1. About philosophy
2. My explanatory notes of 2013
3. A very brief note
I am still paying back my walk of over three weeks ago, so I
am still not
feeling very well. But it may be improving some.
The evidence for the last statement is that I had a little energy, and
used it to look into my old administration, of before the computer,
which in my case was 1987-8, and found several interesting things.
One of the things I found are two essays I published in 1977. Here is
the first, in my translation. Of course, the links are from today.
Philosophy is important in at least three respects:
Intellectual: 'Speculative philosophy is the endeavor
to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in
terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted.'
(Whitehead)  This is a conscious intellectual
activity. Its results are regularly of social importannce:
Cultural: Everybody has at least one ideology - which
is to say a system of ideas about (i) what or how reality is, and
(ii) what or how reality should be. Ideologies are (derivatives of)
philosophies, though mostly not 'coherent,
logical, necessary': the ideology
of most people is to them as evident and as subconscious as the
operation of their intestines. Seen more broadly: A culture is a system
of ideas, traditions and ways of using things, that has been
incorporated into manners of feeling, thinking and acting. The
understanding of existing and past ways of reasoning, criterions and
priorities leads to better understanding and more sensible appreciation
knowledge is a set of statements (proposed facts and their explanations)
that have been won with the help of certain methods
Philosophy (of science) is concerned with the investigation and
clarification of these methods and assumptions.
About a study that is important in these ways (other than ordinary
sciences, that are only relevant for (i) who is interested in them and
(ii) in their applications) one would hope and expect that it would be
taught in a good, thorough and enthusiastic way.
But no. The 'education' that I have received the last four years is
very bad (on average). It doesn't make sense to extensively consider
the reasons why the education given in the Central Interfaculty  is so bad (because it probably will not change
anything) but I do want to provide a list of points that, in my
opinion, need improvements :
diplomas, that is, masters of art and bachelors who know and can do
little, unless they have themselves learned extra (and that
will not be mentioned in their diplomas) and extensive cultural
corruption because of the allotment of jobs/positions to persons who
only formally qualify. 
- a part of the staff is
lowly qualified, intellectually non-productive and, it seems,
- the salaries are too
high, which is to say: the chance is considerable that people want to
keep being employed not for having an interest in the trade, but for
having an interest in the payment;
- a part of the students
is lowly qyalified (no scientific knowledge; no foreign languages other
than English); is intellectually non-productive (in passing
examinations); and is, apparently, not interested in large parts of
- there is an almost
complete lack of maintained standards, both as regards the demands for
students and for staff;
- the structure of the
Central Interfaculty is of the kind that students who are only
interested in some (political) forms of philosophy get too much power ;
- and finally the
university as a whole seems to tilt on two quite different thoughts as
regards the alpha- and gamma-faculties : on the
one hand the tendency of a popular university: easily accessible,
levelled, and with diplomas in 'cultural education'; on the other hand
there is a tendency towards strongly unlevelled academic
education, with considerable standards. The result is education of a
low level with academic status.
Other than giving voice to my anger, I cannot change the situation. It
remains a fact that much that is being offered by the Central
Interfaculty doesn't interest me (usually because the way it is offered
is very bad: interminablle bullshitting in work groups ;
very bad lectures, usually without any syllabus; utter bullshit that
is being offered as if it were wisdom, etc.),
while what does interest me is not or hardly on offer. In this and
coming papers I want to register a number of subjects that (i) are of
interest to me, (ii) are related to philosophy and that in my opinion
(iii) are not, not well or insufficiently being taught in the Central
Interfaculty.  In most cases, I will give rather
extensive references to literature: an important part of intellectual
communication is, after all, the mentioning and praising of your
explanatory notes of 2013
quoted and still mostly agree, but now want to insist that "necessary"
may be asking too much.
that time, mainly because of E.W. Beth's
efforts (who had died in 1964), the faculty of philosophy was called
"Central Interfaculty", which was all based on quite wide and far going
ideals, that were not realized in any sense, and since then the whole
idea has been given up. Incidentally "the last four years"
is nonsense (false) if indeed this is from 1977. But I think it is, and
anyway only have a photocopy that contains no dates.
Everything I am saying was and is true, but it was quite unwise of me
to say it. But then when I wrote this I was healthy.
Actually, this was too kind: Twenty years later I learned people got to
be doctorandus (M.A.) in philosophy by getting points for squatting and
taking part in demonstrations.
"Alpha- and gamma-universities": The faculties that teach languages or
social sciences. I do not know whether this is current language, but
then it was.
so - but quite unwise to have said so, seeing that I would be ill from
1.1.1979, and never get better. In any case... apart from Evert W.
Beth, who lived from 1908-1964, and was very asthmatic; Peter Wesley,
who went into music, circa 1980; and myself I would not know of any
good student of philosophy.
groups" again was a Dutch technical term, factually without any precise
Actually, I had to remove myself on 1.1.1978 from studying, because I
got no money anymore. So all I seem to have done in this respect is "On
philosophical language", that will follow later.
3. A very brief note
As I've said, section 1 was published in 1977 - I think, thiugh I am
not fully certain - and so is 36 years old. It is not very important,
though it is quite cogent, and shows I have been both thinking and
writing the same things ever since I started to study.
That also is my reason of
translating and publishing it. The other one, about philosophical uses
of language, will be more interesting.
ME/CFS (that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: