gav said:
u are sounding a little mccarthy like...(theist replacing communist) as i am
sure you know - humility is the key that opens the door you know i love ya
dmb says:
It always cracks me up when people start bragging about how humble they are. As
if it isn't arrogant to berate another for their insufficient humility. And, as
if that irony weren't rich enough, here we've got two personal insults followed
by an expression of love. And this is what I get instead of a response to the
substance of my remarks?
That's really low, gav, and I'm shocked to see it coming from you.
I see this all the time. People hate what I'm saying but for some reason choose
to attack my style or my attitude rather than what was said. C'mon, think about
that. You know perfectly well that such a response is philosophically
meaningless, intellectually worthless, not to mention childish and mean. Have
you ever seen such tactics used as part of a sound argument? Have you ever seen
this tactic used against the guy who's losing the argument? You'd probably be
hard pressed to find such a case because this kind of
"you-better-know-your-place-you-uppity-jerk" attempt to muzzle almost always
follows from the exact opposite. It's so much easier to insult the messenger
than it is to grapple with the message. I suppose it works sometimes. But
that's really just a "shut up or I'll hurt you" kind of thing. This demand for
humility is just an unhumble bullying tactic.
I mean, what's the problem, really? The case against theism was laid out
carefully and backed up with supporting quotes from pragmatists. Naturally,
this lends a certain level of confidence but so what? Why should such
confidence count as some kind of personal flaw? Doesn't it just mean that time
and energy and work has gone into the making of that case? There is a
difference between having an informed opinion and merely being opinionated. The
former has to be earned through effort and the latter is just an attitude about
the importance of one's own views. Big difference.
The funny thing is, I don't have a very high opinion of myself. Before I went
back, it was not at all certain that I could even get into a graduate school
and I wasn't at all sure that I could keep up even if they let me in. Yes, I'll
admit that I've grown in confidence in the last few years. In fact, if the aim
was to simply to aggrandize myself, I'd brag about my grades and tell you all
the flattering things I've heard from my professors, as well as the encouraging
words from McWatt and Pirsig and from the occasional piece of fan mail. At
moments like this, it's mighty tempting to repeat that stuff. There is a very
stark difference between the treatment I get at school and the treatment I get
here (for doing essentially the same thing). How would you take that if you
were in my shoes? What would you make of that? If the chairman of the
philosophy department says your work is awesome and then some guy on the
internet says your work is awful, who are you gonna believe? How wo
uld you explain the stark difference between these two evaluations? Do you
think they're equally valid, equally informed opinions? Do you think they're
both in an equally good position to make such judgements about pragmatism or
its significance?
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
