THE ARTICLE IS AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM MADE BY\nHUSSERL, AND RECENTLY RENEWED BY M M VAN DE PITTE, THAT\nMORITZ SCHLICK MISREPRESENTED HUSSERL'S VIEW OF THE NATURE\nOF PHENOMENOLOGICAL PROPOSITIONS. IT IS ARGUED THAT SCHLICK\nDID NOT MISREPRESENT HUSSERL'S NOTION OF SYNTHETIC "A\nPRIORI" PROPOSITIONS. THE DISPUTE IS VIEWED FROM SCHLICK'S\nPOINT OF VIEW IN WHICH A FIRM DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN\nINTUITION AND KNOWLEDGE.

This paper discusses the views of Moritz Schlick connecting aesthetics with the meaning of life. The fundamental question that Schlick asks is how anything appears beautiful. The discussion of the beautiful comes down to a discussion of aesthetic pleasure. Aesthetic pleasure has the characteristic of having no use defined in survival terms of self-preservation and propagation. Art, for Schlick, is seen as essentially play. Schlick addressed how his view that connects aesthetic pleasure and play essentially to the non-useful, can be (...) explained in light of the theory of natural selection. Then this is related to the meaning of life as play or youth. (shrink)

In this paper, I distinguish liberal education and social education. The latter emphasizes obedience, conformity, efficiency and loss of critical examination of societal norms. Liberal education is defended not as supplanting social education but as a very important and often neglected aspect of education. Liberal education is and should be subversive in respect to the goals encouraged by social education.