that have
worked on this type of topic before?
-Nico
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Peter Dorman
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
I agree with Yoshie here, and I d o not think that you believe what you say.
Do you find it hard to pass judgment on Henry Kissinger or George W.
Bush?
So, how did feminism start?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 9:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1394] Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for
Doug
Am I right in locating the core error in pomoism (as currently defended)
in its assumption that claims are either "true" or "unjudgeable
opinions"? Such a view excludes the possibility of criteria that would
pass judgment on claims even in the absence of any knowledge that they
are truly "true".
I agree with Yoshie here, and I d o not think that you believe what you say. Do you
find it hard to pass judgment on Henry Kissinger or George W. Bush? --jks
>Understanding that this is relative however makes passing judgment almost
>impossible. And I am not talking about the judgment of wheth
>(How degrading - naïve relativism, sounds harsh. Anyway, you answered that
>question yourself with Hume. Realizing that it is all relative does not
>preclude the fact that we must walk out of our front doors or wear clothes.
>Understanding that this is relative however makes passing judgment al
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
I was a professional philosopher of
I was a professional philosopher of science, taught at Michigan, Cambridge, Kalamazoo
College, and Ohio State. Now I am a lawyer.
You present the argument, suggested once by the Harvard phil of science prof Hilary
Putnam, that we should conclude that all of our beliefs are wrong because all of
This is what I meant, Doug, when I said that pomoisma encourages bad
epistemology and metaphysics that districts everyone from debating important
substantive issues while failing to advance epistemological or metaphysical
discussion.
And where you are wrong J is that you think academia and the re
I wasn't picking on Nicole, who is after all a student, but on supposedly professional
scholars in the pomo mode whose analysis is no better. I except some of the big shots:
Derrida, Foucault, DeLeuze, Rorty, etc., are quite sophisticated. Lytoard, however, is
not. --jks
In a message dated Wed
G'day Justin,
>But what is the point of engaging in this exercise? I enjoy an
>epistemological >dustup as well as any and better than most ... But at the
>level at which the >present discussion is carried on, the game is not
>worth the candle. It's a
>distraction.
I don't agree with this, mate.
In a message dated 9/5/00 8:06:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Academics are in a position of authority. Authority
that historically does not pan out. I have never been in a class in which
what a past academic said was taken for truth. And the reality of the
situa
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Carrol Cox
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 5:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
Nicole Seibert wrote:
> The problem with acting like
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Rob Schaap
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 1:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
>I find this particularly true if we take the argum
Nicole Seibert wrote:
> The problem with acting like we
> know it all is that people then think we know it all.
Nicole, statements like this just make conversation impossible. No in
the history of the world (except possibly Duhring and Wagner) has
even pretended to "Know it All" -- and if yo
bout Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
G'day Nico,
>But isn't that the way the world really is: lots of people saying, "that's
>just an interpretation and it is not mine." Aren't current academic
debates
>nothing but arguments trying to sway one side or another,
G'day Nico,
>But isn't that the way the world really is: lots of people saying, "that's
>just an interpretation and it is not mine." Aren't current academic debates
>nothing but arguments trying to sway one side or another, debating "the
>truth."
Yep. You make that sound as if that's bad thing
17 matches
Mail list logo
