Did you actually read the exchange, William? I didn't just 'pronounce'. I gave reasons. Saul didn't see fit to continue with the discussion. That's his prerogative. But the arguments were there nonetheless.
I don't think you will find any cases - except perhaps where I am being a bit flippant - where I don't give reasons for what I think (bearing in mind of course that this is a list and I am not going to write long disquisitions on things.). DA On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 10:29 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> RE:'So what is Derek's beef? He himself almost >> always >> resorts to totally unsubstantiated "belief" >> statements >> when he denounces something as "not worth the effort >> of proof, or "can't be taken seriously" or "highly >> dubious", etc. He has quite a lengthy roster of >> similarly metaphysical phrases,' >> >> Not quite sure why they are 'metaphysical'..They are >> simply comments >> on the quality of the argumentation - which, in the >> case in point, was >> not good. Not good at all. > > Not good? Why? You seem to assume that if you > pronounce something deficient then it is deficient and > case closed. My response is that since you never > provide any logical reasoning as to why such and such > is "not good at all" you must therefore rely on your > belief that it is not good at all. Once again you > emply a belief form of reasoning (intuition) but > demand that others respond with a logical form of > reasoning. Your methods are irrational. > > WC >> >> > Thus: It is perfectly reasonable to say that the >> > existence of something depends on belief in its >> > existence. And it is perfectly reasonable to say >> that >> > the existence of something depends on evidence >> > independent of belief. >> >> >> So the existence of little green men on a planet in >> a galaxy far away >> is proved if I just believe in said green men? >> >> (The second bit I do not follow at all.) >> >> DA >> >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:56 AM, William Conger >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Saul was consistent and I think correct in >> responding >> > to Derek's demands regarding proof of art by >> saying >> > it's "speculation." Indeed, any remark given as a >> > summative judgment of art proof must be >> speculative, >> > honorific, a faith or belief proposition, a resort >> to >> > something spiritual, infeeable, an aura, and the >> like. >> > This is also where Cheerskep is right in his >> > insistence that art is not "out there" but is >> > something we proclaim but can't prove in a >> materialst >> > way. >> > >> > So what is Derek's beef? He himself almost always >> > resorts to totally unsubstantiated "belief" >> statements >> > when he denounces something as "not worth the >> effort >> > of proof, or "can't be taken seriously" or "highly >> > dubious", etc. He has quite a lengthy roster of >> > similarly metaphysical phrases, not one of which >> is >> > less specualtive than Saul's offering that art is >> > ultimately an expression of faith (in art) in the >> same >> > way that god belief is justified by the belief >> itself >> > and must remain speculative. Further, Derek has >> > mentioned here that his "knowing" that such and >> such >> > is art cannot be explained even though he is >> > convinced of the truth of his knowing. The only >> way >> > his knowing can be proved is through a >> metaphysical >> > form of belief; that is, again, believing makes it >> so. >> > Whereas in ordinary epistimological reasoning we >> want >> > to prove a thing independently of belief, in >> > metaphysical "intuition" we admit that belief is >> the >> > proof. Saul is simply saying that art belongs to >> the >> > latter category and Derek reserves that category >> for >> > his denials but then switches lanes and demands >> > others' propositions and speculations to be proven >> by >> > appeal to the former category. I say, "foul!" >> > >> > Thus: It is perfectly reasonable to say that the >> > existence of something depends on belief in its >> > existence. And it is perfectly reasonable to say >> that >> > the existence of something depends on evidence >> > independent of belief. These two domains do not >> > require each other's proofs. At least not yet -- >> > despite some neurologial and philosophical >> > propositions suggesting that belief is fundamental >> to >> > all cognition. >> > >> > WC >> > >> > >> > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> I am not surprised... >> >> >> >> DA >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Saul Ostrow >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > End of conversation >> >> > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies >> >> > The Cleveland Institute of Art >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:58:18 +1000 >> >> >> To: Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> >> >> >> >> Re: 'All fetishes have their object" >> >> >> >> >> >> So....? (Actually fetishes usually *are* >> >> objects.) >> >> >> >> >> >> RE: 'as long as it remains moot - it remains >> >> >> potentially true' >> >> >> >> >> >> It is moot whether little green men live on a >> >> planet in another galaxy >> >> >> far away, but I wouldn't want to waste my time >> >> debating it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> RE: '> So disprove it - its not enough for you >> to >> >> say that would >> >> >> require an awful >> >> >>> lot of argumentation before I would even >> begin >> >> to treat it seriously.' >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes it is. If I point out - as I did - that >> there
