A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)

Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham) by gruseom on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:57AM (#405283)

Your post had no content. [...] I would genuinely like it if you posted some actual content, and I hoped to indirectly encourage you

Heh. Something about this comment seemed very familiar to me, and after a while I figured out what it was: the distinctive sound of xlnt aka curi. Yay web history!

While I have an enduring if inexplicable affection for you, and get that you weren't being sarcastic, the last thing I want to do is have an argument about Wittgenstein together :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham) by qqq on Sunday December 21, 2008 @02:47AM (#405305)

ok. hey i don't seem to have written anything in my profile. how'd u figure that out?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham) by rms on Sunday December 21, 2008 @04:49AM (#405350)

you submitted entries from your blog

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham) by gruseom on Sunday December 21, 2008 @01:44PM (#405588)

Ah. That would have been the easy way. I figured it out because xlnt stopped commenting on the same day that qqq started.

Edit: Besides, there can't be that many people who go on about Godwin, Burke, and Feynman.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham) by qqq on Sunday December 21, 2008 @03:23PM (#405687)

There should be :(

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham) by gruseom on Sunday December 21, 2008 @09:15PM (#405977)

Well, to cheer you up let's talk about Godwin. I read Caleb Williams years ago. It was great - like an 18th century anarchist version of Enemy of the State!

[ Parent | on HN ]