[lit-ideas] Re: [Christmas Special] What percentage of 'great' and 'not-so-great' philosophers are 'dysfunctional'?
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:45:49 -0330
Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> --- wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> ," what relevance to their
> > philosophical arguments do such sundry, personal and private biographical
> > details actually have? Shouldn't a philosopher be judged by the cogency of
> > her
> > arguments?
>
> Surely the links or lack of links, between the personal of the person and
> their work, cannot be decided a priori. The enquiry may deepen our
> understanding. It should - it must - be pursued.
>
> Donal
> Editor of 'Ok, philosopher' and 'Hello, philosopher
--------------> Your claims all sound apriori to me. (A claim that a statement
cannot be decided apriori is itself an apriori claim, nicht wahr?) You omit the
necessary justification: on what grounds do we justify the imperative of the
"must" you so benignly attribute to the pursuit of rendering public the private
and personal lives of philosophers.
Walter O.
MUN (temporarily snowed under)
P.S. I've never heard of the journals you cite. Are they peer-reviewed and
academically refereed?
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
