I just have some general remarks to make about the last few postings under
this thread. They may just state the obvious, but I'll make them anyways.
Philosophy is not about repeating certain statements again and again, but instead about a constructive dialogue.
It should be common sense and knowledge that, if you don't respect other people and their opinion, you'll end up talking only to yourself.
And, Jud, this is very much, what you have been exercising in this particular thread as well as on many other occasions on this list.
What Michael, and now myself, ask you for, is a serious discussion and analysis of the other's argument. This is or should be the core of all philosophical activity.
Mere statements like "x is not an argument" or "x doesn't exist" neither explain your own position, nor where the other one's argument is at fault. Also they don't show much maturity of one's own thought.
Of course concrete analysis and weiging of arguments is tedious and tiring work, but nonetheless necessary for EVERY discussion.
So, since you obviously read some works of phenomenologists, why can't you actually cite one of them, give a brief account of his position and then analyse and confute him directly with arguments rather than with dogmatic statements.
Christian.
P.S. Our "activity", as you put it, is subject to philosophical analysis as well as, if not even more than, the question of reality, may this activity "exist" or not.
P.P.S. Eminently undogmatic philosophical positions like phenomenology, existenzialism or post-modernism don't pose a threat to anybody but the dogmatic. It seems to me, that your kind of dogmatism is just as crippling and over all much more dangerous for humanity and it's existence, than any religious dogmatism could ever be.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar ? kostenloser Pop-Up Blocker ? Jetzt herunterladen http://toolbar.msn.de Jetzt kostenlos downloaden!
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Philosophy is not about repeating certain statements again and again, but instead about a constructive dialogue.
It should be common sense and knowledge that, if you don't respect other people and their opinion, you'll end up talking only to yourself.
And, Jud, this is very much, what you have been exercising in this particular thread as well as on many other occasions on this list.
What Michael, and now myself, ask you for, is a serious discussion and analysis of the other's argument. This is or should be the core of all philosophical activity.
Mere statements like "x is not an argument" or "x doesn't exist" neither explain your own position, nor where the other one's argument is at fault. Also they don't show much maturity of one's own thought.
Of course concrete analysis and weiging of arguments is tedious and tiring work, but nonetheless necessary for EVERY discussion.
So, since you obviously read some works of phenomenologists, why can't you actually cite one of them, give a brief account of his position and then analyse and confute him directly with arguments rather than with dogmatic statements.
Christian.
P.S. Our "activity", as you put it, is subject to philosophical analysis as well as, if not even more than, the question of reality, may this activity "exist" or not.
P.P.S. Eminently undogmatic philosophical positions like phenomenology, existenzialism or post-modernism don't pose a threat to anybody but the dogmatic. It seems to me, that your kind of dogmatism is just as crippling and over all much more dangerous for humanity and it's existence, than any religious dogmatism could ever be.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar ? kostenloser Pop-Up Blocker ? Jetzt herunterladen http://toolbar.msn.de Jetzt kostenlos downloaden!
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---