But for Theo’s C88 editorial comment that "there are a few of you out there whose first thoughts have yet to be heard..." y'all might've been spared mine a little longer. As is, I can but apologise if, through having missed a point developing, I manage to grab the wrong end of anyone's particular stick. As a relative newcomer to the SIG I'd been biding my time - trying to get the gist of things. With the bulk of correspondence consisting of replies, replies to replies, etc. it's a bit like butting into somebody else's conversation. But I never could resist an excuse. So, in no particular order.
Is the "rename Commensal" contest still open ? How's about "Ringpiece" ? Not that I'm implying anything. Unlike Theo’s hypothetical "friend" (C87 ish).
Quality is a bonus. As I see it there's nothing wrong in telling someone you think they're chasing the wrong doggie. But to quibble about how they express their opinion - as opposed to holding a different one yourself ? Enough said, methinks. Dwelling on the matter'd be like slagging someone off behind their back. Either they don't get a chance to defend themselves, so it's unfair. Or they never get to know, so it's pointless.
I can't help but wonder though if the real reason for not joining was fear of being unable to make the minimum standard ?
Moving on, albeit inelegantly as links go. A few points arising from C88.Philip Lloyd Lewis may be right in suggesting that assigning "probability of truth" is - at least to some extent - subjective for probabilities falling between 0 and 1. But what about 0 and 1 themselves ?
Take someone for whom the statement "X is dead" describes them to a tee - ie. has a "probability of truth" of 1. Does it matter how good a talker they were? Likewise, if they say anything at all, no matter how badly they phrase it, that'd seemingly assign the statement a "probability of truth" around 0.
Whilst on the probability of being dead. Isn't there already a perfectly good word to describe INVOLUNTARY euthanasia ? "Murder" ?
Much as I sympathise with much of what E.Ron Kermode says about euthanasia, the "slippery slope" brigade do have a point. No matter how well-intending I don't much like the thought of anyone but me deciding what I might or might not be inclined to volunteer for.
Not that I much like the present system whereby I am denied the right to choose, as far as possible, the time and manner of my own demise. Nor that someone who cared enough to help me should I be incapable of being the instrument of my own volition would face punishment for complying with my wishes.
I'm sure it was lack of space that led E.Ron ( "E" ? "Ron" ? "Mr. Kermode" ? - preference ? ) to omit mentioning the importance of "living wills". That way, of course, everyone concerned knows in advance what an individual considers to be "VOLUNTARY". To protect the rights of those who'd prefer to die in miserable ignominy, all that'd then be needed would be to assume that if it weren't covered it weren't wanted - ie. no statement: no euthanasia.
Still on the subject of killing people. Does Anthony Owens proposed points system take into account the severity of an offence ? Or just the fact of it ? I may not be too squeamish about, say, executing somebody with four points for violence gained for killing a couple of people, who then went over the limit in the course of chalking up victim number three. But topping somebody for nicking a Mars Bar on five separate occasions seems a bit drastic.
Assuming, of course, you'd got the right person. Maybe in the interests of crime prevention / detection we should all be fitted with these tracking devices ? After all what have the innocent to fear from Big Brother simply knowing their whereabouts at all times ? Only the guilty need have movement restrictions imposed.
Incidentally, I don't know what street Anthony lives on, but I'd reckon it a fair bet drugs are more readily available there than in most prisons. Not that I'd dispute the ready availability of drugs in many (most ?) jails. Just that Anthony may have under-estimated how widely available they are generally. After all, drugs in jails have to be smuggled in from somewhere don't they ? Perhaps I've lived in some worse neighbourhoods than Anthony.
I did wonder why he mentioned drugs at all though, since his definitions of "crime" don't seem to include them. Assuming users "consent" to the risks involved it ain't violence. Nor does it appear to be "theft". As opposed, of course, to the methods users may employ to finance their habits, or what they may do whilst under the influence.
Now, I'm not particularly "pro-drug". Anything you can over-dose on has to be a bad form of entertainment. But I've nowt against someone killing themself. So, within reason, who am I to deny others their enjoyment of things I may not be inclined to partake of myself ? Of course anything that renders somebody a danger to others can't rightly be allowed and shouldn't be tolerated - be it driving stoned out yer box or attacking passers-by under the drug-induced impression they're Satan's little helpers come to get you.
But much the same could be said for alcohol. Perhaps "soft drugs", like cannabis, that don't carry a significant risk of killing the user outright should be classed along with alcohol (which can). Then come down hard on the hard stuff. But whilst at it I'd see the laws concerning the use of alcohol tightened up.
Or, perhaps simpler, ban alcohol as well. That way everyone is equal - nobody would be able to get out their face legally. Which, considering the amount of alcohol related crime might be no bad thing. There again I'm a teetotal, non-driver, irregular light smoker (mostly passive), generally clean living righteous sort, so I would say that.
Finally. Wittgenstein ? "probably" the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century ? Shouldn't that be "arguably" Theo ? Russell ? Koestler ? Popper ? Santayana ? Sartre ?
Admittedly all of them would probably appear on most lists of famous twentieth century philosophers - the actual position being a matter of preference - but dammit Theo. "... This is Mensa...". If we can't argue about semantics what point is there in any of it ?
Stef Gula
In a society that provides "free" healthcare, is someone who knowingly incurs illness by risky activities like drug-taking actually committing a theft ? There seemed to be a debate recently about whether "dangerous sports" (like hill-walking !) whose practitioners consume public resources being rescued or otherwise patched up should be covered by extra insurance.
I can’t have you persuading philosophers to abstain from alcohol. You don’t need to be a Monty Python fan to realise how central it is to the discipline. Plato’s admiration of Socrates seemed partly to rest on that ancient sage’s renowned ability to down a bucketful at a symposium without having his thought-processes befuddled. I’ve always found alcohol rather inimical to clear thought, which is, after all, half the attraction. It allows you to escape those troubling thoughts that go round and round in your head. It’s the way the whole world subsequently seems to go round your head that’s the problem.
You’re quite right - you’ve caught me out being snooty. I should have said "influential", or "most quoted", rather than "famous". Russell is probably the most famous philosopher of the 20th century, though not, I suspect, for his philosophy. At the risk of becoming a repeat offender, didn’t we join Mensa in the hope of conversing with people who think quickly and know things ? Shouldn’t we provoke one another to do so ?
Theo