On ‘The clock shows the wrong time’
In the absence of anything much here of late – I, personally, apologise and lay the blame on the first volume of the Foundations of Law reader that I have to demolish prior to my intensive – Reader’s attention is drawn to a new discussion being hosted at Dialectic, Epideixis’ kin, commenced by Ol’Merciless on “the nature of time”.
[The lack of method and ‘immature’ tone of the debate which will emerge when the reach of the participants extends beyond their grasp is not condoned, but the notice is given in the interests of promoting philosophical discussion.]
[The lack of method and ‘immature’ tone of the debate which will emerge when the reach of the participants extends beyond their grasp is not condoned, but the notice is given in the interests of promoting philosophical discussion.]
posted by MH at 9:40 am
3 Comments:
'Immature' tone? Whatever do you mean?
I have to admit I was a bit dismissive of this offering, but that is mainly because I am too busy actually working to spend a whole day trying to decipher Ming's argument. I'll try to get to it tomorrow (The University owes me some overtime anyway).
A prediction based on historical precedent; if the discussion at ‘Dialectic’ drags on long enough eventually the participants begin to demonstrate their complete lack of ability (there is a really good example in terms of the ‘Question for Theologians’ discussion at the moment). I can state that I wasn’t actually thinking about your comment, but rather the idea of Ol’Merciless attempting to discuss time when he cannot even get the basic positions – that is, absolutism and relativism – correct in the opening post, and when he had been bullshitting about atheism for weeks …
Yeah, I might stop here before it all becomes a bit unseemly.
It really is just bullshit. He is like a young child who 'reads' books aloud, making up stories as they go, not really understanding that what is written in the book is something different.
Post a Comment
<< Home