>
>Instead of "utilitarian dissenters" (which is clearly poor wording), I
>should've said "dissenters to the utilitarian line" or something to that
>effect.
Ah.
As badly as I phrased it, I have to wonder if you're suffering from
>a particularly acute case of obtuseness.
Probably. Analytical philosophers and lawyers tend to literal and unsympathetic readers, and I am guilty of both sins. "Obtuseness" is not a neutral word. Many people would be insulted. However, lawyers and analytical philosophers are also moderately thick skinned.
>
>Pragmatism is interesting. I'd certainly like to learn more about it,
>although the second-hand Rorty I've encountered seems a bit challenging for
>this novice.
Another teacher of mine, although I'm not the sort of pragmatist he is. There are a number of good general introductions to pragmatism, most of them quite misleading, in my view. Like Rorty, the overempahsize antirealist strands on the prag tradition.
What did you think of the Posner/Singer debate in slate
>(assuming that you read it)? Both of the philosophy graduate students I
>spoke with felt that Singer got the better of him.
Did read it. The philosophy grad students would think that, wouldn't they? What was the debate about?
>
>I thought you may have "positivist leanings" because I encountered a
>posting
>in the archive where you professed respect (which you reiterated here) for
>positivism. Sorry for the mistake.
>
>BTW, how did you enjoy your philosophical training at Michigan? I'm
>assuming that's where you went because it's where Gibbard (who has to
>believe that ethical statements are prescriptive because he denies the
>existence of moral facts) now teaches.
>
I liked Michigan just fine. It was a long time ago. I got my PhD in 1989, left Ann Arbor in 1988. The job market being what it is, I'm a lawyer now.
--jks _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com