Well, we're all wonderful. That's always been my position. I do not think
anyone is more wonderful than others, so I rant against levels and
holiness. I'll admit to an inkling of pride in a certain cleverness,
perhaps wit....
>By the way, Wade, don't you think definition should
>come before verification - or would that entail
>acknowledging a role for philosophy?
Hmmm. No. I am quite sure something could be verified without any status
definitionally. I do not need a definition of a wound to see the blood.
(Like in your first sentence....) I am saying that Philosophy _does_ need
definitions first, which _is_ its role perhaps. I acknowledge that, I am
just saying it has no objective, evidential significance. And I certainly
agree it possesses a valid historical perspective.
Besides, it's fun, ain't it?
*****************
Wade T. Smith
morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
morbius@cyberwarped.com |
******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******