Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy,net.nlang
Subject: Re: Metaphysicians
Message-ID: <1818@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 11:48:35 EST
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1818
Posted: Thu Mar 20 11:48:35 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 07:26:37 EST
References: <899@decwrl.DEC.COM> <402@aoa.UUCP> <192@ulowell.UUCP>
Reply-To: mmar@sphinx.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Organization: U Chicago
Lines: 21
Xref: linus net.sci:352 net.philosophy:4302 net.nlang:3998
Summary: 


   Wait wait, Sarima (Stanley)!  It seems you're overlooking the heavy
irony in Michael Ellis's posting.  No, he didn't use smily faces, but the
tone shows up nonetheless -- and anyway, he's not a stranger to the net,
and you could guess what position he'd take.  The two of you are on the
same side here, if we boil it down to two sides (though you approach it
differently).
   In philosophy, 'metaphysics' is no longer an insult, as it was in some
circles earlier in this century.  And I don't just mean in "funny Continental
stuff" either, but in respectable Anglo-American stuff.  In that context,
it does not mean theology, it does not mean parapsychology, etc.
    Example.  From the flap blurb for Parsons's (technical, respectable,
very formal) book _Nonexistent Objects_ : "Using various modern techniques
from logic and the philosophy of language, he formulates a metaphysical 
theory of nonexistent objects."  I quote the jacket copy because it's
convenient, but the author says the same thing.  Neither he nor his publisher
is out to deride his work, or call it airy and sloppy, etc.
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar