A very mature and reasoned statement, Christian, thanks for that,
enjoyable and worthy to be read several times.
Pity you didn't address the troll's core motivation, which is hate.
I have not nor ever will read any of his posts to the list, haven't for
years. What I inadvertently read from others I cherish, reveal enough
that nothing has changed, and hate, indeed, is the major motivation of
this entity's existence here. We are, primarily, the dogs he kicks,
although he will play with us on occasion to make sure we stay around.
To completely ignore him would be the best remedy. Alas, phenomenology,
unlike philos analysis, isn't looking for a cure; we are equally
fascinated by disease as we are every other phenom.
Thanks again.
—Hen
Christian Steffen wrote on 7/16/04, 8:45 AM:
> 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
enjoyable and worthy to be read several times.
Pity you didn't address the troll's core motivation, which is hate.
I have not nor ever will read any of his posts to the list, haven't for
years. What I inadvertently read from others I cherish, reveal enough
that nothing has changed, and hate, indeed, is the major motivation of
this entity's existence here. We are, primarily, the dogs he kicks,
although he will play with us on occasion to make sure we stay around.
To completely ignore him would be the best remedy. Alas, phenomenology,
unlike philos analysis, isn't looking for a cure; we are equally
fascinated by disease as we are every other phenom.
Thanks again.
—Hen
Christian Steffen wrote on 7/16/04, 8:45 AM:
> 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---