dmb says:
When one is debating the meaning of a philosophy or philosopher, quoting text
from an original author is not only common practice, it is considered to be the
very best kind of evidence.
If we want to know WHAT Pirsig said or thinks, we can present evidence by
simply
quoting the relevant part of his text. But if we want to know if Pirsig is
RIGHT
about what he said, quoting his text is useless and it couldn't count as
evidence one way or the other. Isn't that obvious to everyone? Isn't that just
basic logic? Of course you can't begin to ask the second question until you've
pretty well settled the first one. You gotta know WHAT he said before you can
test the truth of it, just as it would be with any other claim.
Ron:
Right, Dave. and I would think that offering many quotes in context linked
together within that context
connected to philosophical consequences supporting that context would bear some
rhetorical weight
in the persuasion of an idea. But claiming authoriative interpretation based on
one quote within a certain
context and employing it as a broad generalization of a system of ideas is
just....welll...dumb.
and frustrating when it comes to senior member of the forum.
It conjers memories of the conversational style of Bodvar and Platt, and I was
hoping we were moving
away from that type of arguementation finally.
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
