Born and grew up in Portland Oregon. Moved to Eugene to attend the University of Oregon and Lane Community College. Worked there and then again in Portland. I've been married for a short time. Now divorced. I've been a registered nurse for way too long. My family lives around Portland. I hope to travel to sunny spanish speaking countries.
It's fair to say, the idea for this site is ambitious. I started wondering about logic and the roots of philosophy, and ended developing an attack on Socrates, who I take to be more sinister than most would say. He's sinister because his basic account says that knowledge and morality are a matter of just logical argument. I take it a better account says knowledge and morality are a matter of not just one or the other, but both rhetorical and logical argument. Another way to put it, we should be basing our decisions on well founded points of view. The sinister thing has to do with the implications of Socrates main idea. If we adopt what he says, then knowledge and morality are impossible, argument is futile, words have no meaning, the terms of logical arguments are manipulable by the powerful, and life so conceived would not be worth living. Needless to say, the destruction of words by this argument makes Socrates the antichrist. On my view, the Teacher of Righteousness, the advocate of the better idea about how we should understand knowledge and values, is the true messiah. Jesus as a messenger from God, understood in terms of such Socratic ideas as the allegory of the cave and the parable of the absent landlord, is merely a Socratic Hero. Basically, I think salvation, as discussed by the great religions, is really a project of philosophy. Such a project seems to be just what philosophers should be doing. They should be questioning things down to bedrock. Why are we here? How should we decide? What should we make of what's been argued before? My interests.