[Wittrs] Re: Language games, html, and the Varieties of Nonsense

  • From: "walto" <walterhorn@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 01:41:15 -0000


--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>
> Walter writes: "It's not the sincerity and honesty that concerns me--it's 
> the certainty of being correct.  Especially, where the knowledge of what 
> these 
> other sorely "lacking" individuals actually believed and wrote is so slight.  
> Pretty much everybody thinks he/she is right about pretty much everything.  
> What matters are the arguments. Otherwise, it's just religion."
> 
> ... alrighty. I actually see what you wrote here. Don't know how that went 
> over 
> my head, but it did. You are saying that I lack the knowledge of what "the 
> free 
> will debate" is saying back and forth. And that, as such, I shouldn't be so 
> certainly dismissive of it.
> 
> I'll see your bet here and raise it. I don't have to know a thing about it. 
> I'm 
> quite confident that it is completely pointless. I'm so confident, in fact, 
> that 
> I await for you to show me otherwise. 
> 
> So show me what the big deal is here. I'd love to see whether or not my 
> shunning 
> of this conversation has saved me time or hurt my growth. My sense is that it 
> is 
> much like the shunning of the sides of cereal boxes, which I haven't read 
> since 
> about 5. In fact, I bet there is more there than here. Goodness gracious: 
> there 
> is much more value in what Tony-the-Tiger is doing these days than in what 
> anyone's position is about "free will."
> 
> What is the difference between such positions and the position on the way 
> they 
> decorate bedrooms or the charities they favor? Actually, these things are 
> also 
> more relevant because they at least show some sort of taste. But if one were 
> to 
> say that they have chosen to do or not do X because of a position they had 
> about 
> free will, why wouldn't this not be akin to someone saying something like, "I 
> am 
> depressed."  You would never take the matter as a proposition; you would take 
> it 
> as asking for help of a kind you yourself really weren't qualified to give.
> 
> If a Mormon came to my door with bibles, I would leave him to his route. If a 
> man offered me his eye for fashion, I'd throw it in my bucket. But if one 
> said 
> to me something like, "I've changed my stance on volition," I'd treat it as 
> meaning the person was in need of a referral for counselling. Or I might 
> treat 
> it as a badge of his ideology, except that it isn't about the kinds of things 
> we 
> use ideology for (e.g., politics). If the person in any way became depressed 
> or 
> euphoric over such declarations, one would have no choice but to treat the 
> idea 
> as one belonging to the professional occupancy for those sorts of affects. 
> 
> The problem, really, is that there is NOTHING for me to do with it. At least 
> with the Mormon, I know to send him on his way.       
> 


Sorry, but I don't have the slightest interest in trying to convince you that 
philosophy is useful, interesting, prudent, or anything else.  My point was 
rather to agree with much of what you wrote above--that as you have no very 
good idea what these debates are actually about, your being dismissive of them, 
is no more a cogent criticism than if my 11-year-old complained that some 
Supreme Court decision was boring, and anybody who could read that crap was a 
dope or needed psychological help.  When Witt. (and Wisdom) complained that 
philosophy was a type of illness, the complaint could be taken seriously, 
because they had grappled with philosophical problems for many years and had 
arguments for their positions.  I don't agree with them, but I can respect 
their viewpoint, based, as it was on study, debate, and reasons.

Look, if you don't want to read philosophy, (or physics, or food criticism), 
that's perfectly fine--it's your life and your choice what to do with it.  And 
if you don't want those things discussed on your list, that's fine too.  That's 
also (now) yours.  I just point out that the insults and condescension are 
nothing but....Well, let me put it this way: If there are any psychological 
defense mechanisms in play around here, they seems to me most evident right 
there.

W

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrsamr
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2011