--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, haarvi@... wrote: > > Agree that as a syllogism, MZ's conclusions regarding Mark's > truth, sensitivity, and authenticity > are a 'fail'. > You parsed the illogic exactly. > But why take this formal approach to reading MZ? > His reasoning in just about all of his crucial trends of thought > - as I read him, anyway - is impressionistic > and subjective rather than deductive.
OK - I take your point. Look I love poetry, music etc and when push comes to shove I'd say there's more *meaning* there than you'll find in logic and reasoning (I've got hippie-itis) But if you're going to write philosophy, shouldn't it be *good* philosophy? Isn't it a tad ironic to invoke the gods of the West, of Western philosophy in particular, and Socrates specifically, and then say "what's a little fallacy or two between friends"? Is that how the gods of the West (shades of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Descrates Leibniz, Spinoza, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Popper et. al. descending in clouds of glory) would see it? "Oh, my dear David Hume, what you had to say was completely fallacious, but it was SO beautifully 'impressionistic'. It was *your* Truth and you put so prettily". Aquinas for one didn't see it like that - of that I'm quite sure. (Doh!).
