Heh, I'm on the side of people who refuse to take aphorisms seriously, no matter who coins them, repeats them, etc. Otto's reading Nietzsche is the perfect example. Attempts to be pithy only appeal to sloppy thinkers.
I admit that inside jokes can be good and comforting, but ONLY when you're sure there is an "inside". If you have any doubt about the in-group status of the group you find yourself with, then stay away from aphorisms and try to tell an authentic story. On 09/21/2017 12:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > This baffled me as much as it interested me. In the end, I wasn't sure whose > side you were on. My problem may be that, being a Peircean, philosophy is > for me just an extension of the scientific method and philosophical knowledge > is just "meta-knowledge" gleaned from the same sources as scientific > knowledge. Speaking as a sort-of ornithologist, I still think the metaphor > stinks. It still strikes me as one of those unthinking philosophical > platitudes trotted out by people without the knowledge of experience to think > philosophically. Remember that guy Donald Griffin who thought he knew about > "mind" because he knew so much about bats and insects? -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
