose of being alive?

Is there one at all?
If so whose?
Or What's?

>Lets get the basic premises right before we argue over details.

>And what do you mean by being alive? Are you implying that _you_ are?
>What gives you that impression?

>Etc. Etc.

The meaning of life is a life of meaning. Sounds trite, but the more I
think about it, the more reasonable and startling this seems. At least
as a basic start on an answer, this seems roughly on the right track. Just
a couple of different ways of putting this general line of approach: 

1. The purpose of human existence is to live purposefully.
2. The meaning [significance] of life is to live a meaningful [or 
   significant] life.

Advantages:

Involves no obvious mention of God or any overall plan imposed from without 
on the species as a whole.

It's kind of quippy.

It seems to have a great deal of initial plausibility. 

Well, gotta go. It'll be interesting to see where this thread goes, won't it?
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:17:54 GMT

In article <Bvzq4v.3JL@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <Bvto3K.D3J@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.215507.28498@PacBell.COM>, rwbrigg@srv.PacBell.COM (Rick Briggs) writes:
>
>>    Briggs limits Kant to idealism, a radically different limit than the Ob-
>>jectivist claim that Kant's limit is nihilism. That is, within the limit of 
>>idealism, Kant is an idealist; within the limit of objectivity, Kant is a nihil-
>>ist. This is not a claim that Briggs' idealist understanding of Kant is false.
>>This is the claim that there is more, there is always, and that, therefore,
>>there is also objectivity. And, within the limit of Objectivist, not Kantian, 
>>objectivity, Kant is a nihilist. It is possible to limit Kant to nihilism since
>>everything exists and exists equally. Within the limit of nihilism, the follow-
>>ing comment from Kant is essential: "I have limited knowledge therefore, to 
>>make room for faith." (This quote is probably not essential within the limit of
>>idealism) 
>
>What do you mean by all this talk of "limits"?  Is this usage somethin you
>invented yourself?  Does it mean "from the standpoint of"?  Or something
>else?
>
>--Brian

    A limit is an existent, something which exists. The epistemological terms
"context" or "from the standpoint of" is identical in meaning but, wanting to
stress metaphysics, I use "limit." I want to stress that consciousness is one
more thing, along with apples and toes, with no metaphysical privilege.    
    E.g., Rand's standpoint, context, or limit is existence.
    E.g., Kant's standpoint, context, or limit is nihilism.
    The usage is from my collaborator on a radically systematic metaphysics es-
say, "Existence 2." It can be e-mailed.
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:12:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct9.121245.16202
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1b428rINNcdr@uwm.edu> 
hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:

>From article <Bvto3K.D3J@umassd.edu>, 
>by pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman):

MP:
>[...lots omitted....]

Thankfully.

MP:
>Oh my.

I see you have met Mr Grossman.  It's about time.

SG:
>>Kant was not essentially interested in knowledge, rationalist, empirical, 
>>or ideal.

MP:
>I think this tells us we can stop the thread now.  

In rn: /Obj?Exist/h:=:j

MP:
>And as if that weren't enough...

/pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU/h:=:j

or, even more radically

/pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU/a:=:j

SG:
>>Furthermore,
>>both rationalism and empiricism are types of subjectivism, a situation in 
>>which the religious Kant was not required to judge realism. 

MP:
>Empiricism is a type of subjectivism....  yeah, right.  If you're a Hegelian.

Oh no! anything but that!

MP:
>And just in case the horse 
		  ~~~~~~~~~
Is this a reverse synecdoche, or what?

MP:
>			    *isn't* dead after that, we find...

SG:
>>Kant's "curtailment of wild speculation" included the denial that reality
>>was knowable.

MP:
>and...

Hey, that's copyright infringement, -- I did that to him months ago!

SG:
>>There is NO Kantian reality, a position accepted, as far as I know, by all
>>scholars of Kant.

MP:
>I hate to bring this up, but none of the folks I know who work in Kant
>would have the first clue as to what you could possibly be thinking
>of.  Unless, perhaps, you are referring to Immanuel Kant's lesser
>known, and illegitimate son, P.D.Q. Kant.  This sounds more like him.  ;-)

Would he be the issue of his legendary sole instance of sexual intercourse,
allegedly self-described to his students as "an irregular progression of
aimless movement"?

>hiho
>
>-- 
>mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
>dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        
>
>     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: The search for Truth and the Good
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:18:37 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <exukjb.316.719012632@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>1. The purpose of human existence is to live purposefully.
>2. The meaning [significance] of life is to live a meaningful [or 
>   significant] life.

The first proposition doesn't seem very believable if "purposefully"
means "with some purpose, no matter what".  I can't believe that a
man's life would exemplify the purpose of human existence if his main
goal in living was to accumulate as many jars of peanut butter as he
possibly could.

By your second proposition do you intend that the meaning of life is
to live a life that feels meaningful?  I wonder where you'll get if
you pursue that.  For example, when one's life feels meaningful it
seems to me that part of the feeling of meaningfulness is a feeling of
relation to a system of things that goes beyond oneself and exists
regardless of one's feeling that it exists.  If that's right, then
it's hard to view the meaning of life as something that can be
completely reduced to feelings.  It may be that I mistake your
meaning, though.
-- 
Jim Kalb 		"The trouble with the modern world is that
(jk@panix.com)		 stupidity has begun to think."  (Cocteau)
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:51:41 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

In article <Bw06wB.HKt@cck.coventry.ac.uk> mei172@cch.coventry.ac.uk (guru) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.173934.25750@ariel.ec.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:

>>Is "exist" really a definable verb?  Does the number 2 
>>exist?  How about transfinite numbers?  This issue does 
>>not seem to be as easily resolved as some Objectivists 
>>seem to think ...

>guru sez:
>	"exist" is like "reality": both are totally subjective terms, a result
>	obtained from both quantum uncertainty and special relativity.

Not so fast.


>	1: Special Relativity
>
>	Einstein showed that there is no such thing as "Absolute Time" ie
>	we all have our own personal spatial reference frame in the four-
>	dimensional continuum, and the different velocities and gravitational
>	fields to which your frame has been subjected will determine the
>	values of such phenomena as time.

Einstein's results say nothing about `personal time,' but only time
in frames of reference (which are defined quite independently of
persons).

>	2: Quantum Uncertainty
>
>	Heisenberg showed that we cannot know the position and velocity of
>	any body to the same accuracy, ie there is always some uncertainty
>	in the world-sheet of that body.

Your i.e. does not follow from the previous (and false) portion of
your sentence, which is itself inaccurate. One can certainly know
position and momentum with the same accuracy, one can _not_ know
both with _complete_ accuracy.



Gregg




-- 
Gregg Jaeger    (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu)          VOTE PEROT  VOTE PEROT       
If you think the Republicans screwed up the country, can you afford to
see what the Democrats will do!   ->BEWARE OF SLICK-WILLY CLINTON!!<-
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: The search for Truth and the Good
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:57:41 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <Bw3HHp.5yA@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v066ram3@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
(Mark J Stuhlmiller) writes:
|> 
|> summary:   What would make one's life 'significant' and/or 'meaningful?'
|> 
|> 

During the lengthy PBS documentary Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers
discuss this subject and Campbell provides a unique slant which slightly
alters the question.  He suggests that rather than wanting to "get
meaning from life" people are really thirsting for a "deeper experience
of their own aliveness", of which we are usually given small tastes
frequently or infrequently throughout the course of our lives.  Such
experiences, when we are touched deeply, are "whole" or "complete". 
There is nothing lacking in us during these times.

The suggestion in the question is that "I am incomplete", and if I could
only consume, possess, or obtain "something" -- not  of me -- then I
would experience this quality -- "meaning."   Words don't do it justice,
but it is the underlying theme of "separation" and it is as old as Life
itself.  Campbell suggests that All world mythology points the way
toward our having a profound and continuing experience of connection to
the river of Life, our own inherent completeness.

Check out this series.  I don't mean to suggest that it contains "the
answer", but it might start you on a quest which becomes very satisfying.

Paul Collacchi
From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Date: 12 Oct 1992 13:32:20 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1992Oct10.184012.16256@husc3.harvard.edu>, by zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny):


MP
>>colleagues, the old boy was really a wild man and terribly funny in
>>lecture.  I still have not been able to make these add up.  A bit like
>>Descartes and his melons.

MZ
> Was Descartes and his melons anything like Portnoy and his liver?
> (Cf. Roberto Benigni's confession in _Night on Earth_)

Nope.  Don't you know about the melons?  Changed my whole life.  Read
the bio's on his 'dream'.  Could never hate Descartes after that.  ;-)



>> MP:
>>Why are y'all still talking about the Randian heresy in here anyways?  ;-)
>MZ
> Just waiting for you to show up and clear up the mess, I guess.


Oh very nice.  Okay.  Give me a hammer and get a big sponge.  

I must confess to not having read a lot of Rand until last spring
semester when one of my Intro students handed in a final paper which
alleged to be a critical analysis of Plato's political philosophy....
well, you guessed it.  It was almost entirely stuff he'd read in Ayn.
I wouldn't have minded that sort of thing normally, except that pretty
much none of the views attributed to Plato appear in any of his
writings.  If they had I'd've been well pleased.  It's good to see
students go after the old timers.  But I wish he'd used Popper
instead.... at least there he'd be getting some Plato.

And now I see the same thing happens with Kant.  The worst of it, I
suppose, is that there are plenty of cracks for those who have a need
to trash traditional philosophers, without -- I was going to say,
recasting their views, but we're way beyond that -- without making up
what they've said out of thin air.  But in any case, Kant is much
harder to read, I expect, than is Rand.

On the other hand, I enjoyed the Fountainhead very much when I read it
in high school.



How've you been?

hiho
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: The search for Truth and the Good.  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:00:50 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

   
>  **   What is the purpose of being alive?  
  
nothing, other than to be in the service of the God.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Of apples and their skins
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Oct7.152516.9175@news.eng.convex.com>
	<1992Oct7.190125.9953@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:35:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.190125.9953@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
 writes:

   >I would liken this to Bertrand Russel's "The sentence and am now making is
   >false.", what does he mean?

  Why is the Liar like the statement "This is an apple"?