[lit-ideas] Re: Fwd: Philosophy article in NYTimes
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:26:17 -0230
Quoting David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On Apr 9, 2008, at 3:31 PM, wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> > OK, I'll bite: why would a history professor have "a bent for
> > philosophy"?
> >
>
> Perhaps he or she is an intellectual historian?
Some intellectuals are not philosophers.
Some philosophers are not intellectuals.
Some intellectuals are philosophers.
Some philosophers are intellectuals.
No philosophers are intellectuals.
No intellectuals are philosophers.
All intellectuals are not philosophers.
At least one of the above statements may be relevant as a response to David's
reply to my query. And if at least one, then some others as well. One of the
above is poorly formed and hence ambiguous. I'm too tired work it all out at
present.
Some day I just might write a book with the title *Conferencing the mind: how to
survive 4 days of sessions and libational socializings for the 50+ crowd* (MGM
will want the movie rights to be sure.)
Still recuperating from Harvard Square,
Walter O.
P.S. No, crosswalks mean babkis in Cambridge.
>
> http://www.h-net.org/~ideas/
>
> David Ritchie
> historian of winding bent
> Portland, Oregon
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
