Dear Charles,
Alwaysworthwhile for meto read your
comments. I've interspersed some responses. Charles Rudder wrote:
Jim Pait, list,
Jim's comments on ethics and aesthetics brought to mind some things I
have thought about but not thought through which include:
1. Is anything
I regard this kind of
discussions very interesting and practical. It are the kind of discussions that
motivated me to get into science and reading a lot of intellectual texts. While
I was, and even am, one of the most sceptical persons about both science and scientist.
Think that mainly
Wilfred wrote:
I did not respond. But
actually would have said the same. That I would not know. In some situations I
actually would have no problem at all putting the car at full speed and driving
the man dead. While at other I would refuse to drive whatever the consequences
might be as
Jim Pait, list,
Jim's comments on ethics and aesthetics brought to mind some things I have
thought about but not thought through which include:
1. Is anything like Rousseau's pre-social human existence possible,
which, for reasons, among others,like Lester Frank Ward sets out in his
Jim,
An interesting discussion seems to be developing here, and my ears
(eyes?) perked up when I read:
I believe he takes the view that his whole theory of logic and signs
derives from the twin notions of aesthetics and beauty. That the good
and the beautiful are themselves related
Dear Folks,
Sorry about that last post on the qaulity of
good -- I was working on a draft which I meant to save but sent
instead. I had just got to the point of realizing I had nothing to
say other than I think Rawls had it about right in so far as I can tell from the
blurb on the cover of
