As i said yesterday, (baltimore, MD time) im hearing a whole lot of good
responses to my apparently naive question. It's going to take a bit more
reading and contemplation to answer fully, but right now i want to thank
platt for his response and helpful catagorization of my philosophy. His
is the most recent response as far as i can tell, since my crazy email
server says that it was sent at 6:36, 3/1/00. Anyway, I've never thought
of myself as an idealist, but i now like how it fits. Though i've never
read Berkeley, i whole heartedly support Kant and Hegel's views of
perception. I also liked platt's idea of deciding which metaphysics to
trust. that makes a lot of sense in a nonconfrontational sort of way.
And right now im leaning towards the SOM, but replies like the ones im
getting from you lilaqs are really swaying me.
i also want to address the subject line of this subjectivity talk.
Theres been a lot of talk around the squad about definite, explanatory
subject threads to keep track of each discussion. well, as founder of
this particular subject line, i want to ask you/us to go back to the
roots. for instance; Kilian asked an interesting question about US/Iraq
bombings. This is an interesting debate but since it was asked under
"tripping", all of the replies have been misleadingly under "tripping"
as well. Also, Jonathan brought list management into the sub-line. a
similar situation with those replies. i only bring this up in order to
bow down early to the apparent new regime of rules and regs (of which,
by the way, i take Fintan's general side). i just wanted to mention it.
thanks,
rev. paul
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:45 BST