By being a bit more gracious and admitting that Dave does know what he's
talking about?
On 11/03/2010 08:18, MarshaV wrote:
How can one compete with the ample credit that Dave gives himself?
On Mar 11, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
DMB said
"... this question about language and experience, at least roughly, is
about whether it's possible to reconcile Rorty and James. And people
like them too of course. C'mon admit it. That's interesting."
Good. So yes that IS interesting. I though for a while there we were
debating the no-brainer whether language (and tone and rhetoric and
style of argument) were part of philosophy (or not ?!?!) Phew.
I think Matt (and gav and others) are right though ... that there is
an important style difference between "professional philosophy" on the
one hand, trying to situate these arguments in the existing (US
Pragmatist) canon, and those of us amateurs on the other who are
simply comfortable with the obvious facts, enough to get with worrying
about how best to apply them to real life beyond professional
philsophy.
I think Dave deserves some credit for the former - even if it sets up
a viscious cycle of mutual frustration between the professionals and
the amateurs.
Regards
Ian
--
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an
attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine
in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what
a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson
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/md/archives.html
