Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Density of inexperience
twitch sigil
saxifrage00
Some people are impossible to talk to.

I realise that philosophy includes neophytes as well as grand-masters of philosophy, yet I still find myself boggled by people who just don't understand what's being said to them. I'm sorely tempted to reply to kai's most recent comment with yet an other attempt to explain the difference between a concept and a label, but I suspect that they are not in such a place that they'd be receptive to the, ahem, meaning of such a statement.

"You say potato, I say patatah, let's call the whole thing off."

I'm going to be meeting people like this the more I engage in discussion of this kind, though, so I better get my practice ignoring them gracefully in sooner rather than later.

  • 1
It's too hard to debate philosphy if you always have to start by debating the ground rules and terminology. This is why we have ivory towers in the first place.

I vote for "ignore him gracefully". I can think of no possible trains of argument which would have any chance of rousting him from his steadfast refusal to see the point.

arguments minus emotion

The internet removes space-time limits on discussions. As valuable as that is, it also means there's no impetus to come to a conclusion, or even listen.

I bet if you were all in the same room, your steadfast emotional certainty -- and the subtle nodding assent of everyone else -- would give kai cues that he was missing something.

You have my sympathy.

Except not, because I'm also a member, and I'm more or less immunized against the stupidity of some people there. ;)

...and my fool-suffering skills are sufficiently lacking that I dare not even read it.

I read it. I was amused. Thank you. I smiled.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account