@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
well I want to stick up for Kennethamy. We are definitely not from the same stable, opposite in many regards, and often (in fact usually) disagree, but I will say that he tries to argue every case on what he sees as the philosophical principles and furthermore that his knowledge of the subject as it is taught in the US, from what I know, is better than most.
There is only so far you can go with an argument, anyway. Past a certain point you can see that it is not going to get through to whoever you're speaking to, regardless of the merits of your case. At that point, time to practise the honourable philosophical discipline of apathea. One can only do one's best.
I appreciate your sticking up for someone who is obviously coming from a different perspective, and I would usually support it. I, myself, am a pluralist, and I welcome diverse viewpoints within any given discussion. But it is not the difference in perspective that I object to in Kennethamy's contributions , but the manner in which he supports, and often fails to support, his arguments.
I am the product of a US academic philosophy dept. And despite the fact that the dept head at the time was primarily a positivist, the department had a phenomenological bias. The fact that he comes from the US is not an excuse, or at best a poor one, for the manner in which he comports himself in a philosophical debate. Even Ken would admit that to claim such an excuse would be an appeal to authority, rather than a real argument.
As far as I can detect, Ken defends no "philosophical" position. He presents premises and arguments, but his only "defense" is to protest that questioning either is an invalid response. Remember, he does not speak philosophese; if you are going to do so, please, defend him in English.
You are right, one can only do one's best when executing an argument, either on the interwebz or face-to-face. But one should be able to expect the same from one's interlocutor.
I suggest you start with this:
