That is a good reply, smart, crisp, strong. I like every word. WC
--- On Thu, 11/6/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Weak assertions > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 8:58 PM > William: You raise many points with few words. > Let me respond to some of them. > > Am I sneering? I have almost no credentials in philosophy > and none in > creativity. On what basis then would I look down on others > on the list? > > What I say is weak for a philosophical statement: My > limited awareness of > Socrates certainly involves his purported interactions with > students or > opponents. I understand that it was his wont to raise > questions, rather than > providing answers. If it's good enough for such a > philosopher, could it be > good enough for me? Not that I have anything equivalent to > offer; I do have > lots to learn. > > If you are really asking me a question, I tend to feel > invited to respond. I > have some misgivings that you are conveying something to > me, not really > asking me a question. My response to the nature of > philosophy question is > that I suspect there are a number of aspects, one of which > I gather may be > making distinctions. If science is of any value in > understanding a > discipline, I would guess that there is some description > involved, rules > articulated, procedures advocated, comparisons and > differences established. > > I "ought" to use "ought": it's a > professional tenet that obligations are > self-ascribed. You can suggest or demand that I > "ought": it's up to me if I > feel compelled. If there are conditions attached to > participation on the > list, I would suggest that they be established. Persons > could then elect to > abide by the conditions, or not. I'm not aware of > conditions of the list > (although I do gather that it has happened that someone > has been asked to > leave). > > I'm not clear about what may count/be recognized as > relevant to > philosophy/aesthetics. It appears that individuals' > perceptions of museums, > types of art and manners of participating on the list are > all fair game for > comment. > > I do appreciate the references to books which members have > found > stimulating/illuminating. I have started reading > "Descartes Error" in hopes > of participating on the list in a more informed manner. > > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Reification and "ART" > >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:16:29 -0800 (PST) > > > >Who says political analogies are any better than sports > analogies in art > >philosophy? Syntax is important. For example why do > you ask "might we not > >go" when you could've said "why not" > or even declare "we ought? I presume > >you put a high value on using a polite, non-accusatory > phrase instead of > >one that declares your position. Is your goal to disarm > your antagonist or > >to appear willing to be persuaded or does it veil a > sneer? Whatever, it's > >far too obfuscatingly weak for something said as a > philosophical point of > >view. Do we agree that philosophy is about making > distinctions and not > >might we not avoid them? > >WC > > > > > >--- On Thu, 11/6/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: Reification and "ART" > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 4:27 PM > > > William: OK. I'll do my best to avoid sports > analogies. > > > (I may still wonder > > > why politics might be acceptable and sports not.) > > > It is certainly true that this is an > aesthetics/philosophy > > > list. When in > > > Rome ... It seems that we must debate the shape > of the > > > table before we can > > > discuss the conditions for establishiing a truce. > A bit of > > > a shame. For > > > greater clarity, if someone wants to make a point > about > > > logic, or > > > aesthetics, and spells a word incorrectly or uses > it in an > > > ungrammatical > > > way, might we not go with the sense/notion we may > discern > > > in the post, as > > > opposed to steering the discussion away from the > point at > > > issue to spelling > > > or grammar (as correct as the person might be > about > > > pointing out the > > > spelling or grammatical error)? > > > Geoff C > > > > > > >From: William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [email protected] > > > >To: [email protected] > > > >Subject: Re: Reification and "ART" > > > >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 07:54:31 -0800 (PST) > > > > > > > >New rule! You can't verify art philosophy > by > > > analogies to sporting events > > > >which are, above all, entertainment, and are > refereed > > > with that uppermost > > > >in mind. In art philosophy, each and ever > word, comma, > > > term, must be fully > > > >explained with respect to the meaning the > author wants > > > the reader to > > > >imitate. > > > >WC > > > > > > > > > > > >--- On Wed, 11/5/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Subject: Re: Reification and > "ART" > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 1:01 > PM
