Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!oz From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: some new reading.. (SIGH!!) Message-ID: <234@yetti.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 12:41:03 EDT Article-I.D.: yetti.234 Posted: Mon Aug 19 12:41:03 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 17:31:06 EDT References: <217@yetti.UUCP> <1420@pyuxd.UUCP> <222@yetti.UUCP> <1496@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) Organization: York University Computer Science Lines: 119 Keywords: free will Summary: How did I ever get into this mess ??? In article <1496@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> I was under the delusion that "critical thinking" involved >> the perception and analysis of contradictory arguments, and >> theories before reaching conclusions. Mr. Rosen awakened me !! >> [OZ] > >It looks like you're stil quite asleep from the sarcastic attack here. > [ROSEN] > As I said, I am now awake. Now I *firmly* know that Unicorns do not exist. I burned my copy of Alfred E. Neumann's excellent treatise titled "Unicorn: A Meta- Historical Perspective on a Strange Creature", and sold an authographed copy of the classic "The Isotope Analysis of Pre-Historic Bone Fragments: Why Unicorns are Extinct". >> Critical Thinking must obviously mean sticking as tighly as >> possible onto one's biases, prejudices, misconceptions, >> ignorance etc. >> [OZ] > >Unless evidence presents itself to demolish such established knowns that >you refer to as prejudices/biases/etc. Given that the author of the article >didn't offer any such evidence, instead presenting an argument that was >easily debunked, one has a right to question the substance of the book he >was referring to. If he learned so much from it, why couldn't he explain >what he learned instead of just reproducing sections of the conclusions >and saying "See? He agrees with me?" > [ROSEN] > Evidence?? o Bias and Prejudice: later in the article. o Misconceptions: You have some exclusive access to the *true* nature of the universe, thus, all those opposing to what *you* *know* are "wishful thinkers" and in this case, "free-will-junkies". (Your words.) o Ignorance: Judge a book (literally) by its cover, and dismiss/ridicule without even as much as skimming through it, irrespective of the fact that it is written by a well-known philosopher who has given us (thnx) BRAINSTORMS. By the way: read the message header before you reply. You confuse me with someone else. I was the one who just recommended the book, in about 5 lines. >> Mr. Rosen is so locked into "his" way of seeing things, he is >> unable to look around, even for intellectial stimulation. >> Sigh !! This is just as dangerous as any other form of >> mental close-off you care to name.. (Racism ?? Religious fanaticism ?? >> .... fill in the blanks ....) >> [OZ] > >It's amazing how those who seem to want the universe to be certain ways (filled >with free will and other odds and ends) refer to those who refuse to accept >their wishful thinking (and that's all it is, as shown by the [lack of] >evidence) by names like "locked", "biased", "prejudiced", etc. It makes me >chuckle. > [ROSEN] > Uh..Huh.. I *never* said anything about whether or not I believe in the existence of free-will. For all you care, I am someone who believes in a deterministic universe, and who happens to be more open-minded than you are. (Since at least I carefully inves- tigate the issue and think about it, instead of shooting my mouth off daily.) BUT, *YOU* CHOOSE TO TAKE ME AS SOMEBODY WHO IS AGAINST YOUR POSITION, A WISHFUL THINKER, A FREE-WILL-JUNKIE. That is PROOF enough of your biases and prejudies. Uh, why is your chuckle stopped ?? What is that thing in your mouth ??? Your FOOT ????!!!!! >> The above recommended book could be too much for Rich to handle. >> [OZ] > >Or maybe it was too much for Mr. Carnes to handle, which is why I have yet >to see any substantive summary of the position held in the book that would >lead me to think that Dennett had something to say on the topic that was >more interesting than what Carnes excerpted, which was rather easily tossed. >If there are other ideas leading to that conclusion, what were they? Why >didn't Carnes mention or discuss them? I'm not belittling Richard Carnes >at all when I say this, and I hope he realizes that. It seems a lot of >people read some books, see a certain conclusion they like, and "recommend" >the book without actually having understood it. A good name for that might >be "acritical thinking". > [ROSEN] > As I said, you are really confused. I am *not* Carnes. (Nor have I ever been.. :-)) Irrespective of this, why bother to post "What we have learned today" ? This is not a grade school bulletin board. (Or at least, I do not think so..) Your unsolicited, and quite abnoxious attack on a book you have not even read is enough to stop me from discussing even its table of contents. (You see, I really do not want to tempt you to post the table of contents of your Unicorns book..) I really do not care whether you read it or not. It was a recommendation for those who are interested in reading about ideas supporting and/or opposing to their own. Take it or leave it. By the way, you seem to have *so much* to say in this topic. Why not enlighten the rest of the world ?? why don't you get out of your closet? I am sure that the Philosophy community would be *much* interested in what you have to say. Furthermore, you will have to argue with those who choose Philosophy as their primary occupation, unlike many of us on the net. > >"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen > Naah.. Those chickens are just illusions. But, please tell me: Do they at all resemble Unicorns ??? -- Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti] You see things; and you say "WHY?" But I dream things that never were; and say "WHY NOT?" G. Bernard Shaw (Back to Methuselah)