In a message dated 11/29/08 8:08:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes re the Lehrer: > > > "Tell you what: Let's get through the book first, then return to parse > and critique its writing. It's pretty quick going. . ." > It ain't quick for me, largely because I'm continually halted by what I consider Lehrer's many inadequacies. When I read any philosopher, indeed, any alleged expert, if I become convinced he's just not up to the job, I seldom feel like pressing on. I react the same to all genres of "artists". If I read a great deal by a given novelist, and it all displeases me, I do not feel derelict in not reading all of his works before saying HE as a writer is displeasing to me. Same with a given novel; the phrase in publishing is, "You do not have to eat all of the egg to know that it is bad."
Can this occasionally make for a "mistake"? Yes, but with the limited amount of time I always figure I have, I judge that the few mistakes are far outweighed by the time saved (and "aesthetic" angst avoided). I know it's not out of the question that Lehrer may have some remarks to make I may esteem, but if his reasoning does not improve damn soon, I'll judge he will turn out to be a great waste of time. (I realize I have not detailed here all my reasons for judging him so. But the point of this posting is solely to say, "This is how I react, why I may not agree with Michael that I should push on through the entire book. I'm a slow reader of philosophy." WHY I react this way toward Lehrer would call for another posting, one that would be bound to be very tedious -- and time-consuming) > ************** Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
