<DIV><DIV><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>Historical forces</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>No-one knows why philosophy started when it did: ambitious bluffers of a Marxist bent could try to account for it in terms of an inexorable dialectic of historical forces, but we wouldn't recommend it.</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I></I>&nbsp;</P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>This and that</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>Of course, any sensible theory is neither one thing nor the other; and it's generally safe to say something to that effect without fear of having to say just how much of one, or the exact proportion of the other.</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I></I>&nbsp;</P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>The pleasure principal</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>The Epicureans, named after their founder Epicurus (342-270 B.C.), held that pleasure was the End and that this consisted in the satisfaction of desires, which was a good start. But then they had to foul things up by arguing that this didn't mean a lot of pleasure was a good thing: rather, one should limit the number of desires one had, so you didn't get left with as many unsatisfied ones.</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I></I>&nbsp;</P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>Kant or can't</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>One should be very careful about committing oneself in regard to Kant, or indeed any other German philosopher.</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I></I>&nbsp;</P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>Contemplation</I></P><P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I>It is never out of order to remark, with an air of deep seriousness, that you will have to give the matter more thought. This is a doubly effective technique, in that it both does away with the obligation to say anything that might commit you to something, and also in that it tends to make your adversary feel intellectually inferior.<B></B></P></DIV></B></I></DIV>