Of course you were. Don't feel bad though, we all get confused at times. Some of us just more than others.

-----Original Message-----
From: Symes, Kate 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:26 AM
To: Williams III, Bill
Subject: RE: brain food


I was referring to you. But those are equally compelling examples.

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams III, Bill 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:29 AM
To: Symes, Kate
Subject: RE: brain food


HUBRIS: ex. 1.)--see Portland City Council-- 2.) Reed College

-----Original Message-----
From: Symes, Kate 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:22 AM
To: Williams III, Bill
Subject: RE: brain food


HUBRIS: The elevation of pomposity to such bloated and seemingly irrelevant levels as to transform it to stupidity.

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams III, Bill 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:19 AM
To: Symes, Kate
Subject: RE: brain food



LIBERALISM: The art of feeling superior to suburban drones and blue-collar workers through purported logic and philosophical jargon.


-----Original Message-----
From: Symes, Kate 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:05 AM
To: Williams III, Bill
Subject: FW: brain food


And you thought your brother was the die-hard liberal.....

-----Original Message-----
From: jsymes [mailto:jsymes@gladstone.uoregon.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:36 PM
To: Symes, Kate
Subject: brain food


"it is commonly urged that, in a war between liberals and fanatics, the 
fanatics are sure to win, owing to their unshakable belief in the 
righteousness of their cause. this belief dies hard, although all history, 
including that of the last few years, is against it. fanatics have failed, 
over and over again, because they have attempted the impossible, or because, 
even when what was aimed at was possible, they were too unscientific to adopt 
the right means; they have failed also because they roused the hostility of 
those whom they wished to coerce. in every important war since 1700 the more 
democratic side has been victorious. this is partly because democracy and 
empiricism (which are intimately interconnected) do not demand a distortion of 
facts in the interests of theory. russia and canada, which have somewhat 
similar climactic conditions, are both interested in obtaining better breeds  
of wheat; in canada this aim is pursued experimentally, in russia by 
interpreting marxist scripture.
     "systems of dogma without empirical foundation, such as those of 
scholastic theology, marxism, and fascism, have the advantage of producing a 
great degree of social coherence among their disciples. but they have the 
disadvantage of involving persecution of valuable sections of the population. 
spain was ruined by the expulsion of jews and moores; france suffered by the 
emigration of huguenots after the revocation of the edict of nantes; germany 
would probably have been the first in the field with the atomic bomb but for 
hitler's hatred of jews. and, to repeat, dogmatic systems have the two further 
disadvantages of involving false beliefs on practically important matters of 
fact, and rousing the violent hostility of those who do not share the 
fanaticism in question. for these various reasons, it is not to be expected 
that, in the long run, nations addicted to a dogmatic philosophy will have the 
advantage over those of a more empirical temper. nor is it true that dogma is 
necessary for social coherence when social coherence is called for; no nation 
could have shown more of it than the british showed in 1940.
     "empiricism, finally, is to be commended not only on the ground of its 
greater truth, but also on ethical grounds. dogma demands authority, rather 
than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of 
heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they 
should inhibit natural kindliness in favor of systematic hatred. since 
argument is not recognized as a means of arriving at the truth, adherents of 
rival dogmas have no method except war by means of which to reach a decision. 
and war, in our scientific age, means, sooner or later, universal death.
     "i conclude that, in our day as in the time of locke, empiricist 
liberalism (which is not incompatible with democratic socialism) is the only 
philosophy that can be adopted by a man who, on the one hand demands some 
scientific evidence for his beliefs, and, on the other hand, desires human 
happiness more than the prevalence of this or that party or creed. our 
confused and difficult world needs various things if it is to escape disaster, 
and among these, one of the most necessary is that, in the nations which still 
uphold liberal beliefs, these beliefs should be wholehearted and profound, not 
apologetic towards dogmatisms of the right and of the left, but deeply 
persuaded of the value of liberty, scientific freedom, and mutual forbearance. 
for without these beliefs, life on our politically divided but technically 
unified planet will hardly continue to be possible."
 
from "Philosophy and Politics" by Bertrand Russel