unbent@ecsvax.UUCP (01/17/84)
<> I've been reading laura's introductory philosophy essays with interest, but feel that I should inject a grain of salt. They tell it *sort of* like it is--but they don't tell it like it is! I'm a "professional" academic philosopher by trade. I don't submit items on physics, zoology, or statistics, because I don't know enough about those disciplines to do so responsibly. Like most of my colleagues, I'm continually amazed that the discipline of philosophy is regarded as fair game for anyone and everyone. Ah well, so is life. But *real* philosophy--and real history of philosophy--is something done with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Laura has a nice technique with her sledgehammer. One of the best I've seen. But please, don't anyone out there mistake it for a scalpel. If you want a clean, accessible, intelligently written history of philosophy (e.g., to find out what Descartes and Hume *really* said, and why), I recommend Konstantin Kolenda, *Philosophy's Journey*. If you want real depth, Copleston's monumental n-volume History of Philosophy. Or try the original texts. They don't bite. And, by the way, after Descartes and Hume came Kant. What he had to say was *really* important--for physicists, too! Enough flaming! This all really belongs on net.philosophy anyway. (Now if I could only convince the system administrator to *subscribe* ecsvax to net.philosophy.) --Jay Rosenberg Dept. of Philosophy University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (...mcnc!ecsvax!unbent)