[MD] Who are the discussion's best friends?

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Dan:
...But what concerns me far more than whether or not that correction hurt their pride or bruised their feelings (Isn't  that just stuff that grown-ups have to deal with?), what concerns me is the way both of them totally ignored the actual content of Pirsig's correction and they have both tenaciously held onto that defiance to this day.

Dan replied:
Yes, I know. Actually there are a number of contributors here who've done the very same thing. I chalk it up to the fallibility of human nature. Many, if not most, people are so set in their ways and belief systems that they will never, ever change or evolve into a better and more knowledgeable person. We can condemn them or just take it as a matter of course and go on with our own pursuits.

dmb says:
Yes, it's true that most people see no reason to alter their views. Generally speaking, it would be presumptuous and arrogant to go around telling people they're wrong about this or that. Personally, I get irritated by people who come to my door with the intention of informing about God's love or who I should vote for. BUT, this is a philosophical discussion group, a self-selected group of people that have supposedly agreed to an open exchange of views simply by virtue of being here. To resent criticism in a place like this is like getting angry that there is sand at the beach, faith in the churches or gambling in the casino. It's not just okay to criticize each other's views and assertions. It's essential. When criticisms are answered with resentment and anger instead of an answer of substance, the issue has been evaded and the discussion process has been short-circuited. And why? Pride. Because saving face means more than making sense, apparently. That's what really gets my goat, these ego driven evasions. That's when I get hostile - precisely because it's so totally destructive. It utterly frustrates and wrecks the possibility of having a philosophical debate.

Let me give you just one concrete example of this ruinous nonsense. Recently, instead of answering a piece of criticism with any kind of real answer, Marsha deflected the criticism with childish mockery; she altered the names in one of my paragraphs so that it was directed back at me. Then Steve, apparently not recognizing it as mockery, accused me of evasion for failing to answer Marsha's criticism, as if that altered paragraph made any sense as a criticism of my views and as if she had a real knock-down point. Can you imagine? You see your own paragraph in front of you, altered so that it's criticism OF you instead of BY you, and (even though you haven't even seen it before} people are smugly calling you names for failing to answer this powerful point. Meanwhile, of course, it was my criticism of Marsha's views all along and that's what was never answered. Come on. That's outrageous bullshit, isn't it? There are many such examples. It would be wrong NOT to complain about that kind of behavior, again, because it is so destructive to the purpose of this place. I wish we had a bullshit cop and a penalty box, I really do. And let's not forget that nobody has a right to be here. The world is a big place and there's room in it for all kinds. But isn't this supposed to be a place where one should fully EXPECT to have their claims and assertions challenged? So what if those challenges are brutally frank? It's well within the philosophical tradition, you know?

There was an English pragmatist at Oxford by the name of Schiller. You might say he was William James's bulldog and man was he ever vicious. James asked him repeatedly to tone it down. Schiller was a riot. He published a fake journal to make fun of the Absolutist like F. H. Bradley and Josiah Royce. He'd write fake articles by "F.H. Badly". James, on the other hand, maintained friendships with Bradley and Royce despite their disagreements but in private letters he openly talks to his friends about how he intends the take the scalp of their Absolute, how is going to destroy their Absolute. Hume said the work of his rivals should be committed to the flames and if you've ever read Nietzsche you know he is flinging zingers on every page. Zingers fly back and forth between academic philosophers too, in the published journals. Yea, the tone is civilized and it's all grammatically correct and properly footnoted but it's a real fight all the same. As long as it's a fair fight, people very much enjoy the debate and find it quite exciting. As you can imagine, childish mockery simply doesn't get published - and rightly so.