From: "Widder,NE" <N.E.Widder-AT-lse.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: michael's shit throwing
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 21:59:27 -0000



> On 30 Oct 98 at 11:07, Widder,NE wrote: 

> > Gee, I took this to mean not that philosophy couldn't advance if 
> > practitioners couldn't make absurd and incomprehensable statements,
> > > but that it couldn't advance if others didn't attack these absurd
and 
> > incomprehensable statements. 

>  The relevant question is not really whether the statements are 
>  attacked or not, I guess, but how they are attacked, or whether 
>  _they_ are attacked or _the person_ who wrote them. There is a 
>  difference in saying "this is an incomprehensible statement" and "you

>  are irrelevant". The latter statement just has to be irrelevant, by 
>  definition, because this mailing list is not about anybodys 
>  relevance. 

>  And do you think "philosophy advances" through propositions like 
>  "person this and that is shit"? 


Well, I think Unleesh has been called pompous, and his statements
pompous and fatuous, and a few people have been called illiterate
nit-wits -- based on the statements they have made.  I don't know if
anyone's been called "irrelevant" as a person.  I don't know if such a
statement even makes sense in the first place.  Michael's been pretty
clear that the statement Unleesh made is irrelavent, and that if Unleesh
has a problem with that it's Unleesh's problem, not Michael's.  The
saying in England is that you can't make an omlette without breaking
some eggs.

And, to be honest, M has at this point explained why he thinks the
statement is irrelevant, fatuous and pompous, and the others have simply
made sarcastic comments about his being some sort of academic devil/god
(who is supposed to be irrelevant for that reason).  They may not like
his answer, but he has answered them (well, I guess he hasn't given them
a definition of "trope", just told them to look in a dictionary)

As for whether philosophy is advanced through any of the propositions
that have been passed on this discussion, the answer is probably no.
But Nietzsche advanced philosophy pretty far while calling Kant a
bone-head, the Germans cultural idiots, the English morons searching
after a pathetic form of happiness, and much more.

Just a final point:  sorry to break the news to so many people here, but
even if the list is "designed" for "communication", it's pretty clear it
rarely if ever actually does that.  As someone who has also been here
since pretty close to the beginning, it's clear that it's usually a
forum for cliques of people to trade their thoughts publicly.  Very
rarely do these cliques communicate with one another, except via
flaming.  Almost no one really is willing to post with the intention of
explaining ideas to people who don't already share their vocabulary
(hence they appear to be showing off or just engaged in pompous
fatuity).  One of the rare times an attempt was made at such
communication was Tom Blancato's posts on non-violence back in the
summer.  That's the last time I remember this happening.

None of that is necessarily a reason to sign off the list, so please
don't respond to this with that inane suggestion.  But the way this
non-communication has been conducted has prompted some pretty bright
people to sign off and, perhaps worse, has prompted a number of others
never or almost never to post anything.

Nathan
n.e.widder-AT-lse.ac.uk