Brian Manning Delaney wrote,
>There are definitely some schools of thought that make such claims, but, in
my
>view they fail. How, after all, would one ground the notion that "the
purpose is
>to have fun"? Not that, personally I believe such a view has zero merit. I
just
>think it can't (easily, at least) be justified.
Avoiding boredom has to rank as our most important purpose, because if you bore folks, they just won't listen to you. No need to justify it, because the justification would only bore listeners that much more, and they'll tune out your message. Even the best ideas have to avoid boredom. Read, for example, the brief history of fatbrain.com.
>For me, this is a question, not a certainty about method: is it, indeed,
that
>one gets into the realm of mathematical proofs here? Or is it that one gets
into
>the realm of whether mathematical proofs are the right way to answer these
>questions? The former is Russell (more or less), the latter is
Wittgenstein.
>Wittgenstein, in my view, was closer to being on the right track.
<snip>
>Empirically, yes, this is our only option. But in deciding whether or not
aliens
>might pervade our world, we can entertain other options.
I'll drink to that.
.--, .--,
( ( \.---./ ) )
'.__/o o\__.'
={= ^ =}=
> - <