----- Original Message ----- From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is one more reason I am happy to be a lawyer. I don't have to be respectful to tedious ongoing conversations in philosophy that ought to have been ended years or decades ago, merely because you can't drive a stake through their hearts in the journals. I am getting more Rortyian every day about this sort of thing. Maybe it's sophomoric. But I'll need to be shown -- briefly please! -- that I've overlooked an important reason not to say, so fucking what? The fact that illiterates (I don't meany anyone here) continue to chat about this is not a reason. jks ================= I'll be the first to admit Galileo and Newton got on with their work just fine without a Carnap or Popper armchair quarterbacking their strategies of inquiry, but remember, you're the guy who did the stuff professionally so you oughta know. :-). I left the game before you did, does that give me the right to say sfw to your take on the issue? One can always say so fucking what about legal theory as well and the various institutional messes that have flowed from such theorizing. Let's Rorty-ize the law [and economics too], shall we? :-) Ian
