> Matthias Wasser wrote:
> >
> > I think part of the confusion might be that Carrol is using "moral" in a
> > more specific sense than the rest of us.
>
> No. The confusion comes from the assumption that these views are
> Carrol's _own_; that he is engaging in original thought as it were. On
> the contrary, my perspective is entirely unoriginal, and is shared by a
> large number of thinkers. I suggest you read Chapter 4 of Ollman's
> _Alienation_ and the article by Tomas that I have several times quoted
> from and given the URL for. You are wasting your time and energy trying
> to decipher Cox's non-existent idiosycratid thought.
>
> Repeat: There is _nothing_ original to my thinking on this question, and
> to understand it you have to go to my sources, not focus on me.
>
> Carrol
>
I didn't mean to guess at what your meaning comes from, just what it *is*. If I'm incorrect in my supposition please correct that! By "the rest of us" I meant the rest of lbo that was engaging with you in this particular debate, not the rest of humanity in general, and I apologize for any confusion that may have caused. By "a more specific way" I meant a more specific way - that, if I'm right, there are a lot of things that Doug would label as having to do with morality that you would not - not an ideosyncratic or original way.
If anybody on this list has had an actually original idea about an old question, I'm unaware of it, although people have certainly presented old answers in ways that make me rethink them, yourself included.