At 12:29 PM 5/6/2004, you wrote: >I know of nobody else in the 20th century who took philosophy as >seriously: Love of wisdom. Regardless of where it came from, regardless >of what it looked like, if it seemed "wise" then Russell at least >considered it. That's enough. (One does not, much to my dismay, always, >or even usually, possess what one loves....) Yes, hence my label for Russell --> philosophologist. He was a devoted student and sometime practictioner, but I think giving him the moniker "philosopher" a bit misleading. Hell, _I'M_ a philosopher by your definition as a lover of wisdom. I can look at both sides of the same argument and agree with both. I don't consider myself a philosopher -- unless you feed me 12+ beers.* *Note: Must be NON-American beer. I can drink that swill [eek!] all night and not get the least bit filosofical. Paul ########## Paul Stone pas@xxxxxxxx Kingsville, ON, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html