“Obituary: Peter A. Puccetti / Taught philosophy at Duquesne University and never stopped teaching - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette” plus 1 more |
| Posted: Obituary: Peter A. Puccetti / Taught philosophy at Duquesne University and never stopped teaching Dec. 28, 1919 - Feb. 6, 2011 After nearly 40 years as a teacher of philosophy at Duquesne University, retired professor Peter A. Puccetti moved into Asbury Heights in Mt. Lebanon. But he did not come alone. With him were his wife, Angeline, two sisters-in-law, as well as Thomas Aquinas, G.K. Chesterton and countless other philosophers whose teachings he treasured. Lisa Powell, the administrator who checked the Puccettis into the assisted-living facility in 2002, said the professor might have left the classroom behind, but he did not stop teaching. The lessons ended Sunday when Mr. Puccetti died of congestive heart failure at Asbury Heights. He was 91. "It was his nature. He was inquisitive and liked to debate and to think," said his son, John Puccetti of Upper St. Clair. "I think that's what drew him to teaching. Every moment was a teaching opportunity for him. "It was challenging, but it was a joy. Driving to school, sitting at the house, at the dinner table. He was always the professor, always the philosopher. The day before he died he was asking my sister questions to debate. He was a teacher to the end." Born in the Strip District, Mr. Puccetti attended Central Catholic High School, where he graduated in 1934. For a brief while, he attended a seminary in Massachusetts, but he returned to Pittsburgh and became a teacher at Duquesne. "He taught philosophy and ethics, so there was always the moral question involved. How did someone handle the ethical situation?" his son said. "He was a devout Roman Catholic, so there often was a religious aspect involved in his discussion of sports, politics or local and world affairs. "It always seemed to come up naturally in conversation, but you knew it wasn't just chitchat. He was making you think and having you articulate your position, whatever the topic." "He had a light way of explaining some very deep subjects, especially religious," said his nephew, John Liberatore of Cleveland. "He was humble and not condescending, but he was committed to his beliefs. He was great at drawing analogies. "I remember when I was a kid and I said something like, 'This thing was big.' And he asked me, 'What do you mean by big?' And I said, 'You know, big!' And he said, 'Well, big is a relative term.' It made me think." After he retired, Mr. Puccetti continued to read and research. Upon his arrival at Asbury Heights, Ms. Powell became his new student. "He would bring me articles to read, and I'd have to read them and then report to him. We'd discuss them," she said. "I became his philosophical mission late in his life. It was meaningful for him to be able to do that. It gave him something to look forward to. "He was challenging me to think, but if I tried to say something sometimes, he would just keep going. Like he was still lecturing at Duquesne University. "He would have these seemingly mundane experiences, but he would come back with some insight that he'd experienced. And he'd share that. I certainly learned a lot about philosophy." Other survivors include his wife; sons, Mark of Chicago and Matthew of Albuquerque, N.M.; a daughter, Carla Jo Lagattuta of Springdale; and nine grandchildren. A funeral was held Thursday in Beechview. Brusco-Napier Funeral Home handled arrangements. Dan Majors: dmajors@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1456. First published on February 11, 2011 at 12:57 am This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| The philosophy of trading Andrew Bynum - ESPN.com Posted: They're baaaaaaaack! Last week, with the Lakers struggling, trade talk was put front and center in no small part by GM Mitch Kupchak (and, to a lesser degree, Magic Johnson, although he sold his minority ownership and has no official say). Not exclusively something around the margins, either, but perhaps something bigger. Which, generally speaking, is code for trading Andrew Bynum. The rumor du jour- both last week and again rekindled this morning- involves importing Carmelo Anthony for L.A.'s young center, but it could be anyone, really. Bynum's name has been front and center at every deadline and during every offseason, going back to the days before Kevin Garnett made his way from Minnesota to Boston. Which begs the question: What does unloading Bynum mean for the Lakers? Doing so in the middle of the season, even for a more established star like Anthony, makes a three-peat for the Lakers less likely. Short the highly improbable scenario of swapping Bynum for another high-end 7-footer, removing him from the equation and integrating (likely) another A-list wing or backcourt scorer, Anthony or otherwise -- reworking how the Lakers operate on both ends of the floor -- fundamentally changes LA to the point it would be tough to jell in time to go all the way. If the goal of any trade is to win this year, a blockbuster deal involving Bynum isn't the best route. It's more the emergency-chute option, and despite legitimate concerns about the Lakers, they're not at that point. They haven't even jumped out of the plane, yet. The Lakers remain elite as constructed and prominent in any credible championship conversation, and I firmly believe this core deserves a chance to keep the streak alive. Except teams, like people, don't always get what they deserve. The Bynum Question is a great example of how goals for today and needs for tomorrow may not mesh all that well. The central issue is simple: In the long run, is Bynum a guy with whom you'd be willing to go all-in? From a financial standpoint, as a go-to player around which a team can be built, all of it. After next season, the Lakers have to decide whether to exercise his $16 million-plus option, and in two they'll truly have to fish or cut bait. No matter what the next CBA looks like, a new deal for Bynum is likely to cost a ton of money. If the answer to any of these questions is no, isn't it in the team's best interest to move him?
With his frame and history, as the mileage piles up it's hard to see him evolving into a sturdier player, particularly as the heart of a team's attack, where the minutes and physical demands increase.  Garrett W. Ellwood/Getty Images Defensively, he's not great, and his arrival would likely leave the Lakers at least temporarily thin in the frontcourt, but rarely do trades achieve the Utopian ideal, and all come with risk. In the end, Anthony is an upper-echelon NBA player whose skill set fits well with the guys they have. The enemy of good is always better. Remember, the concerns perhaps motivating the Lakers to move Bynum are the same other GMs have in trading for him. Finding a favorable swap isn't as simple as it sounds. So while I don't love Bynum-for-Melo, I'd do it. Moving Bynum is not an easy call. Brutally tough, actually, particularly if the "right" deal comes midseason, when changes in chemistry and continuity are most difficult to address. In the modern NBA, Bynum represents something increasingly rare -- a true, back-to-the-basket center with the athleticism and skill to change games at both ends. If he manages to stay on the court, Bynum still has the potential to be, at worst, the league's second-best center for the next decade. Moreover, while Bynum's health risks are real, there's a tendency to view his problems in a vacuum, as if the other stars potentially available don't have injury issues of their own. Anthony, for example, has played 70 games once in the past four seasons. Chris Paul suited up for only 45 games last year, and while he's played in each of his team's 52 this season, he is doing so with a brace on his knee the size of a Buick. A collision with the thing dropped Derek Fisher to the ground Saturday night. Not easy to do. No player, save perhaps the supernaturally durable Howard, comes without significant questions in that department. As for the question of who fills the void eventually left by Kobe, is there a franchise in sports more adept at finding their next star than the Lakers? Fear of a starless future shouldn't be the primary motivation behind moving Bynum. They'll find a guy, one way or another. All-in or (at some point) get out. That's the question. Everyone loves to play armchair GM. We all love plugging names into the Trade Machine and magically enhancing the Lakers' juggernautiness. The Bynum conundrum, though, is the sort of real-life, make-or-break decision with the potential to cost whatever execs are involved their jobs if things go wrong (or make them stars if it all works out). Personally, I'm glad the only fallout for me will come with angry e-mails, perhaps telling me how stupid I am. After all, I'm already getting those, anyway. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Philosophy - Bing News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment