XPost: alt.fan.j-garofalo, alt.atheism, alt.radio.talk   
   XPost: seattle.politics   
      
   On 8 Apr 2004 00:47:45 -0700, unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant   
   Truth) wrote:   
      
   >"miranda"  wrote in message news:...   
   >>   
   >> the two philosophy's differences stem from a fundamental difference in   
   >> vision - a difference in the understanding of the fundamental nature of man,   
   >> his role in society,   
   >   
   >The question over man's role in society is plowed ground.   
   >It's already been firmly established that man IS society.   
      
   A meaningless phrase proving comfort but no light.   
      
   >> the role of social institutions,   
   >   
   >The controversy over the role of social institutions   
   >has also been settled; it's been determined that the   
   >role of social institutions is to be social institutions.   
      
   Again no meaning.   
      
   >> govt., the   
   >> perfectability/malleability of human nature etc.   
   >>   
   >> conservatives and liberals generally don't argue with each other, or at each   
   >> other, they argue past each other, since they accept different   
   >> understandings of premises that precede the data in their arguments.   
   >>   
   >> neither philosophy is about simple answers, or is simplistic.   
   >>   
   >> there are simpleminded explanations of both philosophies, but that is not   
   >> the same thing as saying either philosophy is simple.   
   >>   
   >> > But simple answers can get you into complex messes.   
   >>   
   >> actually, that is a criticism that conservatives often make of liberals as   
   >> well.   
   >   
   >Truth is arrived at through orderly logic.   
      
   The why the silly unenlightening phrases to serious questions?   
      
   (Leaving aside the ridiculously simplistic notion that there is some   
   one over ridding truth.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)