If it's any consolation to you, William, I don't think Cheerskep believes that any of us "have the intellect and temperament for philosophic discussion." As I recall, he's already dismissed Derek, myself, and Frances in that respect-- and if pressed, I suspect he would include the rest of us as well -- perhaps even himself. (after all, he chose not to become a professional philosopher, although he had the opportunity)
And yet, here he is, the owner/monitor of our list. So maybe we should all admit that we're not trying to have a "philosophic discussion" -- or if we are -- we should allow that our kind of philosophic discussion would not be acceptable within the current academic community of philosophers. (they don't want to join us anyway -- and recently they curtly booted us off their website) As I noted in my last post, personal authority is very important in aesthetic issues. (which is why, for example, I have little interest in what a man like Kant, who had slight evident interest in the arts, had to say about beauty) And if personal authority is important, the dismissing of that authority (i.e. the ad hominem) is unavoidable. It's all about delivering an ad hominem with grace, humor, and hopefully some useful insight. _____________________________________________________________ Stuck in a dead end job?? Click to start living your dreams by earning an online degree. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmibpUqBcce1Dinnrv2ZUpcY yvp51U3ATT1iwvZvd5FXf1A8/?count=1234567890
