Hi DMB, all,
> dmb says: > Mostly, I agree. But the sources I've used (except wiki of course) are > written by scholars for scholars. That's why I find it so unreasonable to > dismiss them. This doesn't mean they're right or that other scholars will > disagree but it does mean that it has been evaluated by their peers in the > profession. Disagreement drives the whole process, in fact. James described > one of his critics, a very famous a well respected figure, "malevolent and > stupid" and another he described as having the "intelligence of an inorganic > body". It's fun to watch. Steve: The name calling surprises me. In fact, one thing to admire about James was the way he understood his oponents positions and was able to articulate the best forms of their arguments before arguing against them instead of mischaracterizing and dismissing the worst forms of their arguments. He even found better arguments against himself than his oponents could sometimes evem think of. In other words, I think he exemplified that philosophical virtue of charity as well as anyone I've read. His mode of philsophical discourse is a model that all of us here would do well to emulate. Best, Steve 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
