[lit-ideas] Re: The Short Answer
- From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:54:40 -0400
>A.A. People cannot be stopped from what they want to do. If they wanted
>to discuss
>Wittgenstein or Popper or Plato, they would. If they aren't, then the
>question
>needs to be addressed as to why, without short answering "new
>people". Michael Chase, for example, has posted, and no one has answered.
Personally, I have lost enthusiasm for composing long posts that suffer the
following fate:
1) The main thesis is ignored, mainly because it is
a) too difficult to discuss quickly;
b) might evolve into a flamewar;
or {most frequently}
c) other, more juicy aspects of an otherwise serious post are
picked up on and THOSE are what are the SAME-titled thread continues about
2) as such, the main thesis is never answered
3) if the same issues are revisited, someone inevitably says "That was
discussed on [insert date here]" when in fact, it WASN'T "discussed" at
all. It was brought up. Discussed? No, not very much.
So... what I think has happened is that the bar regulars are a bit tired of
posting well-thought-out stuff when the responses are rarely
well-thought-out and even more rarely on topic.
I'm a closet-philosopher who has read quite a bit of philsophy, but most of
it, other than personally meaningful quotes, has been regretfully
forgotten. I'm glad that this list gives me a chance to go back and
remember an author or six now and again and if I had more time on my busy
hands, I would try to contribute more. Sadly, as I've said several times,
9/10 of what I write to the list never gets sent because of either my own
personal censorship or my inability (because of lack of time and energy) to
respond to a thread that I begin. It is still enjoyable and I still miss it
on days like the last few when posts are sporadic.
>Why? Are these people no longer subscribed?
A lot of them AREN'T subscribed because of initially a lot of people had
great difficulty with the topica postings and readings. I know of several
members of the former lists who have told me (off-list) that they basically
just gave up trying.
>If so, assuming they want to discuss philosophy, why are they no longer
>subscribed?
Some of them are, but can't bother themselves for the reasons that I've
already given, unless it's directly ON topic. I think the membership is
decidedly smaller than the former phil-lit. Also, both this group and
Theoria are quite a bit more homogeneous in membership so a good down and
dirty argument is [sadly] not so frequent.
>Is this not a forum filled with
>philosophers?
Aren't we all just really, at the end of the day -- philosophers?
> Assuming too that there is a "new mix", can the old mix
>not carry on their own threads among themselves?
They should be able to, but generally they don't. It's hard to be optimistic.
>Must the answer be as simple as, there are new people, so therefore we
>can't talk about what we really want to talk
>about?
We can talk about what we want to talk about. I'm just not sure we know
what that is.
>[End of excerpt.] Personally, I think there's a huge world out
>there. Philosophy is just one part of it.
There are more things on heaven and earth, [Fellatio], than are dreamt of
in your Philosophy
paul
##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
