"Another excellent and thorough post, A. You calmly and politely pick apart B's continued haphazard investigations (improvisations) into the realm of philosophy. I must admit that I am unable to maintain so restrained a tone when dealing with such flagrant and repeated instances of philosophical duncery, as I feel compelled to make numerous caustic and mean-spirited remarks along the way. If I may uphold the dignity of a thinker whose thought I feel has been woefully misrepresented (that’s right, B, misrepresented) by B, I generally adhere to C's account of the non-identity of the concept and its object."
"You have to admit that Mr. B has one enormously effective weapon: he reads a bit of a book here and there and then formulates an opinion (however mistaken) – if a) you point out that he has not read enough, he will claim that you are uncharitably assuming that he is ignorant of the subject matter (you come across as a condescending jerk who assumes others do not read the same books as you), but if b) you point out that his “reading” of this thinker/work is mistaken, he will claim that you are accusing him of being an uneducated country bumpkin (you come across as a condescending elitist who assumes everyone else is an idiot)."
"C vaunts the “lucky feature of the English language” that authorises the invention of the word “overmining” as one side of the conceptual coin whose other side is undermining."
"There seem to be two possibilities here:(a) D has preternaturally subtle ear for the resonant nuances of archaic French vocabulary, to such an extent that the highly educated native speakers E and F might have benefitted from some tutoring in their own native language on his watch.(b) D doesn’t know what on earth he’s talking about, and simply went on a hunt-and-peck French internet dictionary tour in a wild effort to score a public point."
"A does not seem to know how to read things up without taking the eyes off his own navel: everyone is agreeing with this, and it is starting to be funnier to see how he falls each time into the same ad hominem hole. Saddly, he is just rendering a self-invoked ostracism among the philosophical blogosphere. You should not feel so worried after all"
"Yes, E you are right, but I am more sensitive than you. A tries to “crush” me with a social force that palliates his intellectual lacunae. Like you, I speak in my own name, and I say “Don’t hide behind others when you are wrong. Who are you when C and D aren’t there? I refuted you and not your big brother. Speak in your own name if you dare. Paranoia is weakness, not strength. I laugh at your sad passions and your social climbing.”
"Wait, they don’t. What is going on? F, the great wizard of philosophical position G , is in , but there’s no mention of him meeting his fellow G-ist H. What gives? F would never pass up an opportunity to build up the movement by describing a fateful reunion. Is it possible none of the other “founders” care for him anymore? Aren’t they thankful for all the promotion and hoopla? Sadness."
"The ‘G movement’ exists only in the imaginations of a group of bloggers promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever: I theory spiced with J metaphysics and morsels of K philosophy. I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with L's remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity."
NAMES CHANGED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!