In a message dated 6/3/12 5:17:09 PM, [email protected] writes:
> "My sense is that the interview with Hirst is fine. He comes out OK, > pragmatic > and honest. However, Cheerskep..." > Oy. I can hear it coming. "Hirst is a pragmatic and honest man. In contrast, pedantic Cheerskep once again..." But, hey, I get off easy under William's habitual ad hominem indictments. DuBord is "angry, ridiculous, paranoid, gloomy, and stuck with a fixation." > "with his pedantic comment about ontology, Cheerskep once > again asks too much of everyday talk." > This is a philosophy of art forum. The awful truth "ontology" necessarily comes into it. On such a forum I don't feel Hirst has the "prerogative" of asserting that a given effort IS "art". Even in everyday kitchen talk I reject that. In philosophy, it's essential to see the difference something's allegedly "being" evil and just being CALLED "evil", a difference that William tacitly honors when he rejects DuBird's saying capitalism is "evil". >
