From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 22:51:48 BST
Horse, all,
Squonk said about what Scott is all about:
He's about trying to feel good about himself i think.
Matt:
Everybody's mother has a saying: if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all. And funny how Squonk just commended Andy for being a nice guy.
There are two excuses for continuing the type of smear campaign that Squonk has been waging against people like Bo, Scott, and myself off and on for at least my entire tenure here: he either thinks himself Socrates/Rousseau or Nietzsche.
Socrates and Rousseau both thought that the Truth was out there and that we had a duty to speak the Truth no matter whose feelings it hurt. Barring this essentialism, I still think that we have a duty to stand up for our beliefs, as Rorty would say, beliefs that we unflinchingly affirm. Socrates and Rousseau both thought that there was something very wrong with the society in which they resided and they went out and martyred themselves so that their beliefs may live on. Thing is, Socrates and Rousseau were geniuses with great (though sometimes misguided) ideas and ideals. Squonk is no Socrates or Rousseau.
Nietzsche thought that a philosophical position was a reflection of a person. Before Wittgenstein suggested that philosophy was a therapeutic enterprise and about the same time as Pierce suggested that thought was a habit of action, Nietzsche ran the two suggestions together. He thought it was okay to attack a person in order to get to their philosophy because the two were basically interchangeable. Thing is, Nietzsche was a genius with great (though sometimes misguided) ideas and ideals. Squonk is no Nietzsche.
At least, I find very little evidence in believing that Squonk is either Socrates, Rousseau, or Nietzsche. He says things like, "[Scott's] about trying to feel good about himself i think." Even if this were the Truth, and I've already said my piece on how I think there is little evidence, it is a dick move to make that conveys little. It is one thing to say that a person's personal philosophy reduces to the static patterns s/he has collected, it is quite another to reduce every person who doesn't agree with you to a celebrity monger.
I tagged Horse specifically because I want to be the first to suggest that maybe its time for Squonk to take another little hiatus. I like Scott's voice around here, I think its one of the best ones to have on this forum, and it is quite apparent that he's tiring of the whole thing, almost entirely because of Squonk. Everytime Squonk leaves either of his own free will or by force, he comes back and is fine for a while, maybe even says some good stuff, until a certain point is crossed and he opens up with the inane chatter of a discouraged gladiator, disappointed at his impotent foam weapons.
That was an ad hominem suggestion. I feel, however, that I have some evidence to back it up.
Referees, judge as you will.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 23:07:49 BST