Greetings,
Tusky, you need to stop making the same uniquely crass spelling errors if
you want to remain anonymous. I have no inclination to answer most of your
claptrap, ('the exclamation mark does not constitute an argument' indeed -
what sort of asshole comment is that?), as it will prove to be an eternal
process of being dragged down to your level, but this one example should
suffice to show that you have no idea what you are talking about. The rest
will have to slide into oblivion.
'Anon':
"That is factually incorrect. Philosophical Pragmatism does not reject
certainty as a legitimate intellectual goal."
'Two components of the pragmatist outlook shape its ethical philosophy. It
rejects certainty as a legitimate intellectual goal . . . . . .It holds,
secondly, that thought is essentially goal related' (Gouinlock J - John
Dewey's Philosophy of Value - 1972 - pg 143)
Given that you clearly have no more than a very superficial understanding of
Pragmatism, and that you can't even be bothered to find out about it (or
anything else it seems) before pontificating, there seems to be no way we
can make sensible progress on any of the issues covered. This conclusion is
confirmed by your inability to understand that I have answered the point
about the fact/value gap, but, of course, as you don't understand
Pragmatism, you would fail to see that.
As I have said many times before, I am not interested in a debate with you
Elephant. It has proven to be futile, dull and very, very negative.
I shall not respond to you again for those reasons.
Goodbye,
Struan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:59 BST