If You Can't Say It Clearly, You

There Are Clear Cases In Which "understanding" Literally Applies And Clear Cases In Which It Does Not Apply; And These Two Sorts Of Cases Are All I Need For This Argument.

Nowadays Nobody Bothers, And It Is Considered In Slightly Bad Taste To Even Raise The Question Of God's Existence. Matters Of Religion Are Like Matters Of Sexual Preference: They Are Not Discussed In Public, And Even The Abstract Questions Are Discussed Only By Bores.

It Seemed To A Number Of Philosophers Of Language, Myself Included, That We Should Attempt To Achieve A Unification Of Chomsky's Syntax, With The Results Of The Researches That Were Going On In Semantics And Pragmatics. I Believe That This Effort Has Proven To Be A Failure. Though Chomsky Did Indeed Revolutionize The Subject Of Linguistics, It Is Not At All Clear, At The End The Century, What The Solid Results Of This Revolution Are. As Far As I Can Tell There Is Not A Single Rule Of Syntax That All, Or Even Most, Competent Linguists Are Prepared To Agree Is A Rule.

Materialism Ends Up Denying The Existence Of Any Irreducible Subjective Qualitative States Of Sentience Or Awareness.

Berkeley Had A Liberal Element In The Student Body Who Tended To Be Quite Active. I Think That's In General A Feature Of Intellectually Active Places.