[quickphilosophy] Re: Countdown

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:24:40 -0000

Hi, Ron.  Don't sweat the time off: as I said to Larry, we'll take whatever we 
can get from members.

It'd be great to have you bring in some new Cartesian blood (he said, 
sharpening his Halloween vampire fangs)--as long as it's non-Clairian.  

As for the 19th Century, I don't think it's a wasteland, myself.  I'm a fan of 
Brentano, Mill and Fechner, e.g.  Now that I think of it, I even slogged 
through some Lotze not too long ago...

W

--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ron Allen <wavelets@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Walter, Budd, Neil, & rest of QP group:
>  
> Well, given my other obligations, I probably can't give the kind of regular, 
> rapid input on difficult papers that Walter envisions for the group. I'm not 
> saying it isn't rewarding; it is, but for me, it takes too much time to do it 
> right.
>  
> My experience with web philosophy chat rooms has been mixed--some good, some 
> bad, some ugly. I've had some good exchanges in the Slow Reading groups, but 
> after a while I realized that these folks were just basically Straussians, 
> and that particular slant on ancient philosophy (to say nothing of their 
> contemporary political theory!) I simply could not savor. Burnyeat said it 
> all, and I do not wish them well.
>  
> And the ordeal of other exchanges was for me not good, not bad, but the 
> other one. One person with whom I disagreed about the translation and 
> interpretation of an ancient philosopher from Stagira managed to root out 
> my personal information and threated to contact the university where I 
> finished grad school in order to tell them that my academic credentials 
> were faked. Amazing, huh? I put a clip on that stinky bag right away.
>  
> It's hard to cultivate good web interlocutors. Look at how difficult it has 
> been for Prof. Wilson to stimulate his group into discussions of 
> Wittgenstein, even though many of them are competent thinkers, one of them is 
> outstanding (but ephemeral), most of them proclaim an almost fanatical 
> loyalty to Witt's approach (so that's the prerequisite for this course), and 
> Sean has done a remarkable job in assembling an attractive web platform for 
> the group. What more can you do? Ha! maybe just go back to school and try to 
> get a good grade in Epistemology 101.
>  
> So, that's kind of what I've been doing. I've been reading the modern 
> reassessments of Descartes and the British empiricists: 
> Yolton, Chappell, and Mackie on Locke; everybody on Descartes, but 
> especially the renewed interest in modern skepticism where the commentary 
> comes from Moore, Wittgenstein, Peter Strawson, McGinn, and Crispin Wright; 
> Winkler and Grayling on Berkeley; and the New Hume Debate--fueled by one 
> Galen Strawson, among others--which claims that the rotund Scot was, in a 
> surprising fact for most of us that always thought he was a happy but 
> skeptical dude, a realist about causal connections. 
>  
> I can't really set this aside.
>  
> But, I could continue in the group, basically commenting on Walt's posts, 
> beginning with McTaggart, whom I've never read. And, I could blog on some of 
> the above controversies on skepticism, causation, and the theory of ideas. I 
> don't think anyone here is particularly interested in ancient philosophy, so, 
> although I have some interlocutors on hand for that area, I'll leave them 
> alone. There are some potential scholars that I could root out for the modern 
> philosophy topic, though, and I might be able to draw them to this group...if 
> it's OK to take that tack.
>  
> Sorry I can't do more. I still have to work a 9-to-7 job and some weekends, 
> which is my source of gray hair, a flat butt, and money. And I have a certain 
> hard-to-quantify commitment to Greek translation within the general area of 
> Byzantine lexicography...if that makes any sense. Once these are tamped down 
> on a week-to-week basis, I can funnel posts on the 20th century's commentary 
> on the 18th century's philosophers. 
>  
> --Ron
>  
> P.S. Why do we skip the 19th? Because of German Idealism?
>  
>    
> --- On Sat, 10/23/10, gabuddabout <gabuddabout@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: gabuddabout <gabuddabout@...>
> Subject: [quickphilosophy] Re: Countdown
> To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Saturday, October 23, 2010, 1:17 PM
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ach, I just realized that if I blew up the group, we'd lose the 
> > > > archive. I don't want to do that. So I guess I'll just let it fall into 
> > > > desuetude.
> > > > 
> > > > With not a bang, but a whimper...
> > > > 
> > > > W
> > > 
> > > Or you can continue with what you found fuzzy in the Fodor paper on 
> > > Churchland..
> > > 
> > > Think of this list as quick but in slow motion, with occasional quantum 
> > > jumps into quickland.
> > > 
> > > Like philosophy seems at times.
> > > 
> > > Budd
> > >
> > 
> > If I continue, I'm continuing with McTaggart!
> > 
> > W
> 
> Well, you can always change your mind! Prove me wrong!
> 
> Budd
>


Other related posts: