[MD] continental and analytic philosophy

[Horse]

By being a bit more gracious and admitting that Dave does know what he's 
talking about?

On 11/03/2010 08:18, MarshaV wrote:
> How can one compete with the ample credit that Dave gives himself?
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
>    
>> DMB said
>>
>> "... this question about language and experience, at least roughly, is
>> about whether it's possible to reconcile Rorty and James. And people
>> like them too of course. C'mon admit it. That's interesting."
>>
>> Good. So yes that IS interesting. I though for a while there we were
>> debating the no-brainer whether language (and tone and rhetoric and
>> style of argument) were part of philosophy (or not ?!?!) Phew.
>>
>> I think Matt (and gav and others) are right though ... that there is
>> an important style difference between "professional philosophy" on the
>> one hand, trying to situate these arguments in the existing (US
>> Pragmatist) canon, and those of us amateurs on the other who are
>> simply comfortable with the obvious facts, enough to get with worrying
>> about how best to apply them to real life beyond professional
>> philsophy.
>>
>> I think Dave deserves some credit for the former - even if it sets up
>> a viscious cycle of mutual frustration between the professionals and
>> the amateurs.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ian
>>
>>      
>    

-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson