This doesn't work for me. Cheerskep reminds us that only he can carry on a philosophical discourse -- matching the technical requirements of the field -- but his approach has almost always been to explain his positions by employing folk expressions (walking in the park, seeing sunsets, watching baseball, and the like) which ordinary people may recognize from experience but without having clear, examined and shared responses. They go along with folk phrases and explanations that lead nowhere. The faulty assumption is that common experiences yield a common response and that's where the turn to folk philosophy is evident.
Miller is asking him to prove his philosophical badge and Cheerskep begs off. He hasn't the time to do that, while also mentioning that no one here could follow his arguments since listers are just a bunch of amateurs and posturing intellectuals. In my experience the best philosophers could explain the intricacies of their views in fairly common language, even when using technical terms. The most complicated philosophers take great care to define their terms and however unusual their terms might be, or however contradictory to the same term used by others, an attentive reader can follow the arguments. I suspect that many of us here have had excellent general educations -- becoming familiar with the chief domains and their knowledge. If we had a good undergraduate education that means that we have acquired access to a number of topics or fields, access that enables us to pursue them further. We are doing that and so we are proven examples of continuing self-education. Yet some of us are specialists in one or more fields. Cheerskep defers to our varied specialities but also presumes that our capabilities are limited to them and by them while he, as a self-proclaimed philosopher specialist, is exempt from sharing his special knowledge on the grounds that he hasn't the time and we don't have the wits to follow him anyway. Cheerskep's modesty regarding his occasional mistakes hint at sarcasm. I spy the shade of Cotton Mather. There's no need to be modest. We should display our expertise without apologies. For instance, there should be no question of my professional status as an artist -- going well beyond studio practice -- and proof can be easily found on Google or in libraries. I don't fall back on a simplistic notion of art because Cheerskep is not an artist and who just wouldn't have the subtlety of mind to comprehend what art-making entails. No, I aim to do the best I can best I can with all of my comments and respect Cheerskep's ability to follow along. And it's my certainly my fault if he can't follow along. I expect others to do their best too. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 3:46:52 PM Subject: Re: N.K. Smith's "Here I stand" Chris writes: "If you would like to go back and respond to my posts about Kivy, now, Cheerskep, please do so! Apparently, you have much more free time now -- and I am certainly willing to go back and reconsider those issues. "But you won't do it, will you? "Because it's not just the specifics of whatever Kivy or Berger or Smith have written -- it's the fact that they have attempted to write any expository prose at all -- all which the radical nominalist in you finds unbearably stupid/muddled/etc. "(the only exception appears to be the expository prose in "how to" books -- like the one you once wrote)" Chris - When you write, ""But you won't do it, will you?" you're close to right. I'd change it to, "But you won't do it NOW, will you?" I was a lucky man in college in that every single subject (except sociology) was interesting to me. (I found anthropology very interesting, however.) And I'm still lucky in being able to become absorbed in all sorts of different subjects. One of the implications is that even now I'm up to here in projects with deadlines of sorts, and that's why I won't be tackling Kivy NOW. I certainly don't avoid/reject all "expository" writings. (E.g. I saw a bit of Burns's CIVIL WAR on tv the other night, and Shelby Foote's comments brought a pang because I've long yearned to read his history of that conflict. I was a devoted Bruce Catton reader.) But I plead guilty to feeling weary as I address almost everyone's philosophical writings. It wouldn't be right to say it's because I judge them "stupid". I don't feel the likes of Russell, Quine, Wittgenstein, and Kripke are stupid. But they were wrong on key points, and I confess the job of explaining HOW they were wrong looms burdensome. But I also remember extolling on the forum George Boas's anthologized six-page excerpt (from his book, A PRIMER FOR CRITICS, 1937) titled "The Authority of Criticism". I can't say, without rereading it now, that I agree with everything he says, but I do remember that his core argument seems right. I further confess that I feel many intellects are simply too limited ever to grasp certain difficult notions central to philosophy of art (involving phil of language, phil of mind, and ontology). However, it doesn't follow that they therefore can never say anything of interest. They can. I don't think there has ever been a poster on this forum who doesn't know interesting things that I don't know. And there is even interest in trying to phrase an intricate or novel notion or argument in a way that the maximum number of people can take it on board. The challenge is compounded by my own inadequacies. I can be a seeming megalomaniac when I presume to correct the greatest known philosophers, but I can do that and still be aware that I too have been muddled countless times in the past. When I look into the archives and see Cheerskep trying to promote a half-baked concept before he's made it serviceably clear even to himself, I cringe. Perhaps I can save some listers time by saying that I recognize that this posting has facets that reek of "superiority", so you don't have to tell me that. I maintain that most of our listers have from time to time cited errors, and many listers have been teachers in their day. Behind both these acts there has to be a conviction of superiority of sorts. And it's often justified. I imagine we've had teachers who firmly believed - and had a right to believe - their students were lucky to have them. Every one of the teachers, artists, and amateur scholars on our forum has things I could learn from. Lest I be accused of going smarmy, I'll conclude by insisting I have a grip on some useful aspects of philosophy that various other listers could find helpful. I protest Kate's latest in which she conveys she believes that my using the abbreviation 'a.e.' reveals that I'm too lazy to spell it out. I claim that lazy I ain't. I think the abbreviation serves two purposes for me. It saves time, and I confess to great greed about that now. And it so distills the phrase "aesthetic experience" as almost to make it unrecognizable, and thus takes a bit of the curse off it for those who hate calling "that feeling" an "aesthetic experience". I use the meatless scription 'a.e.' as solely a kind of arrow, a pointing finger. Everyone on this list is acquainted with "that feeling", but every label I've seen used here has drawn fire. So I try to avoid the spelled-out label - - ya know what I mean?
