10
   

What attitude should we take to 'renounced' philosophical works?

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2009 06:25 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Y'know sometimes Setanta and even Thomas make me look like a calm, even-tempered, utterly reasonable guy. No "snide jackass" here; no cheap shots about attention spans and the like.
Laughing
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2009 06:36 pm
@dyslexia,
It made me snigger as well dys.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2009 11:22 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Y'know sometimes Setanta and even Thomas make me look like a calm, even-tempered, utterly reasonable guy. No "snide jackass" here; no cheap shots about attention spans and the like.

That's because your command of the masterful put-down is so feckless I won't even bother contempting or pitying it. Setanta, on the other hand, is a guru in this martial art. Coming from him, "you snide jackass" is profound praise from master to apprentice. I shall forever treasure Setanta's compliment -- his other intellectual limits notwithstanding. Which brings me to his latest post:

Setanta wrote:
So it take it you are asserting that you know W and H well enough to comment on whether their initial philosophical positions, which they subsequently renounced, were valid points despite that renunciation?

No. I am asserting that it's irrelevant how much I know about them. If their philosophical positions were valid before the renunciation, they remained valid after it, too. If their philosophical positions were invalid before the renunciation, they remain invalid after it. The renunciation itself is irrelevant.

Setanta wrote:
Of course, you could just weasel out by saying they were interesting points, as opposed to valid, and leave it at that (which is to say, meaningless).

Don't knock meaningless interesting things. Mozart's Jupiter Symphony is one of them, and the world would be poorer without it.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 06:21 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
No. I am asserting that it's irrelevant how much I know about them. If their philosophical positions were valid before the renunciation, they remained valid after it, too. If their philosophical positions were invalid before the renunciation, they remain invalid after it. The renunciation itself is irrelevant.


Which means, then, that you acknowledge having no answer to PQ's question. It's like pulling teeth to get you to admit as much, and we had to endure your meaningless post about Galileo to get that far. A more useful answer to the question of the thread would have dealt with how one determines whether or not a philosophical position is "valid," given that you are not prepared to comment on specific cases.

Quote:
Don't knock meaningless interesting things. Mozart's Jupiter Symphony is one of them, and the world would be poorer without it.


I'm not "knocking" things which are merely interesting, and i made no global statement to the effect that that which is interesting is therefore meaningless. I was speaking only in terms of this thread's question and your failure to respond adequately, or to provide meaningful categories for a response. That you can not see as much is, i guess, a measure of your intellectual limitations.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 06:24 am
@georgeob1,
No, your preferred cheap shot is to suggest that someone who does not agree with you is just some sort of annoying gadfly when you are asked a question you are not prepared to answer.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 06:49 am
@Setanta,
You win, Setanta.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 07:13 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Y'know sometimes Setanta and even Thomas make me look like a calm, even-tempered, utterly reasonable guy. No "snide jackass" here; no cheap shots about attention spans and the like.


I have always considered you a calm and even-tempered guy, George. Affable, even. Even when I totally disagree with your point of view. Smile
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 07:22 am
GeorgeOb wrote:
make me look like a calm, even-tempered, utterly reasonable guy

Except when confronted with Gallic acerbity..
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 09:25 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
No. I am asserting that it's irrelevant how much I know about them. If their philosophical positions were valid before the renunciation, they remained valid after it, too. If their philosophical positions were invalid before the renunciation, they remain invalid after it. The renunciation itself is irrelevant.


Which means, then, that you acknowledge having no answer to PQ's question. It's like pulling teeth to get you to admit as much, and we had to endure your meaningless post about Galileo to get that far. A more useful answer to the question of the thread would have dealt with how one determines whether or not a philosophical position is "valid," given that you are not prepared to comment on specific cases.

No, Thomas's answer was fine. Your "more useful answer," in contrast, is just another one of your prickly and irrelevant quibbles.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 09:40 am
Thomas did not provide an answer to PQ's question so much as he provided a clue to a means to answer the question, but without actually articulating the means. I did not claim to provide a more useful answer, either, so that's just another of your typical straw man arguments. What i said to Thomas was that if he could provide PQ with a means to determine which philosophical position of either man was "valid," then he would have been on the way to answering the question. Thomas' belabored review of Galileo's situation did not provide any means of determining which position would be more valid--if you wish to consider that a quibble, help yourself.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 09:44 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
What attitude do you think we should take towards philosophical works which have been disowned/renounced by their authors? For example Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature.


This is PQ's question. To determine what attitude she should take, based on Thomas' criterion of an absolute and eternal validity, one would have to provide a means of judging the validity of either work, so that she could apply that standard to either work, and determine what attitude she should take. Thomas' example of Galileo simply provides an observation about a basis for forming an attitude, without providing a guide to using that basis for judgment.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 01:14 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

No, your preferred cheap shot is to suggest that someone who does not agree with you is just some sort of annoying gadfly when you are asked a question you are not prepared to answer.


Isn't that the essential definition of an annoying gadfly?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 02:05 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Y'know sometimes Setanta and even Thomas make me look like a calm, even-tempered, utterly reasonable guy.


but what's the upside to that? huh? for the reading audience, that is

if we wanted calm we'd all be listening to Deepak Chopra tapes <shudder>
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 03:06 pm
@georgeob1,
I suppose if you are willing to characterize those who ask you questions which you are not prepared to answer as nuisances, then yes.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 03:14 pm
I think, (despite agreeing that writing is what it is, whatever changes its author later makes) that one ought to read renounced philosophical treatises with some respect for the fact that the author now holds the work to be false, or inferior in some way.

Of course, I am free to consider that the renounced work is superior to those remaining approved by the author, but, unless the writer has renounced the work for reasons I consider unsound (eg s/he has become the devotee of a flying saucer cult), I would be very mindful of what the author now says about the work in question.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 03:18 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Y'know sometimes Setanta and even Thomas make me look like a calm, even-tempered, utterly reasonable guy.


but what's the upside to that? huh? for the reading audience, that is

if we wanted calm we'd all be listening to Deepak Chopra tapes <shudder>


Well you are right. Indeed I am just beginning to see the light hearted aspect of this here. Perhaps I react too much to the truly pointless name-calling and vitriol that infests other threads.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 03:21 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas used contempting as a verb!!!

0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 03:45 pm
I'm on my way to Sedona Az to wait for the alignment of the crystals. I shall feast on quiche lorraine, pine nuts, earl grey tea and peyote. My spirit self will become one with nature. I hope they take Visa.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 03:53 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

I'm on my way to Sedona Az to wait for the alignment of the crystals. I shall feast on quiche lorraine, pine nuts, earl grey tea and peyote. My spirit self will become one with nature. I hope they take Visa.


That's a keeper, Dys !
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 05:06 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Thomas did not provide an answer to PQ's question so much as he provided a clue to a means to answer the question, but without actually articulating the means.

No, that's what you did. Thomas provided a perfectly satisfactory answer.

Setanta wrote:
I did not claim to provide a more useful answer, either, so that's just another of your typical straw man arguments.

I did not say that you did. But by mischaracterizing my post, you provided a much better example of a strawman argument.

Setanta wrote:
What i said to Thomas was that if he could provide PQ with a means to determine which philosophical position of either man was "valid," then he would have been on the way to answering the question. Thomas' belabored review of Galileo's situation did not provide any means of determining which position would be more valid--if you wish to consider that a quibble, help yourself.

Thomas didn't provide any means of determining which position would be more valid because he didn't need to -- that was the whole point. In your eagerness to indulge in another display of your well-exercised dudgeon, it's not surprising that you would miss that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/14/2025 at 11:58:42