Four things: Was: Comparison of philosophical
|From:||John Cowan <jcowan@...>|
|Date:||Friday, January 24, 2003, 22:26|
> I think that's partly because post-Enlightenment culture thinks of
> its values as universal. (As do I, which is why I see so-called
> American cultural imperialism as nothing of the sort, but rather
> as motivated by a belief in a particular subset of universal
> ethicopolitical principles.)
Not always: _Project Censored 2003_, the latest output from Project
Censored, notes that an explicit goal of the U.S. government is not merely
to get everybody in the world to think like Americans, but to shop like
Anyway, I don't see why something is not to be called imperialist merely
because it is motivated by such a belief. The British Empire likewise
wanted to bring civilization (sometimes in the form of opium) to the heathen.
> I do. For example, I really can't think of any reason not to dismiss
> yet another halfbaked euroclone IAL invented and proselytized by someone
> who doesn't realize that several thousand people have already done the
> exact same thing.
Hmm, in my copious spare time I must cook up one of those (though I will not
proselytize it, to be sure). I have concluded on further reflection that
xuxuxi is foredoomed, because it has no derivational morphology: the human
mind is not going to acquire tens of thousands of morphemes with zero
Thirteen does indeed sound like your speed.
John Cowan email@example.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.