I'll be away a few months, perhaps longer. So long and thanks.
mando
On Dec 4, 2008, at 7:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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)
