On Sep 24, 6:57=A0am, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Is it really necessary to insult me?
Yes. It was necessary to insult you. You are so certain of your own
judgments that you have no conception that, in many cases, they are
not only insulting, but howlingly wrong. Like many, you seem to
believe that your own way of viewing the world is inevitable.
In order for communication to take place between people who really
understand the limits of human certainty, all parties have to lay
aside the kinds of claims to absolute truth of which you are so
enamored and agree to a certain kind of tolerant compromise about the
nature of truth and even of reality.
Your incessant appeals to "logic" reveal either your ignorance or your
biases, or both. The axioms are arbitrary and the rules of inference
are arbitrary, as you so amply demonstrated in this most recent
response of yours. If one party insists on unique owner****p of axioms
or rules of inference, then "logic" is nothing more than a club, which
is how you use it.
Julia Phillips manager said to her, "We serve the needs of rich
people. You are no longer a rich person." To paraphrase, I enjoy
conversing with smart people. You can fill in the rest.
Robert.
=A0It does not take much
> to get you going.
>
> > but your narcissism trumps all.
>
> ... thus spake the master of the subject.
>
> > That you would *want* to sound like the U of C crowd
> > says much. =A0They're very taken with themselves and their
> > own closed worldview, too. =A0And they have *really* done a
> > job on the civilization they claim so to admire.
>
> Where did I say I wanted to sound like U of C? =A0I would have
> liked to have studied there for the intellectual stimulation.
> This does not equate to agreement, let alone syncophancy.
>
> -- Robert
|
