102. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:11 PM PDT
Jenerator

It is, again, pointless.

103. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:13 PM PDT
VicKuligin:

Do you believe in God? On what basis? Thank you.

104. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:16 PM PDT
elliot

I will assume you actually know something about the people you cited, since, well, you cited them to support your POV.

If you could, please show me how Kant, a person that has fascinated me for some time now, argued for a moral theory apart from the existence of a god.

105. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:17 PM PDT
VicKuligin:

"The "proof" may very well be that this being DID and DOES interact with his creation."

That is not a proof, it is an unsupported assertion.

"For Deism to be correct, one would have to prove in some fashion that this being does not do this."

No, for Deism to be correct, all one has to prove is that the Deity it postulates is real. For your version of theism to be correct, one would have to prove that God does interact with the world. Simply asserting that he does is not proof.

Thank you.

106. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:18 PM PDT
VicKuligin:

"My argument for the existence of moral absolutes is rooted in the existence of God..."

What is your argument? Thank you.

107. Jenerator - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:20 PM PDT
Vic,

Are all your questions "answered" now?

108. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:22 PM PDT
VicKuligin:

"If you could, please show me how Kant, a person that has fascinated me for some time now, argued for a moral theory apart from the existence of a god."

Well, before we get to that, let me first ask you why you believe in the existence of God. Thank you.

109. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:32 PM PDT
A little on Kant:

"In the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) Kant described his ethical system, which is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. Kant described two types of commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law."
Kant's ethical ideas are a logical outcome of his belief in the fundamental freedom of the individual as stated in his Critique of Practical Reason (1788). This freedom he did not regard as the lawless freedom of anarchy, but rather as the freedom of self-government, the freedom to obey consciously the laws of the universe as revealed by reason. He believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself and that the world was progressing toward an ideal society in which reason would "bind every law giver to make his laws in such a way that they could have sprung from the united will of an entire people, and to regard every subject, in so far as he wishes to be a citizen, on the basis of whether he has conformed to that will."

Kant's moral philosophy rejects revealed knowledge (as by God) as the source of morality.

110. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:38 PM PDT
Message #99
Well, perhaps it's more accurate to say that Voltaire is not known primarily as a philosopher. He is known primarily as novelist, social critic, moralist and dramatist (100 plays). The very few philosophical works he has expound no original philosophy at all and are usually popularisations of previous philosophy or reference works.

What work of Voltaire have you read?

111. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:41 PM PDT
Voltaire is usually listed as a philosopher and a leading figure of the Enlightenment.

112. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:47 PM PDT
Elliot: Oh, what is Voltaire's work on moral philsophy? And please cite the work from which you draw your passage in Message #109.

As for Voltaire's "atheistic ethics", this is what he says in his Treatise on Metaphysics (Essai sur la métaphysique): "There are natural laws on which human beings in all parts of the world must agree. God has endowed man with certain inalienable feelings which are eternal bonds and give rise to the fundamental laws of human society."

113. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:53 PM PDT
The quote about Kant in #109 is from the Encarta encyclopedia.

Like other Enlightenment philosophers, Voltaire's moral philosopy was rooted in the concept of natural rights.

114. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:55 PM PDT
Message #111: I guess this is where your technical education doesn't pay off. A "leading figure of the Enligtenment" does not mean "philosopher".

Since anybody with an education in the 18th century held, and had to hold, philosophical opinions, and since Voltaire is a major figure in the intellectual history of Europe (which is a broader thing than the history of philosophy), it is not difficult to find listings for Voltaire in a philosophy reference. But that makes Voltaires no more a philosopher than Isaac Newton or Samuel Johnson, both of whom recorded their philosophical musings. Furthermore, Voltaire is generally NOT taught in philosophy courses. He is taught in history or literature courses. In keeping with this, the entries on Voltaire in philosophy reference works are usually tiny.

115. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:55 PM PDT
Voltaire has _The Philosophical Dictionary_ to his credit, which has this definition for Natural Law, but does not address ethics per se.

116. charcomm - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:57 PM PDT
Moral relativism is, in and of itself, relative. No?
Ethics...I don't know if there is an absolute..to ethics or anything
else. Every time I arrive at a satisfactory answer in my own life,
something comes along to at least slightly "skew my view".
Situational ethics? I believe that is the standard adhered to by
the majority. I personally have learned that is not for me.
I do think there is an absolute on one matter....in this lifetime
on this earth, everyone will never agree willingly to a certain standard of
ethics or morality. Perhaps, ..... more is the pity.

117. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:00 PM PDT
pseudo: I don't really care if you, personally, consider Voltaire a philosopher or not. He is identified as such in virtually every reference I have seen to his life and work. Why do you quibble endlessly over these inconsequential questions?

118. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:02 PM PDT
Voltaire's "Philosophical Dictionary" is only a work of philosophy in the broadest possible sense of "philosophy". Remember, in the 18th century, every branch of knowledge was still called "philosophy". Newton was a professor of natural philosophy. Adam Smith, professor of moral philosophy.

119. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:04 PM PDT
Message #117
Because I'm trying to give you an education. And to call Voltaire a "philosopher" is to seriously misrepresent what he is and his contribution to Western civilisation. This is not an inconsequential matter.

120. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:07 PM PDT
Yes, of course Voltaire is not a true philosopher; I posted that excerpt from _The Philosophical Dictionary_ in support of what you'd said, and to show that even his 'definition' of natural law is scarcely that.

121. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:08 PM PDT
Pseudo:

"Newton was a professor of natural philosophy."

No, he wasn't. He was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.

Now let's argue about this for half a day.

122. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:09 PM PDT
Voltaire is famous for reasons other than his philosophical writings, and he gets a nominal listing in philosophy references because he was a famous person with philosophical opinions.

The entry on Voltaire, from the Encyclopaedia Britanica, introduction:

"Voltaire, one of the greatest French authors, though only a few of his works are still read, is held in worldwide repute as a courageous crusader against tyranny, bigotry, and cruelty. He embodies characteristic qualities of the French mind--a critical capacity, wit, and satire. His whole work vigorously propagates an ideal of progress to which men of all nations have remained responsive. His long life spans the last years of classicism and the eve of the revolutionary era; during this age of transition his works and activities influenced the direction taken by European civilization."

No mention of philosophy.

A. R. Lacey's Dictionary of Philosophy doesn't even have an entry on Voltaire.

123. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:11 PM PDT
Message #121
Mathematics IS natural philosophy, silly.

124. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:18 PM PDT
Hey, I found an entry on Sir Isaac Newton in Geddes MacGregor's Dictionary of Religion and Theology. Perhaps Newton was primarily a theologian.

125. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:19 PM PDT
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica

126. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:20 PM PDT
pseudo:

You have seriously misreprented Newton's contribution to the world by incorrectly listing him as a professor of natural philosophy.

Here's how the Encarta entry on Voltaire begins: "Voltaire, assumed name of François Marie Arouet (1694-1778), French writer and philosopher, who was one of the leaders of the Enlightenment."

127. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:20 PM PDT
I'm glad that PE has alerted others to the fact that Voltaire was neither a philosopher nor an atheist. His Philosophical Dictiorary is a lucid work but by no stretch could it be described as philosophy per se.

128. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:21 PM PDT
Well, he did spend his last years immersed in study and translation of the Bible.

129. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:22 PM PDT
Message #126
Britannica trumps MS Shit 3.1 immediately and resoundingly.

130. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:24 PM PDT
Elliot,

Look at the title of the _Principia_; Newton _was_ known as a professor of natural philosophy.

131. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:29 PM PDT
"A poet, an essayist, a writer of plays, a historian, a novelist, a scientist, a philosopher." --Clarence Darrow on Voltaire

"With this acquisition, The New York Public Library now maintains a study collection of important and exceedingly rare editions of Voltaire's work, including a number of volumes that are not available at other major libraries with holdings on the French philosopher." -- The New York Public Library, announcing a new collection of Voltaire's work.

132. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:30 PM PDT
Taking a look at my own copy of Philosophical Dictionary, I see that it is described as being "a series of short essays, horatory and propogandist, over an enormously wide range of subjects." Not even its translator, Theodore Besterman, calls it a work of "philosophy."

133. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:30 PM PDT
Maria:

"Look at the title of the _Principia_; Newton _was_ known as a professor of natural philosophy."

And Voltaire is known as a philosopher--to everyone except pseudo, it seems.

134. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:31 PM PDT
Well, anyway, obviously Elliot doesn't have any first-hand knowledge of Voltaire. By the way, Clarence Darrow seems to agree with me.

135. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:33 PM PDT
Message #133

Read my Message #110 again.

136. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:33 PM PDT
That is from the French habit of calling everyone a damned philosophe, Elliot.

137. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:34 PM PDT
Were elliot a touch better acquainted with 18th century thought, he would appreciate that "philosophy," in the Voltarian sense, simply meant "free thought."

138. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:35 PM PDT
From the New York Times:

"PARIS -- The French spend much time quoting Voltaire, proclaiming him to be one of Europe's first modern minds. They declared 1994, the 300th anniversary of the philosopher's birth, the Year of Voltaire and used it to celebrate his rich panoply of fables, plays, letters, poems and polemics."

From Agence France-Presse:

"FERNEY-VOLTAIRE, France, June 4 1998 (Agence France-Presse) - The French state is to buy the chateau near the Swiss border where the writer and philosopher Voltaire spent the last 20 years of his life, a culture ministry official said."

139. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:36 PM PDT
Hahahahaha, Elliot, blame the French, as I said. You could be a 'philosophe' too, if you moved there.

140. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:37 PM PDT
pseudo:

"By the way, Clarence Darrow seems to agree with me."

Clarence Darrow refers to Voltaire as a "philosopher." Did you miss it?

141. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:37 PM PDT
Next thing you know, Elliot will be supposing that anyone labelled "philosophe" in the 18th century must be a philosopher in the modern sense.

142. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:40 PM PDT
Voltaire also wrote _Lettres Philosophiques_, which were anything but.

143. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:40 PM PDT
Actaully, now Ive gone and confused myself. Is it "Voltairean" or Voltairian"? ...

Whatever. The cites from elliot don't prove anything. As I indicated, you will not find Voltaire mentioned in any serious work of philosophy, for the simple reason that he was not a philosopher in any classical sense. He was more like an 18th century GBS.

144. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:42 PM PDT
PE:

I'll wager you, five-get-you-ten, that elliot would also describe Michael Kinsley as a "philosopher."

145. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:44 PM PDT
Message #140
And did you miss the fact that Darrow lists "philosopher" at the end of a very long list of occupations? That is perfectly consistent with my observation that "Voltaire is not known primarily as a philosopher".

The Oxford Companion to French Literature cites Voltaire as "poet, novelist, historian, critic, dramatist, satirist, and philosopher".

The Oxford Dictionary of Literature says: "French satirist, novelist, historian, poet, dramatist, polemicist, moralist, critic and correspondant". There is no mention of philosophy at all.

Even the French dictionary, the Larousse, only calls him "Ecrivain français" ("French writer"). There is but a brief mention of philosophy at the end of the entry.

Elliot, your sources are shit. Newspapers and Encarta?

146. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:45 PM PDT
Well, Blaise would.

147. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:47 PM PDT
I suspect elliot is slavishly devoted to the idea that any individual who passes a thought on anything remotely abstract must therefore be a philosopher. And hey, why not?!?

148. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:48 PM PDT
Of course, someone might ask, don't Voltaire's fiction ("contes") and poetry treat of philosophical themes? Sure, but then were Doestoyevsky and Camus philosophers too?

149. CoralReef - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:49 PM PDT
I don't blame Eliot for being mistaken, given that no less an authority than MrSocko put Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary down under philosophy books read in the pre-Bloom Reading list of favorite books....

150. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:50 PM PDT
Pseudo:

I never said Voltaire was primarily known as a philosopher. But he is generally referred to as a philosopher, amoung other things. Even one of your own sources lists him as such.

151. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:52 PM PDT
CoralReef:

"... given that no less an authority than MrSocko put Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary down under philosophy books read in the pre-Bloom Reading list of favorite books...."

Is this true, MrSocko? But you just said that the PD is not a work of philosophy. Which is it....?

152. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:59 PM PDT
coral reef:

I include Voltaire in my own small galaxy of great thinkers. Even in my wildest moments, I don't believe I would have put him in the same league as a Thomas Aquinas, although it has to be added that Voltaire makes for racier reading than Thomas's 2,000 pages on the nutritive, augmentative and generative states of the soul.

153. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:04 PM PDT
MrSocko:
Well, is the Philosophical Dictionary a work of philosophy or not? If not, why did you list it as such? Surely you wouldn't make such an elementary blunder, etc., etc.

154. CoralReef - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:15 PM PDT
Great spin!

This was the list:

PHILOSOPHY

_Journals_, by Soren Kierkegaard
_The Open Society & Its Enemies_, by Karl Popper
_The Autobiography of Betrand Russell_
_The Closing of the American Mind_, by Allan Bloom
_Rameau's Nephew/D'Alembert's Dream_, by Diderot
_Philosophical DIctionary_, by Voltaire


I saved it because I respected the opinions of Socko, PE and some others and wanted book ideas.

155. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:17 PM PDT
The funny thing is, NOT ONE of those books, with the arguable exception of the Popper, has to do with philosophy proper.

156. KurtMondaugen - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:22 PM PDT
Didn't Socko call Leonard Cohen a philosopher once?

157. schoolmaster - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:37 PM PDT
For long I have been thinking very deeply about professional ethics. For example, consider medical profession. Irrespective of monetary return, the doctor is required to attend to a patient under emergency. And if the patient suffers an irreparable damage while being treated by the doctor who is under ethical obligation, the patient will not hesitate to sue the doctor even at the slightest dereliction how unintentional it might be. The lawyers conveniently take it as their ethics to behave like vultures in the name of representing their client, even though the client was attended to free of cost by the doctor. Is this a clash of ethics? or is there any universal principle governing the ethical behaviour of all social interactions.

158. 109109 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:42 PM PDT
Theoretically, the doctor will not be held liable unless he has fallejn below the standards of medical care for his area. As a matter of practice, because injuries associated with medicine are often heart-wrenching and painful, attorneys play on jury sympathy for the plight of their client ("They lost a child") and thereby, the standard that must be met by physicians in lawsuits is akin to that laid down by God Almighty. They know full well that juries want to 1) recompense the injured and 2) find a reason for the fact that bad things just happen.

159. cigarlaw - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:53 PM PDT
davidmeyer: Message #71 what a cynical and ultimatey bankrupt veiw of humanity. I feel sorry for you if you really believe tat.

Bubbette: there is really only one rule of ethics for an attorney and it parallels the first commandment: Nothing, not you, not your wife, not your family, business or career, comes before your client. Lawyers talk in most ethics classes, because most do not understasnd this or reject it.

160. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:59 PM PDT
CoralReef:

It should be obvious that those books were being listed under philosophy in the broadest sense of the word. I mean, really, the *autobiography* of Bertrand Russell clearly isn't a formal work of philosophy. And Voltaire's "philosophy" is only philosophy in the sense that I mentioned earlier -- shorthand for "free thought" or "rational thinking." I generally prefer these kinds of works to reading formal philosophy because most formal philosophers are not terribly enjoyable writers, the exceptions of people like Popper notwithstanding.

By the way, thanks for the vote of confidence in my reading matter.

161. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:01 PM PDT
Mondaugen:

I'm sure I had another "Cohen" in mind when I made that claim.

162. ChristinO - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:11 PM PDT
VonK, Bubba, BunE,

Yes, okay. I can agree with that. I missed my own assumption that a Supreme Being would care one way or the other what humans do. So I'm still left with no arguments whatsoever that there could be such a thing as an objective ethical truth, or is such a thing possible without a cognizant involved deity? I can't think how it could be so.

163. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:20 PM PDT
I have heard both Camus and Dostoevsky referred to as "philosophers" many times, and their works have been assigned in Philosophy classes that I know about. It may stretch the term a bit to classify them, and Voltaire, with Kant, Hume et al, as philosophers, but it certainly isn't completely out of line with common use.

164. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:22 PM PDT
It's out of line with learned use.

165. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:27 PM PDT
Depends how highbrow you define the term. I know of Philosophy profs who would disagree. I tend to refer to them as novelists who explore philosophical issues.

166. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:29 PM PDT
The works of Dostoevsky and Camus are usually assigned reading in Existentialism classes, and Existentialism is not, strictly speaking, a philosophy at all, but rather an umbrella for a type of alienation generally common to certain writers and philosophers. As a matter of fact, most philosophers designated as 'Existentialists' repudiated the label.

Dostoevsky and Camus are not philosophers either.

167. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:38 PM PDT
So our exploration of ethics has now been reduced to a squabble over whether Voltaire may be legitimately referred to as a philosopher.

168. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:39 PM PDT
For me to be convinced that someone is not a philosopher, I would have to see a commonly accepted definition of the term, and see that the person in question doesn't fit the definition.

169. 109109 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:40 PM PDT
Rask

What about the ethics of Commodore Decker's moves?

170. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:48 PM PDT
Elliot, the squabble has now expanded to include Dostoevsky and Camus.

Raskolnikov, no problem, think of everyone you know as a philosophe, excepting those who don't agree with you, of course.

171. cigarlaw - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:49 PM PDT
elliot: Message #167 granted that seems rather silly, but it is better than your usual cries for acceptance and praise.

172. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:50 PM PDT
Now Nietzsche! There's a man with a theory of ethics one can bite into!

173. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:51 PM PDT
Describing Dostoevsky as a philosopher is ridiculous. He was a gambler who wrote magazine stories in order to pay his bills. And the existentialists weren't philosophers either. With the exception of Kierkegaard, they were barely even writers.

174. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:52 PM PDT
Niner: Decker was insane (as can be shown by his belief that you can shoot phasers through solid neutronium), and thus not accountable for the ethics of his actions.

175. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:53 PM PDT
I think we can agree that Nietzsche was a philosopher, albeit a crude one.

176. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:55 PM PDT
ciggie:

Puff, puff. Glug, Glug. Burp! (That's my impression of you with a cigar in one hand and a bottle of scotch in the other).

177. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:56 PM PDT
maria: if you have a better criteria for determining who is a philosopher, you might want to state it.

178. 109109 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:57 PM PDT
Rask

I disagree. First, he was not certified as insane by the ship's medical officer, so I believe your conclusion is mere speculation. Second, he acted under color of proper regulations. Third, ethically, his duty was to the Rigel Colony. Although his tactics could be questioned, his behavior was both ethical and heroic. In the end, without Decker adhering to his ethics as a commodore (instead of Kirk and his puny worries about "my ship"), the Rigel colony and the Constealltion are screwed by the big cheese doodle.

179. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:57 PM PDT
Socko: I don't disagree with your conclusion, just your reasoning. So, philosphers have to be wealthy and out of debt to get into the club?

180. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:57 PM PDT
You can too shoot phasers through solid neutronium. I have an article right here in my May 1973 issue of "Trek" magazine that explains it.

181. 109109 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:58 PM PDT
So put that in your pipe and smoke it! I must sleep.

Tomorrow, the ethics of Harry Mudd.

182. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:58 PM PDT
According to the Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (I am too lazy to fish for the OED), philosophy, or the love of wisdom, is the

study of the ultimate reality, causes, and principles underlying being and thinking.

A philosopher, therefore, is one whose work would consist of what was defined above. Writers can focus on philosophical issues, even come to symbolize the zeitgeist of their times or later times, but that does not make them philosophers.

183. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:59 PM PDT
109: Ah, but in the end, he committed suicide by driving the shuttle into the machine. According to Star Fleet regs, that defines him as insane. He had no way of knowing that his death would provide the Enterprise with the key to destroying the thing.

184. 109109 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:00 PM PDT
Rask

Get out. He knew that a new approach was required. He took that approach. No Decker, everybody dies. Your position simply fails.

It matters not what Decker knew. It matter that he stayed true to his ethical duty to protect Federation lives.

185. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:00 PM PDT
maria: one who reads works on those subjects would also fit your definition.

186. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:01 PM PDT
Damn the regulations!

187. 109109 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:02 PM PDT
"You wouldn't dare."

Good nite.

188. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:04 PM PDT
Raskolnikov, that person would be a student of philosophy, not a student 'of the ultimate reality, causes, and principles underlying being and thinking'. I am a student of philosophy, not a philosopher.

189. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:04 PM PDT
Niner: you are rationalizing the desperate decision of a once proud man, who was deranged by having to live with the consequences of his foolish actions. Respect the hero in him if you wish, but to call his final cowardly suicide a heroic action does disrespect to heroes everywhere, like James T Kirk.

190. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:04 PM PDT
Formally speaking, a *philosophy* is a coherent system of thought, usually with a well-defined canon -- ie, works which are legitimately and accurately the position papers of the originator of the system. A philosophy is not a loose body of ideas or a ad hoc grouping of statements that purport to be insightful. In the classical sense of the word, a philosopher would be expected to write about metaphysics (even if only to debunk it), epistemology, ethics, art and politics.

191. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:07 PM PDT
maria: I guess the meaningful distinction between "the study of" and "a student of" escapes me.

192. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:07 PM PDT
Socko: all or just one?

193. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:08 PM PDT
The best ethical dilemma in Star Trek TOS (that's "The Original Series" to us trekkies) was in the one where the evil Klingons provided weapons to one side in a war between two factions on a planet with a pre-technological culture, and Kirk had to decide whether to bend the Prime Directive and arm the other side.

194. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:12 PM PDT
elliot: I was too distracted by the sultry fur clad witch woman to notice any ethical debate in that one the first time I saw it. But yeah, it had an awfully pragmatic and "realistic" view of foreign policy for Star Trek.

195. ChristinO - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:12 PM PDT
Elliot,

I spent all of Saturday at a SciFi Expo and I refuse to believe that you are a Trekkie. Your teeth are too good. You might be a Trekker, but not a Trekkie.

196. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:15 PM PDT
Rask:

I'm a hemi semi demi Trekkie. And as for my teeth, remembering where I come from, I would refer you to the scene in The Simpsons where Lisa goes to the dentist and he shows her "The Big Book of British Smiles" as a warning about what her teeth will end up like if she doesn't take care of them.

197. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:16 PM PDT
If a philosophy has not got a metaphysics and an epistemology as foundations for everything else (politics, ethics, psychology, etc.), then it's not properly a philosophy. Camus and Dostoyevsky are philosophers only in the dorm-room masturbatory sense. "Has life any meaning?" Hahahahaha.

198. mariagleason - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:17 PM PDT
Raskolnikov, a student of philosophy studies the works of others, period.

One who engages in the study 'of the ultimate reality ...' does so in order to attempt to understand the nature of things, not content with the explanation of others. This person is almost invariably a producer of original ideas. The study of the works of others forms a part of his work, but only as a way of giving form and structure to his own thoughts and ideas, placing him in a historical context.

Socrates was a philosopher who never put a word to paper; his emphasis, of course, was on developing his students' own ideas and abilities.

199. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:23 PM PDT
PE: that is "a philosophy". What about a "philosopher"? must they write on those as well, or just on or two branches.

I agree with your assessment of Dostoevsky and Camus. My point is that there seems to be an attempt to define "philosopher" as only applying to the real highbrows, whereas there seems to be a problem creating a definition of the term that couldn't be stretched only slightly to include the authors under discussion.

200. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:29 PM PDT
maria: "One who engages in the study 'of the ultimate reality ...' does so in order to attempt to understand the nature of things, not content with the explanation of others. This person is almost invariably a producer of original ideas."

Please explain how this description wouldn't fit someone like Dostoevsky.