|
Hi Aurino,
Just to keep things a little interesting, here's a point where we might disagree:
***I suspect he's trying to make an important point about language, but I also think his point has been presented in a much better way by the Logical Positivists, from some of whom he actually took inspiration.***
Yeah, know, I used to think that Dick was a profound thinker if I just go in deeper and rode it out, then maybe I'd understand him better and everything would be oh so clear. But, what I found was someone who founded all his ideas on meaningless concepts that had shifting meaning from one post to another, and that when you start on a path of showing how he changes those meanings and didn't have a clear notion or definition of a concept, would just give up with an insult. I lost a great deal of intellectual respect for his work, and there is just no way that I could equate his work with the positivists, or for any coherent philosophical work. My frank opinion, and I don't want to upset anyone, is that Dick is a quack. Pure and simple. He has only a superficial interest in philosophical questions which he really has no interest in knowing more than what he can (and has) said about a subject matter. He has some degree of specialty in physics and math, but most of his skills aren't nearly on par with what's being produced today, and he is just overly mired in his own ego. Nice man, I think. Wouldn't mind him to be my neighbor, but other than that, he's a quack pure and simple.
I don't want to be remain negative on a Friday, so I'll just say that you really impress me Aurino. Outside of a little cultural issues (I think), I think you are a pretty good thinker. I also appreciate Yaniru and Bruce. Paul is cool, but hopelessly devoted to Dick, and I think that blinds him to advancing further along in philosophy and science. The rest of the lot that was impressive, has since left. Too bad. We're still here, but I think our mother ship that dropped us off here isn't coming back anytime soon. Have a good weekend. |
