They might just find the arguments ridiculous?
I can't see how it addresses our argument, tbh. Just some rather facile definitions of modernism.
-
-
It presents some criticisms of modernism. Some are postmodern, some are Darwinian. I advanced them all as sound. I would think a champion of modernism would want to rebut them. That's why I thought we could have a lively and informed debate.
-
Thank you but I don't find this at all interesting.
-
You don't find (friendly) criticisms of your approach at all interesting? In case it wasn't clear from my recent
@QuilletteM articles, I'm defending the same values you cherish, but I'm doing so by first rebutting the sound criticisms of their philosophical underpinnings. -
Not at all interesting, no. I don't doubt the friendliness. I'll leave you to rebut sound criticisms of philosophical underpinnings and we can perhaps defend the same values together in future without either of us being bored to tears by the other's thinking around them?
-
Just to be clear: I'm not bored to tears, or bored at all, by you. As for defending the same values, there will no doubt be many occasions to do so, as there already have been. Ultimately (and perhaps ironically you agree), they're not really the same values.
-
It does seem unlikely they would be.
-
1/ Here's what I was thinking, lest it seem too vatic. I defend liberal values because they're required for the fullest pursuit of truth by reason; that's why I need to go to the bottom of the justification, even of liberal values and scientific epistemology themselves.
-
I'm muting this conversation now. I really can't bear any more of it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.