>
> Well for many analytical philosophers interested in the philosophy of
> science it is a type of conceptual analysis. What is a law in
> science? What
> is the subject matter of psychology? Mental events? What are they?
> Happenings in the brain etc..etc. Nothing at all, like
> phlogiston? What is a
> cause? Is the concept important for science..etc.etc. What is a positron?
> Must basic particles exist or are they just useful constructs and
> on and on.
> Hardly the subject matter of English or rhetoric. Rorty is an ass
> IMHO well
> ok a pragmatist ass. Just read some analysts such as those I have
> suggested.
> It has bugger-all to do with rhetoric or English or interpretation of
> texts....Read anything by Norwood Russell Hanson.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
*******
Surely you don't mean to say there's no metaphor/simile/rhetoric in Hanson's
work? Why the ad hominem on Rorty? He's harmless enough that there's little
need to attack him.
Ian
"All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence
you know."
[Ernest Hemingway]
>
