Charles writes

> [col]
> I aologise in advance for my crap spelling. My fingers
> don;t type what I think. That's the relaity of it! :-)

Do you have a spell-checker?

> Warning... I am also adopting Lee-style bombast because
> I feel like venting. Don't be too precious about it! :-) 

Blast away!  :-)  The default rule is that anything goes
up to---but definitely not including---personal attacks,
but as an old hand on the Extropy list, you already know.

> I'm not sure it's a cult, but I am sure that its goals 
> ('asking questions only') is kind of a cosy refuge for never 
> actually solving anything. The result is always an argument.
> They think that a useful outcome has ensured.

That *is* another aspect of the problem, all right. But
my beef with them actually runs much deeper. The ones
who just ask questions may not be doing much good, but
the dominate teachers in academia actually inflict great
harm, especially on undergraduates. But good philosophy
*is* possible, and is necessary. Daniel Dennett is one
shining example.

> I recently attended a local seminar. Here, deep in the bowels of wet
> neuroscience, a philosopher trotted out all the usual stuff re 
> philosophy of science. No answers, only questions.... to a profession
> (scientists) in dire need of self analysis....unlikely to inspire
> them on to greater things..... I love it, but the reality of its
> impotence is frustrating.

In front of scientists, he should be listening not talking.
A part of the philosopher's job is to listen to all the sciences
and attempt to articulate a contemporary world-view. Were I in
charge, all Heideggerians, for example, would be instantly
dismissed, and no one allowed a position who could not pass
a test on Pan-Critical Rationalism.


P.S.  Was there more to your 30KB post?  I scanned down
and down and down, looking for something not having been
posted earlier, but gave up at about the 19KB level.
A little editing goes a long way.

Reply via email to