James Donald writes:
No it should not be "clarified and examined"
Timothy C. May writes
Why not try to clarify and examine such an important concept? Where's the danger in gaining a better understanding?
When somebody wants to "clarify and examine" a concept that is already well understood, this usually means that he wants to change the meaning of that concept. Where the concept is something fundamental to existing social structures, the result can be utterly ruinous (for example Socrates). In Hal's case he wants to "clarify and examine" something that is crucial to the future that we all want to achieve. It is clear from some of the things he said that his "clarified" meaning is in fact substantially different from the correct meaning. For example he asks a number of questions that are not meaningful or answerable if "reputation" means reputation, but are meaningful if "reputation" means credentials. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@netcom.com