From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 12:34:36 MST
Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> But I don't see how the example can be made more elemental
> than this. There is a difference between politics and philosophy
> and I think we both know which process makes the laws.
>
How is this relevant? Politics grows out of philosophy, is an
offshoot of Ethics, to be more exact. They aren't exactly
orthogonal. But I don't see why you bring this up here. You
have made a claim that you want to get rid of the b-word because
you consider it both philosophically and more specifically
politically unsound. You have alluded to various
epistemological (more philosophy) arguments in the process. Now
, as your point doesn't seem to be catching on, you seem to want
to distance yourself from any philosophical aspects and claim it
is only a question of practical politics?
> I don't mean to be harsh, disrespectful or unkind, but sometimes
> one just *has* to make a decision. In the political world when no
> decision is made by a voter a decision is either deemed to have
> been made or the voter is deemed to have not voted. That non-
> voter becomes politically irrelevant but 'cops' the laws anyway.
>
Usually when people start out telling how they don't mean to be
harsh, disrespectful or unkind they intend to be exactly that.
> You seem to me to be a pretty good philosopher. In the future
> I might expect to have many of my errors and misperceptions
> pointed out, to my real benefit, by you. But right now I'm
> thinking "there are more things on heaven and earth...."
>
I agree. There are more things and more important ones that
this endless running of the word "belief" into the ground.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST