> i remain curious as to what you
> mean when you say "real philosophy".
Sorry, I've been too busy the last couple of days to answer this question promptly, but perhaps it deserves revisiting.
Many books have been written about it, of course, but very briefly, my answer is that it is something like the good old Socratic method: get a dialogue started on an issue, probe for the hidden presuppositions in everyone's positions, clarify what is meant by the key terms a bit, and in the end (when everyone gets tired of the discussion), even though the original question is not finally answered, everyone at least has a better understanding of what would count as an adequate answer.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ "I believe in seeing two sides to an issue so as I can show the other guy where he is wrong." -- Archie Bunker