From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!news.bbn.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Mon Dec  9 10:48:47 EST 1991
Article 1939 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:11291 sci.philosophy.tech:1326 comp.ai.philosophy:1939
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!news.bbn.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Existence
Summary: nilges is irrelevant
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.171011.6276@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 7 Dec 91 22:10:08 GMT
References: <1991Dec6.204854.2218@arizona.edu> <1991Dec7.070815.6257@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec7.190338.2203@Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 69
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1991Dec7.190338.2203@Princeton.EDU> 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1991Dec7.070815.6257@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

Bill Skaggs, Center for Neural Systems, Memory, and Aging, Arizona
>>>This is a fantastic exchange, because it wonderfully illustrates the
>>>most common trap philosophers fall into, which I call the "In the
>>>beginning was the word" fallacy:  the assumption that words have
>>>well-defined meanings, independent of how they are learned and used,
>>>and that by careful analysis we can uncover those meanings.

MZ:
>>You are being presumptious here.  In philosophical discourse, we allow the
>>meaning of words to be determined in part by the arguments of philosophers
>>who used them before us, who applied their analytic powers to the study of
>>concepts, rather than word meanings as such.  Philosophical discourse,
>>unlike the discourse of modern linguistics, is highly prescriptive,
>>conforming to the precedent set by this tradition; however, since it often
>>resembles natural language, an outsider can easily fall into the common
>>trap of assuming that philosophical terms have the same meaning as their
>>vulgar homonyms.

EN:
>Mikhail makes what appears to be a sort of Freudian slip here in calling
>Mr. Skaggs "presumptious."  I believe Mikhail thought he was meaning
>to charge Mr. Skaggs with assuming too much.  Instead, Mikhail used
>a word that would be used by a master to refer to the behavior of a
>servant.  Such discourse, obviously, has no place in philosophy, a
>democracy, or at least a meritocracy of intellect.

No, Nilges, I intended to charge Mr Skaggs with unwarranted self-confidence
bordering on overweening arrogance, evidenced in his pretentious dismissal
of the validity of philosophical discourse.  A great democrat like yourself
is free to withold his vote of confidence in my humble person; however,
given your habitual mendaciousness, combined with blatant ignorance of the
most elementary philosophical matters (remember your idiotic claim that
logic preserves falsehood as well as truth or sheer idiocy, and your
subsequent attempts to deny it? remember your chameleonic philistinism in
the recent debate with Victor Yodaiken? remember your ludicrous attempts to
"deconstruct" the sci.philosophy hierarchy?), any denunciation you might
issue will have the force of a compliment.

EN:
>Mikhail displays an ignorance that I will charitably describe as
>willful, of one hundred years of recent tradition that DENIES that
>philosophers have any right to "prescriptive" discourse, and Mr.
>Skaggs is making a perfectly valid point.

Any right I want, I take; any denial made by a hypocritical, unprincipled
liar like yourself only matters to others like yourself.  Do yourself a
favor, and go back to harassing Jews on t.p.m., or stay here and incur more
ridicule, -- it's all the same to me: your credibility in this forum has
been exhausted a long time ago, and analytical philosophy has no need to
pay any attention to your unique combination of regurgitated Sixties
windbaggery and ill-digested Continental pabulum.

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


