Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
gj student 169883
interested in exporing the philosophical underpinings of this field
(and epistemology in general). For this reason I am looking for
schools, or people, who have developed an expertise in this area.
I would appreciate hearing of any that you might know about.
Thanks.
Colin Rowat
Stephen Grossman
[meta, #1291, Jan7]
The mainstream of contemporary philosophy is profoundly nihilist and
anti-system despite its technical sophistication and appearance of rationality.
The psychological application of this witch's brew can be found in the culture
of Weimar Germany or in the "lifestyle" of any drug addict.
An extreme, radical alternative is Aristotle, the inventor or
discoverer of rational system, logic, science, and the science of psychology!
A neo-Aristotelian approach is found in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism
as well as its application to the philosophy and science of psychology in
Nathaniel Branden's _Psy. of Self-Esteem_. Check libraries or good bookstores.
Second Renaissance Books (110 Copperwood Way, Oceanside, CA 92052) lists Rand's
books and excellent related material in a catalog. The Objectivist-oriented
Jefferson School (of Philosophy, Economics, & Psychology) has a lecture on
Aristotle's psychology by a psychiatrist and former professor. Their brochure
will come with the 2nd Ren. catalog.
Most philosophy departments are worthless but, I believe, Northwestern,
Georgetown, and UTexas-Austin specialize in classical realism. There is also, I
believe, a Univ. of Thomas Aquinas (or a similar name) in Texas.
________________________________________________________________________________
"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC...@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Ruth Ginzberg
> >
> > I am currently an undergraduate student of psychology and am
> >interested in exporing the philosophical underpinings of this field
> >(and epistemology in general). For this reason I am looking for
> >schools, or people, who have developed an expertise in this area.
> The mainstream of contemporary philosophy is profoundly nihilist and
> anti-system despite its technical sophistication and appearance of rationality.
> The psychological application of this witch's brew can be found in the culture
> of Weimar Germany or in the "lifestyle" of any drug addict.
Oh, for Pete's sake! If this isn't one of the most sweepingly unhelpful
comments I've seen on the net, then I don't know what is. The poster is an
undergrad wanting to evaluate graduate programs (I take it). A response like
yours, filled with vagueness, cynicism, hostility and innuendo, but absolutely
no information is supposed to accomplish ... what?
> An extreme, radical alternative is Aristotle, the inventor or
> discoverer of rational system, logic, science, and the science of psychology!
> A neo-Aristotelian approach is found in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism
While you are welcome to express your opinions in favor of Ayn Rand's
objectivism, it is rather irresponsible to imply that nothing else in
philosophy is worth studying. I'd be fired from my job & ridden out of town on
a rail if I were to suggest that my favorite philosophical approaches were the
only ones worth studying, & I'd deserve it, too. This attitude is profoundly
ANTI-philosophical. It makes me doubt that you know what philosophical inquiry
is actually all about. BTW, specialization in Aristotle is NOT rare, nor is is
"radical". There are many serious Aristotle & neo-Aristotelian scholars in
so-called "mainstream" philosophy departments.
> Most philosophy departments are worthless
You display only your own dogmatism & ignorance in assertions like this.
but, I believe, Northwestern,
> Georgetown, and UTexas-Austin specialize in classical realism.
(a) These are all fine universities with quite well respected philosophy
departments. (b) The poster didn't ASK for refs to departments which
"specialize in classical realism." This student asked for info about people or
departments which specialize in philosophical underpinnings of psychology, and
epistemology in general.
TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
Here's what I suggest to my students who are looking for philosophy graduate
programs, or even undergraduate programs to which they might transfer:
1. What readings or lectures have piqued your interest? Who wrote them? Whose
work were they discussing? Make note of the AUTHORS who are involved in
writing about the philosophical subjects that interest you.
2. Go to DIALOG & do a search for other work by those authors. Check some of
the articles/books out of the library. Read them. Do they interest you? Bore
you? Intellectually stimulate you to want to learn more?
3. Chase down some of the bibliographic references you've found to current
journal articles. Read them. Read responses to them. Note where the authors
of such works are coming from (usually you will begin to see a pattern of
people and/or departments which are producing the work that is most interesting
TO YOU).
4. If you really want to be thorough, write to some of these folks. Tell them
what philosophical work has attracted your interest. Ask what it would be like
for you to attend their university to study <the sorts of things that interest
you>. (You may be surprised; some may say "Gee, we have a great group of
students and faculty here doing X; it would be a good place to come to study
that." But others may say, "I'm the only one in my department who does X, and
its very hard for students to do X seriously with other members of this
department, because <they don't know much about it; they don't recognize it as
a legitimate subfield; I'm not on speaking terms with any of them; etc., etc.,
etc.>") Soon you will begin to get a sense of what kind of place YOU'D like to
be at to do YOUR work.
5. Apply to several of those places.
Good luck!
------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rgin...@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Richard Reiner
> The mainstream of contemporary philosophy is profoundly nihilist
>and anti-system despite its technical sophistication and appearance of
>rationality. The psychological application of this witch's brew can be
>found in the culture of Weimar Germany or in the "lifestyle" of any
>drug addict.
> ...Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism...
Ah, the unsweet smell of a man in the grip of an ideology. Please,
somebody, take out this trash.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.--
Richard Reiner..............rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca..............416-538-3947
Christopher Green
>pmsc...@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>
>> The mainstream of contemporary philosophy is profoundly nihilist
>>and anti-system despite its technical sophistication and appearance of
>>rationality. The psychological application of this witch's brew can be
>>found in the culture of Weimar Germany or in the "lifestyle" of any
>>drug addict.
>> ...Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism...
>
>Ah, the unsweet smell of a man in the grip of an ideology. Please,
>somebody, take out this trash.
>
a private mailing list a couple years ago. Someone please give him
Stubblefield's address so that he does not bother us with his Rand-ing and
Raving again.
:-)
--
Christopher D. Green chr...@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department cgr...@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Peter Cash
>In <C0M72...@umassd.edu> pmsc...@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>> > I am currently an undergraduate student of psychology and am
>> >interested in exporing the philosophical underpinings of this field
>> >(and epistemology in general). For this reason I am looking for
>> >schools, or people, who have developed an expertise in this area.
[some nitwit wrote:]
The mainstream of contemporary philosophy is profoundly nihilist
and anti-system despite its technical sophistication and appearance
of rationality. The psychological application of this witch's brew
can be found in the culture of Weimar Germany or in the "lifestyle"
of any drug addict.
>Oh, for Pete's sake! If this isn't one of the most sweepingly unhelpful
>comments I've seen on the net, then I don't know what is. The poster is an
A mild and restrained reaction. Congratulations, Ruth! 8^)
>TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
>Here's what I suggest to my students who are looking for philosophy graduate
>programs, or even undergraduate programs to which they might transfer:
>[Very good advice deleted]
Ah, but do you ask them why they want to get a graduate degree in
philosophy? I would caution all and sundry that your motives had best not
include making a living as a philosopher. For every philosophy Ph.D. who is
successful at doing this (like our very own Dr. Ruth), there are dozens who
must resign themselves to lesser lives, toiling among the masses (such as
your humble correspondent).
Does this mean that you shouldn't study philosophy? By no means! I, for
one, am happy that I did--I had a good time, learned some important basic
skills that have stood me in good stead, and learned things that are worth
knowing. Besides, philosophical training never becomes obsolete. ;^)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |ca...@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ruth Ginzberg
> Ah, but do you ask them why they want to get a graduate degree in
> philosophy? I would caution all and sundry that your motives had best not
> include making a living as a philosopher.
asks graduate departments to send to all applicants that dreary & discouraging
form letter that says, roughly, "You think you're gonna get a JOB in
philosophy? HA Ha ha hahahahahahahahahahaha......" So if a student applies to
10 schools, 10 copies of that letter show up. Blah! I'm surprised ANYONE ever
decides to go to grad school in philosophy.
For every philosophy Ph.D. who is
> successful at doing this (like our very own Dr. Ruth), there are dozens who
> must resign themselves to lesser lives, toiling among the masses (such as
> your humble correspondent).
Well, Peter, let me assure you that those of you living such "lesser lives,
toiling among the masses" probably have a helluva easier time paying off your
student loans. :-)
Just for comparison on that point, the esteemed institution at which I earn my
rent payments pays me (mid-range assistant prof) $8000/year less than I would
earn if I were an elementary school teacher in this state. Or rather, that's
how much it WOULD be paying me if I weren't on only 3/4 salary this year (a
move VERY strongly recommended by my dept chair in order to "buy myself some
writing time" in order to bolster my publications so that I don't "perish" when
my publish-or-perish day o' reckoning arrives). %^O
Gary Merrill
In article <1993Jan10....@news.wesleyan.edu>, RGIN...@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
|> In <1993Jan10....@news.eng.convex.com> ca...@convex.com writes:
|> > Ah, but do you ask them why they want to get a graduate degree in
|> > philosophy? I would caution all and sundry that your motives had best not
|> > include making a living as a philosopher.
|>
|> Well, even if I forget to give that particular speech, the APA won't. It still
|> asks graduate departments to send to all applicants that dreary & discouraging
|> form letter that says, roughly, "You think you're gonna get a JOB in
|> philosophy? HA Ha ha hahahahahahahahahahaha......" So if a student applies to
|> 10 schools, 10 copies of that letter show up. Blah! I'm surprised ANYONE ever
|> decides to go to grad school in philosophy.
This has bothered me for some years. What bothers me is that the explicit
impression the APA has been giving (for almost 20 years now?) is that
the the only reason for pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy is to
get a job as an academic philosopher. I know that at the meetings sessions
on "non-academic employment" are held, but from what I have seen these are
not done by people with the sort of experience that would be really helpful.
Further, this is a post hoc approach -- now that you *have* your degree and
can't get the job you want, here are some desperate alternatives. Since I
agree with Peter concerning the value of such training in a *wide* variety of
fields, this approach seems to do a disservice. Sure, it's hard to get certain
jobs if you walk into an interview waving your philosophy Ph.D. In fact, my
wife ultimately ended up *concealing* her Ph.D. in order to get her first job
in technical writing. Bell Labs' personnel department was so puzzled by my
background and experience that I never did get an interview with them, though
they ended up paying much more for me as a consultant through a consulting
firm that *would* take a chance on me.
I really think that the APA should do a better job in career counseling and
strategy and tactics of job finding and acquisition. However, since this is
primarily an organization of academics and for academics, I can see the
difficulties.
|> For every philosophy Ph.D. who is
|> > successful at doing this (like our very own Dr. Ruth), there are dozens who
|> > must resign themselves to lesser lives, toiling among the masses (such as
|> > your humble correspondent).
Here is where Peter (and to some degree my wife) and I differ. I do not regard
this as a "lesser life". After a number of years in the university I made the
change with all due consideration and as a matter of choice. If a major university
were to *beg* me to take a position on the faculty, I would decline. (Well,
I suppose I can imagine circumstances under which I would take such a position,
but I can't imagine any university meeting my conditions.) Of course, having
less than year ago left a position of management, I feel the same way about
management. (Now *there* is a lesser life!)
|> Well, Peter, let me assure you that those of you living such "lesser lives,
|> toiling among the masses" probably have a helluva easier time paying off your
|> student loans. :-)
You bet. There was a time when we had two working Ph.D.'s in the house and
we had to get cash advances on the VISA card at the end of the month to feed
the kids. I think things have improved a *bit*.
|> Just for comparison on that point, the esteemed institution at which I earn my
|> rent payments pays me (mid-range assistant prof) $8000/year less than I would
|> earn if I were an elementary school teacher in this state. Or rather, that's
|> how much it WOULD be paying me if I weren't on only 3/4 salary this year (a
|> move VERY strongly recommended by my dept chair in order to "buy myself some
|> writing time" in order to bolster my publications so that I don't "perish" when
|> my publish-or-perish day o' reckoning arrives). %^O
Here is a recommendation for some (not necessarily for Ruth). If what you like
is the *teaching*, there are alternatives to colleges and universities. Public
schools aren't such a great way to go (for the most part, though there are exceptions).
But private high schools usually appreciate Ph.D.'s. My younger son's history
teacher, for example, has a Ph.D. in philosophy from DePaul and has been teaching
history and related courses in private schools for about ten years. He certainly
is among the very best of the teachers at an excellent school. Last year my
elder son had quite a good course in "Radical and Revolutionary Thought" taught
by another member of the history department (not a philospher, but a good critical
thinker). So there *are* opportunities to teach genuine philosophy outside the
university. If teaching is what you like, and if you can look at this as a
positive career move rather than as settling for second best, it is a good way
to go. (You may have to coach track or field hockey or something, but at least
the school my kids go to doesn't have cheerleaders -- *everybody* plays.)
--
Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Mark Peterson
> In <1993Jan10....@news.eng.convex.com> ca...@convex.com writes:
>> For every philosophy Ph.D. who is
>> successful at doing this (like our very own Dr. Ruth), there are dozens who
>> must resign themselves to lesser lives, toiling among the masses (such as
>> your humble correspondent).
>
> Well, Peter, let me assure you that those of you living such "lesser lives,
> toiling among the masses" probably have a helluva easier time paying off your
> student loans. :-)
Yeah. Hey Peter, who said being a philosopher was making a living?? ;-)
>Just for comparison on that point, the esteemed institution at which I earn my
> rent payments pays me (mid-range assistant prof) $8000/year less than I would
> earn if I were an elementary school teacher in this state. Or rather, that's
And Ruth: Wow. You make *that* much? ;-) ( Don't pay any attention
to me today. I'm just trying to get this out of my system now. In
about 2 hours we have the president of the Wisconsin System Board of
Regents coming to campus to, ahem, answer questions. I have a few
that would probably cost me tenure, but the Dean's insisting I go
anyways. I wonder if I'll be able to restrain myself... Hey Peter,
what do you know about job opportunities in the real world? Maybe I
should light candles to the spirit of Thales...)
Whew, that's a little better.
For now, anyways, I remain,
--
mark ce peterson | uw-washington county | hi...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi. 53095 | (414) 335-5200
The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Russell Turpin
Some companies view higher education quite favorably. At SES,
our technical writer holds a Ph.D. in linguistics, and our
manager of client services is finishing (we hope) his Ph.D. in
philosophy. I suspect that they are both paid more than is the
average junior faculty member in their fields. In the hiring
process, we considered their education a positive aspect of their
background.
The other hand, of course, is that they are not using much of what
they have learned. But the about-to-be philosophy Ph.D. must see
some benefit to his studies outside of his career, because he has
advanced far enough professionally that this degree will make
little difference in that regard.
Russell
Stephen Grossman
>
>> >[Rowat writes]
>> > I am currently an undergraduate student of psychology and am
>> >interested in exporing the philosophical underpinings of this field
>> >(and epistemology in general). For this reason I am looking for
>> >schools, or people, who have developed an expertise in this area.
>epistemology in general.
>
>TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
>
>Here's what I suggest to my students who are looking for philosophy graduate
>programs, or even undergraduate programs to which they might transfer:
>
>1. What readings or lectures have piqued your interest? Who wrote them? Whose
>work were they discussing? Make note of the AUTHORS who are involved in
>writing about the philosophical subjects that interest you.
SG I would not encourage students to study falsehoods and evil but,
instead, I would direct them to truth and morality. Ginzberg obviously likes
Nietzche's desire to go "beyond good and evil." This is starting to have the
same effect in the US as it did earlier in Germany. As Objectivist Leonard
Peikoff observes in _The Ominous Parallels_, "The moderns reject reason
'disinterestedly,' with no explicit idea of anything to put in its place, no
alternative means of knowledge, no formal dogma to preserve or protect."
Sophistry is not wisdom.
Angus H Rodgers
RGIN...@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
>In <C0M72...@umassd.edu> pmsc...@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>> Most philosophy departments are worthless
>You display only your own dogmatism & ignorance in assertions like this.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If only that were true! But the British government agrees with him.
For all I know, he may indeed mean "profitless". If so, someone should
do a Plato on him, by sending him on his way with a well-earned nickel.
(The solitary inhabitant of my kill file may not be lonely for much longer.)
--
Gus Rodgers, Dept. of Computer Science, | Cinema's worst romantic dialogue? --
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End | "Mechagodzilla's brain is installed
Road, London, England. +44 71 975 5241 | in my stomach!" "I don't care if you
E-mail (JANET): arod...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk | are a cyborg -- I still love you!"
Thomas Price
>> philosophy? I would caution all and sundry that your motives had best not
>> include making a living as a philosopher.
>
>Well, even if I forget to give that particular speech, the APA won't. It
>still asks graduate departments to send to all applicants that dreary &
>discouraging form letter that says, roughly, "You think you're gonna get a
>JOB in philosophy? HA Ha ha hahahahahahahahahahaha......" So if a student
>applies to 10 schools, 10 copies of that letter show up. Blah! I'm
>surprised ANYONE ever
>decides to go to grad school in philosophy.
>
> For every philosophy Ph.D. who is
>> successful at doing this (like our very own Dr. Ruth), there are dozens who
>> must resign themselves to lesser lives, toiling among the masses (such as
>> your humble correspondent).
I invite email or posts on the following topic:
philosophy students (with or without degrees, graduate or undergraduate)
who drop out and live the frugal lifestyle of the classical philosophers --
or something vaguely similar. Surely the PhD's on this newsgroup have
respected friends, former colleagues and students or fellow-students, who
refused "resignation" to any particular social niche and went away to sleep
on the beach at Key Largo, reading Putnam and watching the sun set, or started
a commune/homestead/truck farm in New Mexico, or something. I am eager to hear
of anyone who has done such a thing. How do you know them, and how are
they doing?
Tom Price | tp...@cs.cmu.edu | Free will? What free will?
*****************************************************************************
plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology
David Spurrett
>>
>> I am currently an undergraduate student of psychology and am
>>interested in exporing the philosophical underpinings of this field
>>(and epistemology in general). For this reason I am looking for
>>schools, or people, who have developed an expertise in this area.
>>
>> I would appreciate hearing of any that you might know about.
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Colin Rowat
> [meta, #1291, Jan7]
> The mainstream of contemporary philosophy is profoundly nihilist and
>anti-system despite its technical sophistication and appearance of
>rationality.
Only one accustomed to rendering with the extra-large one-size-fits-all-
enemies, and no assembly required Rand-O-Brush could possibly make such a
vague, stupid, in-accurate and unconstructive remark in a serious tone. Who
constitutes this `mainstream'? Willard v o Quine? Roy Bhaskar? Charles
Taylor? Daniel Dennet? Jurgen Habermas? Jacques Derrida? Point out the
nihilists please...
[...]
> Most philosophy departments are worthless but, I believe,
Had you the courage to name names these remarks could well be legally
actionable...
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
> "In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
> you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and
> certainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
> AYN RAND
Hmmm, a sort of `Peter Pan' effect appears to be at work here: You don't
_want_ to grow up...
---oOo---
TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
1) Follow your nose - look at all sorts of things, read super-short
introductions that you can finish in two hours just to see what one person's
version of the big picture is. If you find something you like, and read all
of chances are that you will end up _wanting_ to know more about specific
sources, and can follow them up in a far more self-motivated way.
2) Give Roy Bhaskar a try. His first book `A Realist Theory of Science' is
a brilliant general argument for a realist approach in the sciences,
especially the natural sciences. `The Possibility of Naturalism' is
essentially a sequel dedicated to the Social Sciences, especially
Psychology. If these books seem like incomprehensible gibberish at first
then put them aside for a year or two, and find out a bit about Kant and
Hume before you try again. That is my only specific recommendation.
o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
| David Spurrett, Department of Philosophy | `I have seen the truth, and |
| University of Natal, Durban | it makes no sense.' |
| email: spur...@superbowl.und.ac.za | - OFFICIAL! |
o------------------------------------------o------------------------------o
David Spurrett
>>
>>TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
>>
>>Here's what I suggest to my students who are looking for philosophy graduate
>>programs, or even undergraduate programs to which they might transfer:
>>
>>1. What readings or lectures have piqued your interest? Who wrote them?
>Whose
>>work were they discussing? Make note of the AUTHORS who are involved in
>>writing about the philosophical subjects that interest you.
Excellent advice.
>SG I would not encourage students to study falsehoods and evil but,
>instead, I would direct them to truth and morality.
Nice of you. I would direct them to divergent positions and call upon them
to form their own views. Then I would point out any flaws in reasoning which
I could detect, and suggest the strongest possible contrary positions. The
only people I know who are as quick as objectivists to denounce things and
not suggest that the listener take a look for themselves are crazed
fundamentalist Christians, and one or two Muslims (I dont know many so this
is not a demographic remark, just a personal observation.)
>Ginzberg obviously likes
>Nietzche's desire to go "beyond good and evil."
How you got to this conclusion on the basis of the suggestions above is a
mystery to me. It must have involved special forms of inference which my
(nihilist and so forth) philosophical training taught me to call `fallacies'.
>This is starting to have the
>same effect in the US as it did earlier in Germany. As Objectivist Leonard
>Peikoff observes in _The Ominous Parallels_, "The moderns reject reason
>'disinterestedly,' with no explicit idea of anything to put in its place, no
>alternative means of knowledge, no formal dogma to preserve or protect."
>
As for the abuse of `moderns':- Objectivism is highly modern in a number of
respects: (This list is not exhaustive)
1) It is individualistic as only a modern world-view can be
2) It (or its typical practitioner) is historically illiterate
3) It takes an highly evangelical tone
4) It relies strongly upon notions of property
5) etc, etc...
>
> Sophistry is not wisdom.
>
Indeed no. One of the greatest problems with simple-mindedly realistic views
(Of which class I consider Objectivism to be a member) is that those notions
presently classified as false have to be thought of as originating either
from fools, or persons possessed of active ill intention. It is one of the
virtues of much of the philosophy which SG so brutally rejects that it has
enabled philosophers to arrive at an understanding of the workings of reason
which has the hermeneutical sophistication to cope with such situations, and
consequently to allow an appreciation of the wisdom of great thinkers with
whom one is not in agreement. Such a state is, I suggest, more deserving of
the name `wisdom' than the `Texas History of Ideas Massacre' which is
Objectivism.
Anyone with the insane patience to follow an objectivism discussion please
email me, I have no intention of clogging up this group with retreads of
rants we have all heard many times before on many groups.
Betsy Speicher
Objectivist like me is purely coincidental.
I welcome suggestions as to how Grossman might be persuaded to
pick on somebody else's philosophy.
Betsy Speicher
Betsy_S...@mcimail.com
Michael Siemon
(Betsy Speicher) writes:
>I welcome suggestions as to how Grossman might be persuaded to
>pick on somebody else's philosophy.
But why *shouldn't* he pick on Rand, when all the rest of us do, too?
--
Michael L. Siemon "We honour founders of these starving cities
m...@panix.com Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
They built by rivers and at night the water
Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Stephen Grossman
(Betsy Speicher) writes:
>Any resemblance between S. Grossman and a real, nice, reasonable
>Objectivist like me is purely coincidental.
>
>I welcome suggestions as to how Grossman might be persuaded to
>pick on somebody else's philosophy.
SG Horse Guddshaw looked down the wrong end of a blackened Remington
shotgun barrel. He gulped and smiled. A bead of sweat rolled down his forehead.
The fat man spat on Guddshaw's shoes. He waved the bartender over. "One beer,"
Smitty. "Just one beer." A second bead of sweat rolled down Guddshaw's
forehead. The gunsel at the other end of the shotgun frowned and tensed his
arm...
It would be nice if my intellect were necessary to deal with others'
posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most part, so low
that I can let my subconscious do the work.
"I don't get tough. My lawyer does." [Faye Dunaway, _Chinatown_]
________________________________________________________________________________
"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
AYN RAND
Svein Olav G. Nyberg
Grossman) writes:
|> In article <6owNXB...@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, be...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
|> (Betsy Speicher) writes:
|>
|> >Any resemblance between S. Grossman and a real, nice, reasonable
|> >Objectivist like me is purely coincidental.
|> >
|> >I welcome suggestions as to how Grossman might be persuaded to
|> >pick on somebody else's philosophy.
|>
|> posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most part,
|> so low that I can let my subconscious do the work.
Though I agree with Betsy's sentiments regarding Grossman, I think
the best way to act is not to "slander Grossman's reputation" or
anything like that, but simply to point out what mistakes he actually
makes.
MY misgivings about Grossman's postings are that he makes grandiose
claims, or very hard attacks on other philosophies, without being
able to back them up. It appears that his knowledge is at best
second-hand, and that he has more copied other people's thinking
than performed it himself.
This goes in particular for one attack on this person on one list
dedicated to discussion of Objectivism, where Grossman's "information"
about the subject at hand (Stirner) was via statements by alleged
Nietzscheans/Stirnerites as rendered and evaluated by Nathaniel
Branden. That is: Third hand rumors counted for him as evidense.
But I still respect Grossman's right to live, breathe and speak,
and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
argument, and not simply abusive language.
Solan
Gary Merrill
|> posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most part, so low
|> that I can let my subconscious do the work.
|>
I swear I've heard this before. Do we know that Grossman is *not*
Rush Limbaugh? Has anyone every seen both at the same time?
Torkel Franzen
>and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
>argument, and not simply abusive language.
I haven't noticed Voltaire saying anything about Grossman. But you are
a bit hasty, surely, in speaking of his "right to be met by proper
argument". Why do suppose that we have a right to be met by "proper
argument" (whatever this term may mean to you), whatever abusive twaddle
we spout on the net ourselves?
Svein Olav G. Nyberg
I think it is important first to show that the guy is spreading
"abusive twaddle" on the net, however obvious it may seem to one-
self, regardless of person, for two reasons:
1. We're showing the guy exactly what he is doing, which is
a stronger corrective than mere shouting and swearing. He
thereby gets a chance to improve himself, instead of perhaps
being just ignorant about what he's doing.
2. It _might_ have been misunderstood, and gives the guy a chance
to defend himself. If he cannot defend his actions without
further abusive twaddle, we have positively shown him what he
has done.
In any case, the outcome is better than immediate fight.
I do agree, however, that if the person in question ignore the
good attempts and/or go on like before, then he might be told
what your gut feelings towards him are. But first telling a
person what he is actually doing wrong might save the newsgroup
from a lot of flaming, and will therefore be in our own best
interests.
Solan
Svein Olav G. Nyberg
Merrill) writes:
|>
|> In article <C17rA...@umassd.edu>, pmsc...@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
Grossman) writes:
|> |>
|> |> It would be nice if my intellect were necessary to deal with others'
|> |> posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most
part, so low
|> |> that I can let my subconscious do the work.
|> |>
|>
|> I swear I've heard this before. Do we know that Grossman is *not*
|> Rush Limbaugh? Has anyone every seen both at the same time?
There are basically two ways to interact socially:
War and trade.
When exchanging ideas, we are trying to do trade. It
is a shame that what goes on in netland is still mostly
wars. Wars of the worst kind, often - trenchwars.
So, trying to keep the right spirit: Grossman is true enough
conceited in his response above, but he is also at constant
war with everyone else. This time, he fired BACK.
Give peace a chance, guys. That goes not only for Merrill, but
for Grossman, too.
Solan
Gary Merrill
I think you need to look back over prior postings concerning the
comic genius hypothesis. I have become convinced of the truth of
this hypothesis. The hypothesis is the only one currently under
consideration that explains (and in fact quite accurately predicts)
all of the Grossman phenomena. Thus we are compelled by rationality
(the very rationality appealed to in Grossman's own postings) to
accept this hypothesis. That being so, your interpretation of
my (and other's) postings re Grossman is incorrect. These are
intended in a cooperative fashion to provide fodder for the comic
genius. Without such raw material even the most genius of comics
ultimately will wither.
Your current problem is that you (like many of us) have initially
been taken in by the cleverness of Grossman. But look at the
evidence. Grossman is a truly funny guy. I would compare most
of his postings to some of the best Monty Python skits concerning
philosophy. This isn't war. It's entertainment!
Torkel Franzen
>I think it is important first to show that the guy is spreading
>"abusive twaddle" on the net, however obvious it may seem to one-
>self, regardless of person, for two reasons:
You are of course free to try to correct Grossman. But your comments don't
touch on the matter of his having a "right" to this.
As for the pragmatic issue, it has long been clear that there is no point
in trying to argue with Grossman.
Charlie Creegan
Unless somebody thinks we're participants in a Turing test here, I doubt
it. Put him in your kill file or respond to his posts, but talk *about* him??
Charles Creegan NC Wesleyan College
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Svein Olav G. Nyberg
|> (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
|>
|> >I think it is important first to show that the guy is spreading
|> >"abusive twaddle" on the net, however obvious it may seem to one-
|> >self, regardless of person, for two reasons:
|>
|> You are of course free to try to correct Grossman. But your comments don't
|> touch on the matter of his having a "right" to this.
My conception of "right" is a much more pragmatic one than you believe,
Torkel. I admit "rights" for another person only so far as I consider
it to be in my own interest, with qualifiers "in the long run" and
"totally". I believe my pragmatic evaluation was well supported by
what I had to say.
|> As for the pragmatic issue, it has long been clear that there is no point
|> in trying to argue with Grossman.
But then it is even less point in wasting your time just stating
in non-nice words that you don't like him, as that just lowers the
level of the list + consumes everybody's time + give people a lower
opinion of you as a shit-thrower.
At my program, "Author kill" is an option. Very useful.
Solan
Torkel Franzen
>But then it is even less point in wasting your time just stating
>in non-nice words that you don't like him
Ah, but those who flame Grossman may well take the contrary view that he has a
right to be flamed (in your sense of "right"), that is, that it is in their
own interest, in the long run, to flame him - as a preventive measure, perhaps.
The remainder of this discussion will take place in alt.grossman.
Charlie Creegan
>
>
>I think you need to look back over prior postings concerning the
>comic genius hypothesis. I have become convinced of the truth of
>this hypothesis. The hypothesis is the only one currently under
>consideration that explains (and in fact quite accurately predicts)
>all of the Grossman phenomena. Thus we are compelled by rationality
>(the very rationality appealed to in Grossman's own postings) to
>accept this hypothesis. That being so, your interpretation of
>my (and other's) postings re Grossman is incorrect. These are
>intended in a cooperative fashion to provide fodder for the comic
>genius. Without such raw material even the most genius of comics
>ultimately will wither.
Um, not to quibble with such a learned philosopher, but there's a fallacy
in here. If SG is a comic, then he is *not* appealing to rationality in
his posts, since they are jokes. Better figure out *which* theory you
hold, before making observations!
Alan Smaill
Hmm, how does this go:
it is right that I am met with abusive twaddle:
therefore I have a right to be met with abusive twaddle.
(Did I get that right?)
--
Alan Smaill, JANET: A.Sm...@uk.ac.ed
Department of Artificial ARPA: A.Smaill%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Intelligence, UUCP: ...!uknet!ed.ac.uk!A.Smaill
Edinburgh University.
Stephen Grossman
>
>MY misgivings about Grossman's postings are that he makes grandiose
>claims, or very hard attacks on other philosophies, without being
>able to back them up. It appears that his knowledge is at best
>second-hand, and that he has more copied other people's thinking
>than performed it himself.
>
>This goes in particular for one attack on this person on one list
>dedicated to discussion of Objectivism, where Grossman's "information"
>about the subject at hand (Stirner) was via statements by alleged
>Nietzscheans/Stirnerites as rendered and evaluated by Nathaniel
>Branden. That is: Third hand rumors counted for him as evidense.
SG Instead of claiming THAT I err, you should cite the alleged error and
discuss it. There is a suggestion (tho not an implication) that grandiose
(big?) claims and hard (basic?) attacks are philosophically improper. Assuming
that I have correctly understood your metaphors, I disagree. Philosophy is the
study of basics, and while it involves technicalities, it is valuablr because
it deals w/basics. A debate on basics is the most part of philosaophy. Don't
get so entranced within a specific view that you are unwilling to consider
radical alternatives. That way lies political correctness and the death of
philosophy.
Also, evidence is evidence, whether discovered by me or restated or
quoted by me from someone else. I am not trying to prove how educated i am but,
instead, am offering ideas. Since you oppose the Obj view of Nietzsche and
Stirner, give an alternative instead of focusing on my style of presenting
ideas. Substance si, style no!
Stephen Grossman
SG Im Gary Merrill.
Stephen Grossman
>(Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>
> >and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
> >argument, and not simply abusive language.
>
> I haven't noticed Voltaire saying anything about Grossman.
SG Obviously Franzen hasn't read the recently discovered Voltaire-Grossman
Correspondence. He's just not a scholar.
Stephen Grossman
>In article <TORKEL.93J...@bast.sics.se>, tor...@sics.se (Torkel
>Franzen) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan21.1...@ulrik.uio.no> so...@smaug.uio.no
>|> (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>|>
>|> >and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
>|> >argument, and not simply abusive language.
>|>
>|> I haven't noticed Voltaire saying anything about Grossman. But you are
>|> a bit hasty, surely, in speaking of his "right to be met by proper
>|> argument". Why do suppose that we have a right to be met by "proper
>|> argument" (whatever this term may mean to you), whatever abusive twaddle
>|> we spout on the net ourselves?
>
>I think it is important first to show that the guy is spreading
>"abusive twaddle" on the net, however obvious it may seem to one-
>self, regardless of person, for two reasons:
>
>1. We're showing the guy exactly what he is doing, which is
> a stronger corrective than mere shouting and swearing. He
> thereby gets a chance to improve himself,
SG Improve myself? I don't understand...That's like discussing God as
potential...
instead of perhaps
> being just ignorant about what he's doing.
>
>2. It _might_ have been misunderstood, and gives the guy a chance
> to defend himself. If he cannot defend his actions without
> further abusive twaddle, we have positively shown him what he
> has done.
>
>In any case, the outcome is better than immediate fight.
>
>I do agree, however, that if the person in question ignore the
>good attempts and/or go on like before, then he might be told
>what your gut feelings towards him are. But first telling a
>person what he is actually doing wrong might save the newsgroup
>from a lot of flaming, and will therefore be in our own best
>interests.
SG I have a radical suggestion: discuss philosophy instead of me.
Stephen Grossman
SG Give it rest, Svein. Can't i use humor? I started here months ago with
serious philsophy, only to be met by flames. Now, when it is apparent that my
experience in waterfront bars can be transferred to the net, some are upset
that I can satirize their foolishness. Besides, there's plenty of serious
philsophy here. An occasional flame is trivial and provides relief from
difficult intellectual work. Ask any professional lecturer.
Stephen Grossman
SG May i buy you a beer?
Stephen Grossman
SG Would you argue with the Pope?
Stephen Grossman
>Is discussion of SG really within the charter of sci.philosophy.tech?
>Unless somebody thinks we're participants in a Turing test here, I doubt
>it. Put him in your kill file or respond to his posts, but talk *about* him??
SG Better watch it, Charlie. Your common sense might turn people against
YOU!
Stephen Grossman
SG "Now we're cookin'." [Mel Gibson to Danny Glover, _Lethal Weapon_ 2(?),
as they drive thru fire.
I humbly suggest sci.philosophy.grossman.
Stephen Grossman
>In article <C183E...@unx.sas.com> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>Um, not to quibble with such a learned philosopher, but there's a fallacy
>in here. If SG is a comic, then he is *not* appealing to rationality in
>his posts, since they are jokes. Better figure out *which* theory you
>hold, before making observations!
SG Hold on there, big guy. What's this reason/joke split? You're not
claiming its metaphysical, are you? Aristotle joked about those who claim
reality is contradictory in the otherwise ultra-serious and awesome
_Metaphysics_. And where would Nietzsche be without his _Why I Am So Clever?"
Stephen Grossman
_The Stephen Grossman Reader, Vol. 23, 67th edition, edited by Stephen
Grossman.
I, by the way, have never been Stephen Grossman and am not now. I want my
laywer.
"Badges? Badges! We don't need no stinkin' badges." [BLAM! ZING! POW!]
Gary Merrill
In article <C1F5M...@umassd.edu>, pmsc...@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
|>
|> SG May i buy you a beer?
Certainly. However, in light of your prior confession of identity, simply
buying one for myself should accomplish this.
Gary Merrill
In article <C1F6E...@umassd.edu>, pmsc...@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan22.1...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie...@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:
|> >In article <C183E...@unx.sas.com> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|>
|> >Um, not to quibble with such a learned philosopher, but there's a fallacy
|> >in here. If SG is a comic, then he is *not* appealing to rationality in
|> >his posts, since they are jokes. Better figure out *which* theory you
|> >hold, before making observations!
|>
|> SG Hold on there, big guy. What's this reason/joke split? You're not
|> claiming its metaphysical, are you? Aristotle joked about those who claim
|> reality is contradictory in the otherwise ultra-serious and awesome
|> _Metaphysics_. And where would Nietzsche be without his _Why I Am So Clever?"
In additon, all of Rand's writings are best regarded as a joke (not to
imply any component of reason in them).
Charlie Creegan
>
>In article <C1F6E...@umassd.edu>, pmsc...@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan22.1...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie...@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:
>|> >Um, not to quibble with such a learned philosopher, but there's a fallacy
>|> >in here. If SG is a comic, then he is *not* appealing to rationality in
>|> >his posts, since they are jokes.
>|> SG Hold on there, big guy. What's this reason/joke split? You're not
>|> claiming its metaphysical, are you?
[GM]
>In additon, all of Rand's writings are best regarded as a joke (not to
>imply any component of reason in them).
Hold on yourself, SG. All I _meant_ was that if the SG posts are jokes,
as Gary alleges, then there is no "appeal" to reason in them. There are
"joke-appeals" to something by a "joke persona" but this is at one
remove from reality.
Similarly all elements of St. Ayn's fiction are at one remove; e.g. you
wouldn't think of appealing to John Galt as an authority (would you?)
Any authority in those speeches is just your interpretation of what you
think the author meant by including them. Maybe the whole corpus is a
really truly intentional joke on all Objectivists!
No metaphysics, just linguistic analysis.
Gary Merrill
In article <1993Jan27.2...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie...@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:
|> Similarly all elements of St. Ayn's fiction are at one remove; e.g. you
|> wouldn't think of appealing to John Galt as an authority (would you?)
|> Any authority in those speeches is just your interpretation of what you
|> think the author meant by including them. Maybe the whole corpus is a
|> really truly intentional joke on all Objectivists!
Since one of Rand's favorite techniques is to quote Galt in support
of her views and as an illustration of the choices, values, and
views one has available in life, I certainly hope you are not
suggesting that there is anything methodologically suspect about
this technique simply because Galt is a creature of fiction. Since
Rand does this, it seems only fair to allow her followers to do so
as well.