[MD] william James.

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:
And like I said, I have not adopted the perspective you've concocted from your small portion of the flux-of-life. Yours is 'just' one point-of-view. For me, the MoQ is epistemologically relative (sq) and ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and that is what I mean when I call myself a relativist. I do not need to be influenced by what you say is the socially acceptable jargon within the tiny slice of academia that is your life as a student. 

dmb says:

First of all, my perspective is not concocted from the flux of life. The MOQ is presented in books, using words and ideas and concepts. Pragmatism is a philosophy too. Radical empiricism is a set of ideas. To say you don't need to be influenced by academia is to dismiss the people who know what they're talking about. If that's not an anti-intellectual statement, then I don't know what would count as anti-intellectual. And the suggestion that academic study of a philosophy somehow makes one's view more narrow is completely absurd. Especially considering that I'm getting a degree in interdisciplinary Humanities, which is the broadest kind of education available at the graduate level. No, if you want to have a narrow view what you do is ignore the people who know what they're talking about and cling desperately to your own private view, making sure you read only those things that seem to confirm what you already think. And if you want to avoid any possibility of growth or learning, make sure to clam up when people voice criticisms or objections. Better yet, just say something like "I wish you well" even though you don't and then curl up in a fetal position until the questions go away.