In fairness to William (who seems to be withdrawing to lick his wounds)- it should be noted that Cheerskep's ad hominems are at issue here as well -- and despite how humorous Mr. McCormack may appear to the cops in his upscale neighborhood -- his ad hominems here are a rather heavy handed assertion of intellectual superiority.
Which is OK with me. As I continue to assert -- ad hominem is unavoidable in the discussion of aesthetics. I prefer them to be clever and funny -- but it's not a disaster if they're not (and I'm a little surprised that a heavy-hitter like William seems unable to roll with these latest punches) Boris has suggested that "one of the legitimate reasons philosophers run from this list" is that they would think that "Kant's thoughts on beauty are beautiful, even if one is disagree with the results" But I am doubting that even those folks could get together on an open internet listserv -- without eventually beginning to insult each other. Perhaps the interactive study of aesthetics can only proceed in a classroom or office where one person is acknowledged as an authority. And yet -- I have found our brawling to be useful and informative (as well as entertaining) I've had a good time with William. I think I've learned a lot about his kind of art (which I admire) and his points-of-view (which I mostly despise) -- but if he feels that it's time for him to go -- I'm sure not going to get down on my knees and beg for him to stay. Ad hominems, clever and funny or cold and brutal, are here to stay. We should acknowledge that and just move on. _____________________________________________________________ Click here to find the perfect picture with our powerful photo search features. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijlYYVjv49kyTtw8Dqh3bA89O qUcngyqMK6SmYYdycMKpF5qs/?count=1234567890
