RE: virus: PSR
Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:25:41 -0000
> From: Wade T.Smith[SMTP:wade_smith@harvard.edu]
>
> >You can say that,
> >now they've branched off, nothing useful is left in it,
> >but to do that convincingly you'd have to demonstrate
> >rather a good knowledge of it.
>
> And if I say, yes, it is futile, with no knowledge beyond this
> statement,
> am I right? Is that reason enough? Am I wrong? Why do I need more
> 'good
> knowledge of it' to be right?
>
Because in the past things like the actual PSR
(unlike that junk that was recently passed for it),
the differential calculus, coordinate geometry,
and in general terms mathematics and all the
sciences "spun-off" from philosophy, so you'd
have to show what's different about philosophy
now from then, so that nothing else of value
will spin-off from it.
> There is just as much apologia for philosophy in it's current form as
> there is for shamanism or magick. No-one cares to tackle the utility
> issue, for obvious reasons.
>
What makes philosophy's utility now different
from what it used to be?
> I am happily recalling the conversation between MagickThighs and
> Broomfondle before the appearance of DeepThought....
>
Does that explain what's changed about philosophy?
Robin