|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 29th, 2004 01:05 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
The Mock crashed on me yesterday when I tried to post, so I pasted it into Yahoo and got this format when I pasted it back. Although I have been known to channel Shakespeare in the past. . . |
|
| Jan 29th, 2004 01:02 PM | ||
| mburbank | I am Bic Pentameter. | |
| Jan 29th, 2004 12:20 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Was that in iambic pentameter...? | |
| Jan 29th, 2004 11:49 AM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
"Using an insult rather than debating the point is an ad hominem attack. It doesn't prove anything. "There is no such thing as perfect understanding, and you did not address my point." Actually I did, when I reminded you not to confuse the objective with the subjective, I simply peppered my response with the proper amount of disdain for your juvenile opinion. I suggest you start studying the Toulmin model for debate rather than jumping into buzz words and logical fallacies. You're over reaching yourself. You, like many modern neanderthals before you, have percieved argument and debate to be some discourse devoted to attacking opponants and winning some sort of victory. . .Which it is not. Debate takes many forms, and it is just as often ameliorative rather than combative - Especially here at the Mock where humour was paired with wit to foster open communication -At least before the arrival of trolls like you and Vince. The fruits of good debate are not immediately tangible. It is not being right which is important, but coming closer to the truth, thus civility is required and an open mind. |
|
| Jan 27th, 2004 05:07 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | You miss the point. | |
| Jan 27th, 2004 04:23 PM | ||
| derrida |
Quote:
|
|
| Jan 27th, 2004 01:03 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
So you finally put 2 and 2 together, huh? Except you got 5 instead of 4. |
|
| Jan 27th, 2004 12:47 PM | ||
| mburbank | What are you now, Vinth? | |
| Jan 27th, 2004 12:21 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Using an insult rather than debating the point is an ad hominem attack. It doesn't prove anything. There is no such thing as perfect understanding, and you did not address my point. |
|
| Jan 26th, 2004 10:40 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Ad hominem? Ethos is as qualified for debate as pathos, and if one were to judge my results, it is the more useful of the two. You haven't even mastered the basics of proper oratory yet, and you have yet to illustrate any understanding of logical praxis and paradigms within your arguments, but somehow you seek to libel me in this fashion when we are engaged in idle conversation rather than an ordered debate. Friend, you are trying to assert an imperfect knowledge of Olympic Rules in a Triple A arena, and I suggest you stop while your attempts remain wryly humorous and before they become petulant and tedious. |
|
| Jan 26th, 2004 10:29 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Yes, my cerebral handicap. You enjoy argumentum ad hominems, don't you? Everything is interpretive. I could read the primary piece, and all I would comprehend is my own interpretation. You, seemingly defending postmodernism, should understand that. |
|
| Jan 26th, 2004 10:23 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
As much as you might prefer it to be so, your ignorance is not a reflection of the human condition. Just because you suffer a cerebral handicap does not necessitate anyone else does. You could be special, just as your mother keeps telling you. You cannot generalize the subjective, please try to remember this in the future. Personal experience never reflects the norm. "Many secondary sources that I read take direct quotations from the primary texts." Alas, they are still INTERPRETIVE PIECES. Context is everything, and no single sentence, paragraph or page can properly represent any concept which is explained within a multitude of pages. Weiner. |
|
| Jan 26th, 2004 09:13 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Many secondary sources that I read take direct quotations from the primary texts. Any affirmation of doubt must be universal in order for it to be meaningful. If truth is not universal, then there is no truth in any traditional sense of the word - which creates a pardoxical stance, since an affirmation of the lack of truth is a truth itself. If one is to be skeptical of skepticism, we enter the realm of logical paradoxes. How can I know that there are no univeral truths when I am skeptical of that very knowledge? |
|
| Jan 26th, 2004 09:04 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
"What amazes me, OAO, is your refusal to engage primary texts while systematically dismissing such a disparate and nedbulous movement as post-modernism with sweeping generalization" Broad generalizations are the hobgoblins of narrow minds  The kid is fifteen, I doubt he even realizes how contemptuously secondary sources are held to be by the literate members of the academic community 
|
|
| Jan 26th, 2004 08:41 PM | ||
| derrida |
I think Lyotard is encouraging us to be skeptical of his own statements- from the English translations of his work that I've read it doesn't seem as if he is assigning any special privilege to his own ideas. My own understanding of the metanarrative is more foucauldian, though- that is to say that it is the manner in which knowledge is used to accomplish various objectives that is most important in finding a definition of the concept. That said, there's a tricky bit of epistemology that goes into disproving a statement using its own assumptions. |
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 11:47 AM | ||
| theapportioner | An affirmation of dout -about certain things-. Not universal doubt. Being skeptical of metanarratives does not mean you can't have any ideas whatsoever. It just means that any theories you have are tentative, piecemeal, etc. No grand, sweeping truths. | |
| Jan 25th, 2004 11:23 AM | ||
| The One and Only... | Doesn't denial of assumption require an affirmation of doubt? | |
| Jan 24th, 2004 11:14 PM | ||
| theapportioner |
Quote:
I also disagree with the poststructuralist/postmodernist denial of ontology. Yes, the definition of a word depends on it being different from other words, but language is not -just- a field of differences. |
|
| Jan 24th, 2004 08:40 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
I don't entirely dismiss postmodernism. In fact, I agree with postmodernists on some fields. For example, I'm sure you know about the impossiblity of perfect communication or perfect objectivity. I accept both as at least probably true. What I dislike about postmodernism are some of its contradictions, such as the denial of objective truth. I dislike that denial, because it is a truth in and of itself. It is one thing to deny that we may know truth; it is quite another to deny the very existence of truth. Unless we are miscommunicating here and operating under entirely different definitions of what truth is. In any case, will you answer one thing for me? When Lyotard denies the metanarrative, does he not create a metanarrative himself? |
|
| Jan 24th, 2004 08:26 PM | ||
| derrida |
Variations of those same criticisms have been made of the works of Kant, Kierkegard, Hegel, and Nietzche since their inception. What amazes me, OAO, is your refusal to engage primary texts while systematically dismissing such a disparate and nedbulous movement as post-modernism with sweeping generalization. In an attempt to respond to your post, however, postmodernism doesn't really privilege itself in the terms described by Ms. Rosenau. Instead, it can be stated that postmodernism- and the critical tradition from which it draws is simply a discourse on the subject of power, serving certain distinct tactical needs. |
|
| Jan 21st, 2004 07:01 PM | ||
| AChimp |
Because elephants have flat feet. See? 
|
|
| Jan 20th, 2004 05:03 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
|
| Jan 20th, 2004 02:02 PM | ||
| Cosmo Electrolux | "MOM!!!!!!!!! I was discussing post-modernism with grandpa and he put his daddy stick up my poopoo hole!!!!!! | |
| Jan 20th, 2004 01:55 PM | ||
| mburbank |
THE SEVEN SELF CONTRADICTIONS OF OAO 1. OAO pimps a compulsive familiarity with buzzwords as intelligence. 2. OAO stresses his boy-geniusness, yet freely employs a level of weinerosity only attainable through years of sustained annoyingness. 3. OAO prescription to sometimes make a sentence no have a meaning with while abstating positionableosity. 4. OAO stress poindexterism but often treat text solely as form of namedroppage. 5. By rejecting modern criteria for assessing theory, OAO blah blah blah until you stop reading and so don't know he's just regurgitating bookjacket copy that he east by the shovelfull 6. OAO criticizes the inconsistency of you, but refuse to seek treatment for an event horizon of narcissism so extreme no redeeming characteristics can escape it's pull. 7. OAO contradicts himself by insisting a survey knowledge of economics and philosophy is actually an expertise on anything |
|
| Jan 20th, 2004 12:57 PM | ||
| Protoclown | I just wanted to say that I don't know thing fucking one about postmodernism, nor do I care to. It smells like a whole bunch of bullshit to me. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
