Philosophy Now Forum

I'll concede to you that you weren't talking about Heidegger directly ...
Great! Finally we're getting somewhere.

I still maintain that it was reasonable for me to think that you were ...
LOL Naturally you will refuse to admit that you've made a complete arse of yourself.

... you have dismissed the content of the article due to the style in which it is written ...
Nope, I've dismissed the article due to it's having, in my opinion, nothing much worth saying. I quite admire the style as style.

You dismiss [the critique of the Cartesian project of rationality] as being 'cliched'.
Wrong again.

Lastly, I still find myself returning ...
Congratulations on your capacity for self-detection.

I've dismissed the article due to it's having, in my opinion, nothing much worth saying. I quite admire the style as style.

My point from the outset was precisely that it is a mistake to dismiss something simply because we consider it to have 'nothing much worth saying'. It seems that I was right to accuse you of this.

Also, if you're not claiming that the critique of the Cartesian project is cliched, what are you referring to? Is it the particular language of the passage or the more general attempt to view culture through the lens of critical thought, as it were?

My point from the outset was precisely that it is a mistake to dismiss something simply because we consider it to have 'nothing much worth saying'.

No, dude, your point at the outset was it's a mistake to dismiss Heidegger simply because we consider him to have 'nothing much worth saying'. You've done nothing since but cast around looking for something else to make it look like you hadn't misread and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

It seems that I was right to accuse you of this

It seems your desire to brag is out of control.

your point at the outset was it's a mistake to dismiss Heidegger simply because we consider him to have 'nothing much worth saying'.

Here's what I wrote at the outset:

Perhaps it's that you don't understand it. It is quite a cliche to reject something on the basis that it doesn't make sense to us without us having to put in some effort. I've always found Heidegger to be very intelligible. In fact, he's probably the only thinker that's ever demonstrated a sense of the rigour necessary for philosophical activity.

Now, while I was using Heidegger as a specific example (precisely because it was his language under consideration) I was doing so within the more general claim that it is 'cliched' to be dismissive of that which, to us, appears to be nonsensical. In fact, throughout the entire thread I've continually referred back to this more general claim, for example:

here:

Your use of the words 'seeming' and 'apparent' suggests a dismissive attitude towards thought that you do not understand; alongside this, it implies that such thought isn't really thought at all, but is rather something more akin to rhetoric

here:

Given that the article linked to at the beginning of the thread was about Heidegger and the challenge of understanding his language (alongside the tendency to reject him as meaningless), it seemed reasonable to conclude that you were dismissing Heidegger's possible 'depth' as being merely 'apparent'

here:

my point is more fundamental insofar as it relates to the dismissal of that which we do not understand as being 'nonsense' (or, in this case, "mere artifice").

and, of course, here:

My point from the outset was precisely that it is a mistake to dismiss something simply because we consider it to have 'nothing much worth saying'

All the while, you've called me a 'tosser' and used sarcasm and put downs to respond to my admissions of misreading you (and my reasons for having done so)

Great! Finally we're getting somewhere.

LOL Naturally you will refuse to admit that you've made a complete arse of yourself.

Congratulations on your capacity for self-detection.

You completely sidestepped my counterclaim that you are guilty of the 'bragging' you're so quick to interpret in my posts (insofar as you have declared the alleged content of the original article to be 'mere artifice'):

LOL You're bragging, ala. I guess you can't help it, but why not be honest and admit it?

LOL Wrong again, dude! Maybe you'd better just stick to bragging...

It seems your desire to brag is out of control.

It seems we've reached a point where we either stop outright, continue this cycle, or have a discussion about the original claim regarding the dismissal of that which we don't understand. I can carry the cycle on ad infinitum (and if we stop it's no skin off my back), so it's your move.

... have a discussion about the original claim regarding the dismissal of that which we don't understand.

I agree, ala, this is the only point you've tried to make which isn't the result of your misreading and your bragging.

So tell me how you know that I don't understand what Ellen Grabiner is saying about Zippy the Pinhead?