gautier@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Jorge Gautier) (04/09/88)
Hey, professor, are you still around? Since you know so much about philosophy and ethics, why don't you tell us about the RIGHT philosophical system? And don't forget to include the social, economic and political systems to go along with it. I can't wait to read about it! --- Jorge Gautier @ Wisconsin, gautier@cs.wisc.edu "The fact that my internal arrangement differs from yours, doctor, pleases me without end."
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (04/10/88)
In article <5540@spool.cs.wisc.edu> gautier@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Jorge Gautier) writes: > >Hey, professor, are you still around? >Since you know so much about philosophy and ethics, why don't you tell >us about the RIGHT philosophical system? And don't forget to include >the social, economic and political systems to go along with it. This question, meant as a taunt, only serves to illustrate the shallowpated nature of libertarian social thought. You must be getting desperate. I will not bother to answer for the professor, but suggest you read the quote in my signature, and THINK about it. -- "To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer." - Robert Sheckley pan@well.UUCP (you figure out how to get their).
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (04/11/88)
In article <5650@well.UUCP>, pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) writes: > In article <5540@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, Jorge Gautier writes: > >Hey, professor, are you still around? > >Since you know so much about philosophy and ethics, why don't you tell > >us about the RIGHT philosophical system? And don't forget to include > >the social, economic and political systems to go along with it. > This question, meant as a taunt, only serves to illustrate the shallowpated > nature of libertarian social thought. Gautier's posting contains no libertarian allusions. Your criticism, intended as a cheap shot at a broad genre of social thought, is no better than his. Should we consider it an illustration of the shallowpated nature of the social philosophy you prefer? Or can we agree that this is not the way to criticize social philosophy? Russell
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (04/11/88)
In article <11188@ut-sally.UUCP> turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) writes: >Gautier's posting contains no libertarian allusions. Ah, yes, this particular post did not contain any libertarian allusions. You will pardon me for extrapolating on Mr. Gautier's previous postings. If he is not a libertarian, than I do indeed owe him an apology. >Your criticism, intended as a cheap shot at a broad genre of social >thought, is no better than his. Should we consider it an >illustration of the shallowpated nature of the social philosophy >you prefer? Or can we agree that this is not the way to criticize >social philosophy? > My criticism was not so much at any broad gnere of social thought (this would imply some depth in libertarian analysis of social issues) but rather at the anti-intellectual nature of Mr. Gautier's taunt. You can think what you will of my own views. If you will read Mr. Gautier's question again, you might understand my response. It may be no better than his. If so, it is no better or worse than your own. -- "To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer." - Robert Sheckley pan@well.UUCP (you figure out how to get their).
cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist) (04/11/88)
The fact that you, as an individualist (I assume?) ask such a question, dissapoints me. Did he claim there was a RIGHT philosophical system? A philosopher's job is to analyse and criticise, not just dogmatise. Finding a flaw in a 'proof' (Mathematical or philosophical) is usually an easier task than forming the proof itself. It is, nonetheless, equally important. Or maybe by RIGHT you mean the opposite to LEFT, politically? :-) Agitate, Educate, Disorganise..... Chris Preist P.S. Don't forget, this group is for discussing INDIVIDUALISM and associated paraphernalia. I would beg you, professor, not to rise to the bait and provide an alternative philosophical framework for us to discuss. Except in the unlikely event it is an alternative individualist philosophy...
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (04/12/88)
In article <5650@well.UUCP> pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) writes: >In article <5540@spool.cs.wisc.edu> gautier@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Jorge Gautier) writes: >> >>Hey, professor, are you still around? >>Since you know so much about philosophy and ethics, why don't you tell >>us about the RIGHT philosophical system? And don't forget to include >>the social, economic and political systems to go along with it. > >This question, meant as a taunt, only serves to illustrate the shallowpated >nature of libertarian social thought. You must be getting desperate. I >will not bother to answer for the professor, but suggest you read the >quote in my signature, and THINK about it. > >"To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer." Above is another argument of the form "You disagree with me. Therefore you are shallow and getting desperate. Therefore you are wrong." The Professor made several statements like that to me over the mail too. Maybe there are rhetoric classes where they teach such things. Unfortunately, if I claim that such arguments are totally useless, then I would be shallow and desperate, and therefore wrong. So I won't respond (except for the fact that this is a response... Hm, maybe I *can* make merit-free arguments as tangled as Philip's... Nah, I'm too shallow, must have been something I ate. Never mind.). Actually, the Professor claimed in mail he sent to me that he didn't have any usable alternative to the philosophies he was criticizing. I don't believe he could tolerate having no consistent philosophy of life, so my guess right now is that he was trying to convert us all to Catholicism. My guess may be wrong, but it is plausible and entertaining, so I'll stick with it until something better comes along. The presupposition that selfishness is bad seems to underlie many of the Professor's gripes. I have asked him to justify this, and I have made posts asking some altruistic person to enlighten me, and I have received no response. If a person won't attempt to defend his axioms, I tend to doubt the merits of his conclusions. (Well, actually the Professor did respond, saying that "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand had no merit. This is not relevant, because the question was about a piece of behavior, not about a book.) As far as the quote goes, Jorge Gautier did indeed manage to ask a question, so the quote implies he knows most of the answer. The quote doesn't imply that he knows all of it, so even if the quote is true, there is some use for getting real answers from the Professor or Philip Nichols. I will not bother to answer Phillip Nichols, but suggest he read the quote in my signature, and THINK about it. -- "To use clever rhetoric to evade questions is not evidence of knowing the answers." - Tim Freeman -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo.css.gov!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (04/12/88)
In article <5663@well.UUCP>, pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) writes: > My criticism was not so much at any broad gnere of social thought (this would > imply some depth in libertarian analysis of social issues) but ... You continue to make casual slurs against libertarianism. There are many places where libertarian thought deserves criticism, but what it does not deserve is simple dismissal, because there is also much worthwhile in it. Contrary to your claim (if your parenthetical comment counts as such), libertarian literature exists in both breadth and depth. If you think you are capable of writing a posting that eviscerates the entire field, please do so -- I will enjoy reading it, and most likely critiquing it. But your curt dismissals with nothing to back them up only leave your audience suspicious that your opinions are uninformed. Russell