DMB, Don't you realize that when two people are failing to come to an understanding in a debate that BOTH people tend to experience the same sense of frustration??? Don't you realize that I am not trying to drive you crazy, so "driving you crazy" is not something I can decide to stop doing, so there is no point in saying that I'm driving you crazy??? Don't you realize that expressing the fact that you are feeling frustrated does nothing to further the conversation??? Don't you realize that I couldn't care less if I am driving you crazy???
> 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: Where exactly did I say that these are the only two choices???? > 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. Steve: I understand that you took me to be setting up a forced choice between two options. I'm telling you again that that is not what I was doing. Shouldn't I be the one to say what my intention was? If I had said, "there are only two possibilities: Either one salutes whenever I say "language all the way down" or you are a Platonist" you might have a fair complaint and I could owe an apology. As it is, I can see not wanting to salute but still opposing correspondence theory. DMB: > 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 always 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. Steve: Dude, you are totally overreacting. I'm not pissed off. I was just mildly annoyed at you telling me that I'm driving you crazy and couldn't let it slide this time. All I meant in calling you a dick is that, first of all, you ARE a dick, and you almost ALWAYS drive me crazy, and second of all, your comment about driving you crazy was completely irrelevant just like it was for me to point out that you are a dick. Such comments don't need to be inserted. They just create impediments to understanding rather than greater understanding. Now that I provided this demonstration do you see what a dick you are for saying I am driving you crazy? No? Okay, whatever. I still love you as much as ever, and if you are ever in Philly I hope you'll get in touch so we can hang out. 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
