|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Joe on Saturday, December 14, 2002 at 18:34:55 :
In Reply to: Oh, ouch, the names, they hurt! posted by Spratley on Friday, December 13, 2002 at 17:03:25 :
The problem with the whiners here at thecry is that they react to tone rather than substance, even as they accuse me of adopting the wrong tone and not dealing in substance. It is a perfectly substantive response to say that someone's opinions are idiotic. Unless one is willing to adopt the position that no opinions are idiotic, certain people here need to deal with the reality that they sound fairly stupid. Knwoing you sound stupid is the first step to sounding less stupid the next time. I have repeatedly given reasons for why I think a particular post is inane (admittedly, sometimes I haven't), yet I have yet to hear much of anything insightful here. Anitah delivered a generalized rant against America. I responded with a specific list of reasons why she was wrong and never heard from her again.
This goes back to the as yet unaddressed point I've made here a few times - philosophical discussions are often just pompous self-congratulation, as if the mere act of engaging in philosophical inquiry immediately separates one from the masses and presumably insulates the speaker from having to hear that his philosophical points are really not very intelligent. Your other recent post about evaluating opposites, etc. is just the kind of sideshow BS that makes these exercises useless. Why do I have the distinct impression that I could return here years from now and absolutely nothing will have been accomplished in the interim? Because (to answer my own question) there is no real debate going on here - just a series of impressions being bandied about - like one of those business meetings that are really just occasions for people to sound off. True progress comes from very seriously analyzing exactly what is being said (not some dressed up version because the speaker couldn't speak well) and determining whether it says anything accurate about the real world and whether it is logically consistent. One can't do this and be forever synthesizing opposites, giving full vent to every point of view, or otherwise engaging in the interminable gargling of ideas that constitutes modern day philosophy. Whether I am dismissive politely or caustically is really secondary, or should be to the true philosopher. I'll be kind in my every day life.
Post a Followup