“It only describes the underlying structures by which we might understand our reality.” “Is this what you got form your reading of Rorty? If so, slow down. According to Rorty there is no logical structure underlying the world or structuring our attempt to understand it. That is the priory point of the book. You can read philosophy any way you want but it is not about rushing through difficult and dense texts in order to put notches on your belt and drop names.The dilettante can read philosophy but that does not make him a philosopher.” First of all, I’m really not interested in being a philosopher. I’m more interested in being a writer who happens to read a lot of philosophy and likes writing about his experiences with it. Perhaps if you had looked a little more into what it was I was actually doing (for instance: my description of what I was doing as a kind of postcard (you might have avoided the utterly despicable and misguided representation you presented here. But the ignorance and pretentiousness of it runs deeper: “You can read philosophy any way you want but it is not about rushing through difficult and dense texts in order to put notches on your belt and drop names.” If you had been as interested in what I actually said rather than snubbing down your nose and presenting yourself as some kind of wannabe guru, you might have noticed that part of my process is going back to an earlier part of the book and reading it slower and taking notes. But then you really didn’t care about what I was doing as much you were establishing your status in the pissing contest you seem to think philosophical discourse consists of. You might have, for instance, noted the common ground between my point about logic: “It only describes the underlying structures by which we MIGHT [uppercase added] understand our reality.” and your point: “According to Rorty there is no logical structure underlying the world or structuring our attempt to understand it. That is the priory point of the book.” Allow me to post another quote from my text: “However, what it cannot do is tell us much about the truth value of statements we make about the complex environments the mind/brain complex deals with in the general scheme of things. If it does, it is only to the extent of a kind operationalism that says a healthy respect for the analytic/logical approach will necessarily equip us with the tools to move from statements about simple systems, such as 1+1=2, to the more complex of how to best organize society –such as Rand attempted to do with objectivism. At this point, no assertion about how the mind/brain complex works can tell us anything about the truth value of assertions about how reality works. That must be left up to the only criteria left to us: discourse and what comes out in the wash.” So what exactly is it that you are telling me that I didn’t already know? That I failed to get because of my inferior method? You basically cherry-picked for a gotcha moment, brother. And while being a dilettante, dropping names and putting notches in my belt, may not make me a philosopher (which I really dont want to be anyway, neither does resorting to clichés (socially programmed responses to socially programmed clues (such as “name-dropping”, “putting notches in one’s belt”, or “dilettante” :the equivalent of big word dropping: a little like saying “raison de etre” when one could just as easily say “reason to be”. Nor does cherry-picking for gotcha moments. But the most satisfying aspect of this for me is the irony of you, given your obvious embrace of a hierarchal approach to understanding, being the primary target of philosophers like Rorty and Deleuze (and please excuse the name-dropping (and acting like you are some kind of expert that is going to set me straight. That said, Fooloso4, the main problem for me is that you seem too interested in heckling me than actually adding anything productive to my process. And I thought this board was working to avoid that kind of thing. So I’m going to politely ask you to not post on anything I am doing because, for one, it can only go bad and usually ends up with me getting kicked off, and, for another, I really don’t care about anything you have to say. Outside of a social phenomenon (that of the TlB (Troll-like Behavior (that I can study, you clearly have nothing to contribute to my process in any respectable sense of discourse.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:44:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015