Steve, please review the following exchange:
Steve said to dmb:
.... Rather than knowledge being a matter of finding the proper correspondences
between sentences and non-language, such linguistic relations go all the way
down.
dmb replied:
... you've framed the issue as if there were only two choices; either
subscribe to the correspondence theory or say that it's language all the way
down. This is a false dilemma ...
Steve replied to the reply:
That's not at all how I frame the issue. ... "Language all the way down" is a
denial of the correspondence theory of truth and a theory of language.
dmb replied to Steve:
Dude, you're driving me crazy. I know the slogan is a denial of correspondence.
I realize that it's a criticism of empiricism and a theory of language. I'm
simply saying that one can deny correspondence AND the slogan. One can object
to the slogan without also endorsing the correspondence theory of truth. One
can agree with its criticism of empiricism and still be a radical empiricist.
(James said the same things a couple generations before Sellars did.)
Steve replied:
Dude, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, you are a total dick, but
that too is entirely beside the point. Why say this sort of stuff?
dmb NOW says:
I think you were being unfair and so I tried to show you why but then your
reaction to that was even more unfair. As I see it, instead of calling me a
"total dick", you should have said, "Oh, I can see what you mean. I guess it
could be taken as a false dilemma. I guess it does look like I framed the issue
that way and apparently Matt agreed with you on that point. Sorry for the
misunderstanding." Instead of an apology, I get abuse.
What if the situation were reversed? What if I framed the issue a certain way
and then later in the same post I denied that framing. Would you have to be a
"total dick" to point that out? I don't think so. I think any apparent
contradictions or reversals NEEDS to be addressed in conversation. It's not
just fair game, debates can't function without disputing or criticizing such
things. Given that fact, your lack of charity and apparent
super-hypersensitivity to any kind of criticism is counterproductive, to say
the least.
To say, "dude, you're driving me crazy" was, I thought, a very mild
admonishment. I put it that way to be polite and I'd gate to see what your
reaction would have been if I'd been perfectly frank. What I really think is
that you're misconstruing just about everything I say and it was tempting to
insult your reading comprehension skills but instead I simply corrected your
characterizations. How many times in that post did I say something like,
"that's not at all what I'm saying". You're driving me crazy because nothing I
say seems to be getting across to you and it's very frustrating. I don't know
how many times you've asked a question that's already been answered so that I
have to repeat myself. How many times have I written sentences to you that
being with, "Again,..."? I don't know, but the number is way too high. When
it's all added up, I get the distinct impression that you're not really
listening. It seems to me that you've got a big chip on your shoulder and
you're alwa
ys looking for an excuse to start a fight.
If you're actually interested in discussing the substance of the matter, that's
fine. But that's never going to happen if you're constantly pissed off by
disputes and disagreements, if you see these mild complaints as total
dickitude. It's not the name calling that bothers me here, I swear. What
bothers me is the breakdown in communication that it represents. I mean, I'm
fairly certain that you still don't get my point about why this is a false
dilemma.
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
