Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37551)	5/9/1999 8:51:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

FT and I have been having a discussion on the topic of philosophy. We started with Objectivism and drifted about with Kant and Nietzsche, with a few personal asides on John Galt, Howard Roark, et al. Very civilized, actually. Although Terry has yet to grapple properly with Chuzz's post, which got the ball rolling in the first place. So far, that is....

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37551)	5/9/1999 9:01:00 PM
From: melinda abplanalp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I am trying to read a book but I am not sure it is on your list. This is distracting me.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37551)	5/10/1999 10:04:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Christopher, truth be told, just after I posted my thoughts I came up with exactly the same idea. Of course I had Hard Times on my list <G>. There is no doubt that literature can move history, but I suppose I really have something else in mind. I think it really boils down to those works which generate quantum leaps in man's understanding of the universe. Without that knowledge as a foundation I don't think you can be well educated. For example, the criticism I have been launching in TB's direction is based upon the fact that with all of his philosophical ruminations, he hasn't the vaguest idea of biology. So much of his philosophy is just plain silly because it is inconsistent with the body of empirical knowledge. TTFN, CTC