The Encyclopedia of Political Philosophy

Comment

Comment by Reasonjester on March 31, 2010 at 4:37pm

Sorry I have been lax on this, but I am still trying to straighten out my NING membership. Until then, I found this excellent resource: http://www.conservapedia.com/

Comment by Walter T. Fitzgerald on March 17, 2010 at 10:16am

Thanks for the invite, but I can tell now that this is for the more Intelligent folks on TPN. :-)
I most commonly use the 1800s - 1900s Webster's Back Woods Dictionary.
Not sure it will be very useful here.

Comment by Mary Beth Maidment on March 16, 2010 at 9:20pm

Good article by Restore the Republic today...
http://restoretherepublic.com/new-world-order/the-collectivist-matr...

Comment by Cristi Ritchey on March 16, 2010 at 8:00am

This group pairs very nicely with Publius Huldah's Constitutional Study Group. Publius insists that we use an 1828 Webster's Dictionary because of the fact that English is a living language, meaning that word definitions change constantly as it is spoken.

Comment by Vern Shotwell on March 15, 2010 at 7:14pm

This is true, Dave, in many ways.
When possible, I prefer to use Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary
for two reasons:
1.) Definitions are similar to those used in our founding documents
.................and
2.) Little modification by "Social engineering" - historically accurate definitions.

Words now often seem to have meanings that change with the wind... to fit political motivations.
I find that I am a liberal in 6 of 9 meanings! I guess I am a liberal!

Comment by Dianne Patti on March 15, 2010 at 4:08pm

Reasons Jester, my regrets. I merely responded to YOUR propositions, as a newxomer to a "Philosophy" site. So, I guess you are right, I don't know what I'm talking about. Please excuse me, and fare thee well.

Comment by Vern Shotwell on March 15, 2010 at 4:04pm

Thanks, RJ.
I intended to respond to Dianne.
I wanted to document some examples, but lacked the time!
When one wishes to define an American English word, one must also state the interpretation date.
Kudos.

Comment by Dianne Patti on March 15, 2010 at 10:35am

Welll, in PHILOSPHY class, we learned that in order to discuss or debate, there must be operational definitions of the terms. To change a definition is an equivocation.

Thanks to Noah Webster, we all have definitions these days, even if using different defining sources. But, there is no need for confusion, fog, individuality, and SELF as a final authority on definitions of terms. That just does not work.

WHY EMPLOY CONFUSION? It's completely contrary to LOGIC.

Next, I just learned of the Fabians. Will this Encyclopedia carry information on them?

Comment by Vern Shotwell on March 15, 2010 at 10:12am

Oh, That's Pam's picture? Thought is was Sarah's!

Comment by Charles the pathfinder on March 15, 2010 at 10:03am

Miss Pam, how could anyone reject joining a group, with that beautiful smile of your's inticeing them? Je vous aime, beaucoup, your friend in cyber space, Charles the Pathfinder............

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page