From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Aug 03 2002 - 09:28:03 MDT
On Friday, August 02, 2002 12:28 AM Lee Corbin lcorbin@tsoft.com wrote:
> Dan, I hope that I wasn't the one who just wrote some
> nasty sarcastic rebuttals back whenever, but reading
> over the above, I guess I could have been. Sorry.
Nope. Only two people responded, one privately and the other on the
list. The person who responded privately thought my arguments were
sound but led to unadulterated skepticism. I disagree with the latter
conclusion. I believe my argument merely shows pancritical rationalism
can't be the whole of one's methodology, though it can and probably
should remain an important part of anyone's intellectual toolkit. It's
just not the whole kit or even the most important part of it.
The person who responded on the list felt otherwise and the following
dialogue took place:
X: Part of the reason I've classified philosophy as useless has to do
with the way pancritical rationalism makes it obsolete and irrelevant.
Me: This is not an answer to the logic of my argument.
X: Which part? The obsolete part, or the irrelevant part?
Me: It's not all that long. The fact that you won't answer it leads me
to believe you can't answer it.
X: The fact that no one else has bothered to try to help you understand
how misplaced your assumptions are leads me to conclude that it isn't
worth the time.
Of course, that X's reply goes against the spirit of pancritical
rationalism, since it's a selective refusal to look at a criticism.
I'll respond to the more substantive matters later -- hopefully, later
today.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See my piece on pancritical rationalism at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/PCR.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:52 MST