For what it is worth, I tend to think that Mr Conger's contributions are,
far and away the most interesting posts on this list. I would also like to
say, albeit very humbly, that Cheerskep's contributions do tend towards
authoritative (perhaps authoritarian) pronouncement, instead of good natured
dialogue or debate. There are likely many reasons for my feelings about
this matter (among them Cheerskep's conscious affirmation that he has been
saying the same thing for a very long time now, and further feels that he
can dispense with argumentation entirely), all of which are eminently
reasonable, I'm sure.
However, it has been my experience, much like that of Mr Conger, that when
pressed on a particular point Cheerskep either (1) does not reply to that
point and proceeds (a) to bulldoze over the argument presented against him
('aha, you are claiming that "X IS the case," even as i claim, "there is no
'the meaning of'"'), (b) claim that the rules of game don't require him to
justify his statement, (c) invokes his privilege in philosophy, or (2)
simply confesses failure (as if the matter were so self-evident that all
that was needed was one appropriate gesture to make the whole thing clear)
and drops the matter entirely.
I do not bring these issues up in order to directly support Mr Conger, or to
further 'a flame-war,' to take sides, or even to make someone feel guilty.
I mention it only because I believe Mr Conger is right: too many interesting
discussions have been completely blocked, shut down, or redirected towards
unhelpful considerations because of a meta-phillosophical concern, indeed an
idee-fixe, which some people here do not find particularly enlightening (and
for which most of us haven't ever seen a full argument or explanation).
We all appreciate your efforts, Cheerskep (along with that of Ms Sullivan),
in setting up and supporting our current list. Truly. And I like to think
of you -- and many others besides -- as a friend (yes, even Mr Miller, who
so happily plays the devil's advocate and scapegoat to many of us that he
must truly be a saint!). But (and I believe this is a relatively small
'but'), I'm afraid the only philosophical stance we should allow here is
argument -- neither the obviously fallacious ad hominem (although I do
appreciate rhetorical style, and I do believe we should cultivate a verbal
joust here, as well as les bons mots), nor appeals to intellectual pedigree,
which amount to nothing short of appeals to authority. Argument may not
settle every issue, and there will always be factions among us, but that
should not be mistaken for impotence. Argument ought to remain sovereign,
and the force of reason -- tempered by good natured goading, rhetorical
flourishes, and all the rhetorical tropes that characterize Aesthetics since
Aristotle -- should ensure his law.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a message dated 10/25/08 6:25:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Since I am being hounded off the forum...
> >
> William -- I know of no one who wants you off the forum, and certainly I
> don't. I'd like it if you abandoned your ad hominems and some other stuff,
> but
> I'd
> rather have you with those things than not have you at all. You are, as we
> used to say in publishing, an ornament to the list. -- Cheerskep
>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites,
> no registration required and great graphics b check it out!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
> http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
