From b648f126a075218e24aff2050e24f47374861e4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: phoebe jenkins <pjenkins@tula-health.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 01:37:55 -0400
Subject: philosophy segment styling

---
 essays/some_objections.tex | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'essays/some_objections.tex')

diff --git a/essays/some_objections.tex b/essays/some_objections.tex
index ff4b8f0..d320f7c 100644
--- a/essays/some_objections.tex
+++ b/essays/some_objections.tex
@@ -1,4 +1,7 @@
-\chapter{Some Objections to My Philosophy}
+\chapter{Some Objections to my Philosophy}
+
+\fancyhead{} \fancyfoot{} \fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}
+\fancyhead[LE]{\textsc{Philosophy}} \fancyhead[RO]{\textit{Some Objections to my Philosophy}}
 
 \begin{enumerate}[label=\textbf{\Alph*.}, wide, nosep, itemsep=1em]
 \item The predominant attitude toward philosophical questions in educated circles today derives from the later Wittgenstein. Consider the philosopher's question of whether other people have minds. The Wittgensteinian attitude is that in ordinary usage, statements which imply that other people have minds are not problematic. Everybody knows that other people have minds. To doubt that other people have minds, as a philosopher might do, is simply to misuse ordinary language.\footnote{See \booktitle{Philosophical Investigations}, \S 420.} Statements which imply that other people have minds works perfectly well in the context for which they were intended. When philosophers find these statements problematic, it is because they subject the statements to criticism by logical standards which are irrelevant and extraneous to ordinary usage.\footnote{\S \S 402, 412, 119, 116.}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

