[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

Re: Philosophy general debate

To: Matthew Hodgetts <matthew.hodgetts@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Philosophy general debate
From: djf500@york.ac.uk
Date: 22 Aug 2006 22:19:19 +0100
Cc: BUPS Discussion <BUPS-DIS@bups.org>
In-reply-to: <500795910608221256n502f553epc4dad47fe3070db8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BAY104-F202B8BB687927D4527B36ECE460@phx.gbl> <500795910608221256n502f553epc4dad47fe3070db8@mail.gmail.com>

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org

Sorry, Matthew is right to say that if it is uncontroversially philosophy then the arguments runs, but the point I have tried to raise is that that may well be D's contention. D's point is surely not that everything *we call* philosophy is saddening, because that would simply be false, as some have suggested. We need to realise that, for the most part, we have to credit every famous philosopher as being two steps ahead of our undergrad message board (even if we only do this initially).

Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Philosophy general debate
  - From: "Ivan R" <listen_to_reggae@hotmail.com>

References:
- RE: Philosophical Problems at home: Explaining "what the hell you're doing" to y
  - From: "Ivan R" <listen_to_reggae@hotmail.com>
- Re: Philosophy general debate
  - From: "Matthew Hodgetts" <matthew.hodgetts@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Philosophy general debate
Next by Date: Re: Philosophy general debate
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread