Re: The Future and Nihilism (was Re: >H RE: Present dangers to

Brian Manning Delaney (
Sun, 05 Sep 1999 15:29:53 -0700

"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
> From: Brian Manning Delaney <>

>> Who said we were talking about "decrees"? >> Who said "external"?

> Why does that bother you?

Who said anything bothered me? Just asking questions. Is that not allowed in your world? (Oops! Sorry!)

>> "Sounds," not is. (And "sounds" only to
>> someone who doesn't understand
>> philosophy.)

> So, why don't you understand philosophy?


> Perhaps because philosophy means the
> art of asking the wrong questions.

You say sci. isn't a subset of philosophy. Is what you're doing now sci.?

If so, according to your definition of sci, there's some empirical verification for your claims (about me, about philosophy, etc.)

Care to share it?

If not, care to share whatever grounds for your claims you have?

If you have no grounds, care to admit that you, in fact, are (for ex.) just acting out the delusions of our epoch, and aren't willling to admit that science -- whatever its power and excitement -- may lack a sufficient grounding to be called "true" (different from "effective," please note)? Or, at a minimum, that you can't figure out such grounds, and have just uncritically swallowed the spirit of our age?

If not, I suggest you stop making these claims.

And, above all, read some Nietzsche!! (Who, you'll be happy to know, in many respects shared your view of phil.)

>>> Science means a system of knowledge subject >>> to empirical verification.

>> To take your definition, philosophy would
>> try to understand, and validate, what is
>> meant by "knowledge," and
>> "empirical" (and, for that matter,
>> "verification").

> If you don't understand those words, look them up.

More evidence that you're one of these types that likes living under the yoke of tradition and authority. Not a healthy way to live. "If the OED says it, it must be true, and must be that simple. I can stop thinking now (and go fishing!), thank God."

> IMNSHO, philosophy is for people who
> can't understand science.

For some philosophers, perhaps true.

Likewise, science is often a refuge for people who can't understand philosophy.

People are different. To claim that the view that science is superior to philosophy is better than (or more right than, or superior in some other way to) the view that science is a subset of philosophy requires some kind of basis. If you don't think a philosophical basis is possible (since philosophy means "asking the wrong questions"), then perhaps you can offer some other basis. If you can't, I'll just assume the claim has no support, and you don't care very much about whether what you say is true or false. (And, in all sincerity, there be nothing wrong with not caring.)

Enjoy your fishing trip!

Best wishes,