Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Marty G. Price (mprice@Ra.MsState.Edu)
Wed, 7 Aug 1996 09:15:17 -0500

On 6 Aug 1996, Bryant wrote:

> In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.960806085040.19541B-100000@Ra.MsState.Edu>,
> Marty G. Price <mprice@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
> >
> So far as I can tell, Gale is hiding behind solipsistic shelters, and is
> unwilling to adopt a standard of evidence for dealing with such matters,
> preferring to play epistemological goddess with semantic nits. She
> needn't bother, since I've long since posted my assumptions (i.e., the
> physical world exists, other humans with working minds exist, etc.) and
> have invited the postmodernists and mystics to do likewise. Clearly,
> since she bothers to type out her thoughts, she too believes that there
> is a world beyond her skull.
> There's life after freshman philosophy, Gale. :)

(But is there intelligent life facing your computer screen?)

You are in serious error. Solipsism, indeed, means, or tends to mean,
"there is no world beyond your skull."

However, none of the philosophers I mentioned or in any manner referred to
offered that assumption. I've no idea where you got that hare-brained
notion. Plato, like Pythagorus, was a rationalist and a bit of a mystic.
The "Allegory of the Cave" which I referred to, spoke of the realm of
"Truth" as opposed to illusion, not to a solipsistic question of

I mentioned the Pragmatic theory of truth --- I don't recall anyone with
half a brain calling either Peirce or William James "solipsists." (Though
I could be wrong there; and James was a mystic as well as a pragmatist.)

Either you are lying to try to win an argument which you had no business
in engaging in, or you have a great taste for throwing around words you
don't understand. The fact is, you asked a very dumb question, and can't
stand having made a fool of yourself.

The evidence you have given indicates that you believe the evidence of
your senses (under properly controlled conditions) consitutes "Divine and
Perfect Truth." One need not be a "solopsist" to realize that your
contention is inadequate.

Closing anecdote: Wittgenstein (supposedly) once challenged Bertrand
Russell to "prove there is not an elephant in this room." Russell
(according to the story) thought deeply, smiled, and said, "I can't do
it." That story (possibly appocraphyl) demonstrates the limits of
knowledge. Of course there is no elephant in the room (at least I hope
there isn't :) ), but *absolute proof* is as ephemeral a concept as that

Blessed Be,

(who is laughing hysterically --- first I get called a femi-nazi; then a
post-modernist; now referred to as "she" --- did I undergo a sex change
and no one told me about it?)