Inasmuch as I am an ordinary person like Robert Paul with no access to the
Phil-Lit archives I went out to my garage and rummaged through some old
diskettes. I found the following which proves I was a member of Phil-Lit in
January of 1997. Although why I saved this message I can't imagine:
Received: from news.quick.net (root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [205.153.188.1]) by
mail.quick.net (8.7.3/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA01071 for <lhelm@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:05:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postal.tamu.edu (postal.tamu.edu [128.194.103.24]) by
news.quick.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA13251 for <lhelm@xxxxxxxxx>;
Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:05:30 -0800
Received: from postal (postal.tamu.edu [128.194.103.24]) by postal.tamu.edu
(8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id SAA18233; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 18:05:00 -0600 (CST)
Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8b) with spool id 8092 for PHIL-LIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wed, 8 Jan
1997 18:04:46 -0600
Received: from TAMVM1 (NJE origin SMTPG@TAMVM1) by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3448; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 18:03:15 -0600
Received: from tibalt.supernet.ab.ca by tamvm1.tamu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with
TCP; Wed, 08 Jan 97 18:03:14 CST
Received: from KingsU.ab.ca (kingsnet.kingsu.ab.ca [199.185.113.33]) by
tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (8.8.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA05586 for
<PHIL-LIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:58:39 -0700 (MST)
Received: from KINGSNET/SpoolDir by KingsU.ab.ca (Mercury 1.21); 8 Jan 97
17:03:13 +700
Received: from SpoolDir by KINGSNET (Mercury 1.30); 8 Jan 97 17:02:13 +700
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.32)
Message-ID: <98D6A33AD@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:02:09 +700
Reply-To: PHIL-LIT <PHIL-LIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: PHIL-LIT <PHIL-LIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: PAUL VANDERHAM <pvanderh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: The King's University College
Subject: Re: Phenomenology Reading, fate of phil
To: Multiple recipients of list PHIL-LIT <PHIL-LIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jack Kolb writes "the meaninglessness of our existence is much more evident
now
than, say, it would have been to a medieval or even Enlightenment
philosopher."
I am interested to know, Jack, where or how this meaninglessness is more
evident. Where do you see it? Does the age of the earth have
anything to do with it?
Paul Vanderham
The King's University College
pvanderh@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Being in an age of "declining" philosophy is helpful and hurtful. It
>helps us to remember what others have done before us, and to look forward
>to what others can do after. Nevertheless it is important to remember
>that philosophy in our age is dealing with things that could never have
>been imagined by Aristotle or Hegel. Genetic engineering, Techonological
>control, Feminist views, and (future, i hope) off-world settlement. I
>often wonder if the philosophers in the middle ages, thought of themselves
>as being in a decline. And if so is that why the 17 & 18th centuries were
>so philosophically rich? Maybe we are the starting ground for a whole new
>era of philosophy..... all we can hope is to be there when it happens.
>
>
>
>
>Michelle Bishop
>San Diego State University
>Senior = Majors. Philosophy/Comparative Literature.
>
>
