Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

M.O.

Expand Messages
  • Siobhan
    Trinidad, Interest and motive are fascinating to me, so in this battle I m empathetic with you. I trust your intentions and do not consider your convictions or
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Trinidad,

      Interest and motive are fascinating to me, so in this battle I'm
      empathetic with you. I trust your intentions and do not consider your
      convictions or writings to be those of the "Intellectual
      Impostures".

      <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/philosophy/dawkins_impost
      .html>

      After reading this review by Dawkins, you might also personally
      conclude that even if written in simple language and pseudo-logic,
      post-modernism and deconstructionism is equally ludicrous.

      Since the unreal person you're dealing with has the apparent motive
      of baiting, mocking and deconstructing, you're tilting at a windmill
      designed to withstand any reasonable argument. He-she-it is more
      interested in pointing out that you get very passionate about issues
      than in eliciting ethical argument. There's no shame in hating what
      needs to be hated. There's no guarantee you'll win the battles you
      wage, but there's honor in fighting for a good cause, the future.
      You're no terrorist, and it's obvious to me that you really would
      rather solve a problem (being right) and be a footnote in history
      than be famous and cleverly wrong.

      Anti-realism is unreal. Anti-realism is the biggest hoax of all.

      Siobhan
    • louise
      Siobhan, I remain mystified. By all means think me a fool if you wish, but might I ask you, who or what is this unreal person to whom you refer?? Knott, for
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 13, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Siobhan, I remain mystified. By all means think me a fool if you
        wish, but might I ask you, who or what is this unreal person to whom
        you refer?? Knott, for instance, seems more distinct than many
        contributors here, and indeed Trinidad himself recognised the
        familiar syntax - one of the marks of personality, of individuality -
        when the poster in question used a different 'pseudonym'. It is
        Trinidad who comes out tilting at windmills, inventing identities
        for people. Remember that post I pointed Nolan to, in which TC
        insulted myself, Eduard, and Amanda?? It really doesn't matter to
        me, I want the whole thing forgotten, so we can all be normal, but
        there is a hysterical, obscurantist, anti-rational tone and method
        at this list when Christianity is mentioned as a political
        phenomenon. There is no need. Kierkegaard's critiques are
        devastating, and he never resorted to the tactics of personal attack
        and the obliquity against which a sensitive soul has no defence.
        Let us fight with words, honestly and openly, or not at all. I
        don't believe I'm on anybody's 'side'. What I do hope for is
        debate, analysis, conversation, the sharing of knowledge. Louise


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Siobhan" <bravegnoobee@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Trinidad,
        >
        > Interest and motive are fascinating to me, so in this battle I'm
        > empathetic with you. I trust your intentions and do not consider
        your
        > convictions or writings to be those of the "Intellectual
        > Impostures".
        >
        >
        <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/philosophy/dawkins_impos
        t
        > .html>
        >
        > After reading this review by Dawkins, you might also personally
        > conclude that even if written in simple language and pseudo-logic,
        > post-modernism and deconstructionism is equally ludicrous.
        >
        > Since the unreal person you're dealing with has the apparent
        motive
        > of baiting, mocking and deconstructing, you're tilting at a
        windmill
        > designed to withstand any reasonable argument. He-she-it is more
        > interested in pointing out that you get very passionate about
        issues
        > than in eliciting ethical argument. There's no shame in hating
        what
        > needs to be hated. There's no guarantee you'll win the battles you
        > wage, but there's honor in fighting for a good cause, the future.
        > You're no terrorist, and it's obvious to me that you really would
        > rather solve a problem (being right) and be a footnote in history
        > than be famous and cleverly wrong.
        >
        > Anti-realism is unreal. Anti-realism is the biggest hoax of all.
        >
        > Siobhan
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.