Music: The Most Intellectually Demanding Artform?

[Devildog11887]

No. That whole "it's just how you interpret it" is the typical attitude toward art these days just like people's view on life. According to your theory, the more popular and dumbed-down it is then the better. The artist has some kind of purpose behind a true piece of work and it isn't designed to please the audience but to please the artist himself.

By the way, was Nietzsche anti-semitic or was that just his sister?

I believe he was anti-semitic. I'm not sure though
I still stand by my theory though.
I don't see where you are getting dumbed down= better
I just stated that different people see things differently.

For example, a movie- 2001 A Space Odyssey

"How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas: 'The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.' This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don't want this to happen to 2001."-Stanley Kubrick

An example from art

What do you think it means?

 

[MURAI]

I'm saying art has a purpose but the artist don't always give it to you like an answer to a math equation.

 

[Devildog11887]

I'm saying art has a purpose but the artist don't always give it to you like an answer to a math equation.

well in math, a number can mean many things

2+x = 4
2*x=4
x=2

 

[Devildog11887]

okay that was a bad example, but even though most artists have a purpose behind their work, some intentionaly leave it to be determined by the audience. My previous rant and this post is trying to prove that no form of art is easier or harder to add inteligence into.

 

[RomanBirddog]

Another quick note on the Nietzsche thing. Most of the "Nietzsche" that is read (and was read by folks such as the Nazis) was an edited, censored, and very heavily filtered version of the original works put out by his sister, who owned the rights to all of his material and had a strong political agenda.

In fact, here's a snippet of a letter he wrote his sister, which pretty much settles the debate:
"It is a matter of honor to me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal regarding anti-Semitism, namely opposed, as I am in my writings… I have been persecuted [pursued; verfolgt?] in recent times with letters and Anti-Semitic Correspondence sheets; my disgust with this party … is as outspoken as possible, but the relation to Förster, as well as the after-effect of my former anti-Semitic publisher Schmeitzner, always bring the adherents of this disagreeable party back to the idea that I must after all belong to them…"
(Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, pg.45)

Nietzsche might have been misanthropic, but the only real way that he would count as anti-Semitic is if having a disdain for pretty much all people makes one anti-Semitic.


And with the numbers, it's not numbers that can mean different things, but numerals and equations. A number can mean only one thing, but there are various ways of representing that number.


Anyway, I think I'm with Devildog on the main point, as he just stated it. I disagree that "art is in the eye of the beholder," though. Something either is art or it isn't art, and the personal appeal is the only thing left to the beholder. Too often people confuse the distinctions "good art vs. bad art," "art that I like vs. art that I don't like" and "art vs. not art." Three very different things...

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Actually, this is patently false. I'm guessing that you have nothing but a passing acquaintance with pop philosophy, probably the result of doing a few wikipedia searches.

Here's a bit of recalcitrant data for your little correlation. Let's look at some of these "great philosophers."

Anti-Semitic: Heidegger (who hardly counts as one of the "great philosophers").

The only really significant philosophers of the last 1000 years are Heidegger, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, all of whom were distinctly anti-semitic in their leanings. I suppose one might possibly make a case for the importance of Kant and Hegel, but the originality of their work is highly suspect inasmuch as they largely rework Christian moral principles and Christian rationalism (and, in the case of Hegel, Christian triumphalism) within a secular framework.

Not Anti-Semitic: Thales, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plato, Anaxamander, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Zeno,

Leaving aside the questionable association of the mathematician Archimedes with actual philosophers of Greece, the philosophies of all these men were fundamentally anti-semitic inasmuch as they run counter to underpinnings of Jewish thought and belief (absolutist monotheism, spiritual materialism and moral dualism). Not to mention the pro-Hellenic xenophobia characteristic of Greek thought (anti-semitic by its very nature).

Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Leibniz, Malebranche, James, Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Carnap, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Plantinga, Lewis.

With the exception of Kant, Wittgenstein (interesting as a philosopher of language, if not much else) and possibly Locke (solely due to historical influence, not quality of thought), none of these are even mediocre philosophers, much less great ones. I mean, Bertrand Russell? I suppose if the category were "great media whores," he might figure in somewhere, but we're talking about philosophers.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Another quick note on the Nietzsche thing. Most of the "Nietzsche" that is read (and was read by folks such as the Nazis) was an edited, censored, and very heavily filtered version of the original works put out by his sister, who owned the rights to all of his material and had a strong political agenda.

In fact, here's a snippet of a letter he wrote his sister, which pretty much settles the debate:
"It is a matter of honor to me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal regarding anti-Semitism, namely opposed, as I am in my writings… I have been persecuted [pursued; verfolgt?] in recent times with letters and Anti-Semitic Correspondence sheets; my disgust with this party … is as outspoken as possible, but the relation to Förster, as well as the after-effect of my former anti-Semitic publisher Schmeitzner, always bring the adherents of this disagreeable party back to the idea that I must after all belong to them…"
(Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974, pg.45)

Nietzsche might have been misanthropic, but the only real way that he would count as anti-Semitic is if having a disdain for pretty much all people makes one anti-Semitic.


...

This is leftist revisionism of the worst sort. Nietzsche's philosophy was clearly anti-semitic in the only way that really matters: it's unflinching opposition to all elements of Jewish thought and philosophy. Where he broke with the anti-semites of his day was not over the Jewish question, but over their own adherence to Christianity, which he saw as the logical extension of Jewish thought, and, in his words, "the Jew's greatest consequence." He saw the anti-semitism of his contemporaries as fundamentally absurd because its proponents were Jews in everything but name, which is a far cry from disavowing his own anti-semitism, as you propose.

 

[RomanBirddog]

He saw the anti-semitism of his contemporaries as fundamentally absurd because its proponents were Jews in everything but name, which is a far cry from disavowing his own anti-semitism, as you propose.

That wasn't my proposal. The mentioning of disavowing anti-semitism was taken from the man's own letters. It is historical fact that his sister tampered with his works. You can make these claims all you like, but if you don't want to come off as laughable, try presenting some evidence.


As regards your comment about the mathematicians and philosophers of ancient Greece, you do realize the division between philosophy and mathematics is a fairly recent occurance? Look at the influence on mathematics had by Leibniz, Descartes, Pythagoras, and even Newton himself (primarily an ethicist). The division between the two fields wasn't even relevant until after the 18th century. Comments like the one you made about Archimedes come off as a blatant attempt to make yourself look knowledgable, and you're failing miserably.

And please explain to me how the old Greeks were opposed to moral dualism and spiritual materialism? These are key things in Plato, and many others. As regards absolute monotheism, many scholars of religion point at Plato for the very roots of monotheism. Saying that the works of the old Greeks are anti-Semitic in spirit is grasping as straws in the worst way.

Something tells me that if you're categorizing Russell as nothing more than a "media whore," you're not very well acquainted with the man's work. Similarly absurd is your claim that Kant is only "arguably" a significant philosopher. Leibniz not significant? Sure, bud. You sound like someone who's taken a PHIL 101 course at some community college and now think that you own the intellectual world. Please, get a clue before running your mouth on things that you obviously don't know enough about.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Textbook display of efficiency people! In one thread, we have THREE separate topics:
1. A comparison of the other arts with music to determine which is the most intellectually challenging.
2. A debate about the validity/invalidity of antisemitism.
3. A debate about at exactly what point W.A.S.P. went to shit.
Everyone, give yourselves a hand!

 

[The_Harmathroditic_Ferret]

Baruch Spinoza, father of determinism, pure Jew.

Bertrand Russell, father of logical postivism. JJew lover who worked on Einsteins relativity and had one of the greatest philosophical prospects of the 20'th century who happened to be a jew.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: The prospect.

Husserl: Father of Phenomonlolgy, half jew. Heidegger, his nazi student who declared his humility for the man.

And fuck lets throw Marxism in there for fun.

You're an idiot.

Hey Laurie you little faggot. Why didn't you reply to my post? Picking your battles?

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Well, you can't blame him for trying to liven up the board...this is the first intelligent discussion on here in a month.

 

[The_Harmathroditic_Ferret]

Leaving aside the questionable association of the mathematician Archimedes with actual philosophers of Greece, the philosophies of all these men were fundamentally anti-semitic inasmuch as they run counter to underpinnings of Jewish thought and belief (absolutist monotheism, spiritual materialism and moral dualism). Not to mention the pro-Hellenic xenophobia characteristic of Greek thought (anti-semitic by its very nature).[/i].

Aristotle asserted that men had more teeth than woman. Married twice, he never even bothered to examine his wives teeth to confirm the statement. Anyone who still listens to the Greeks for anything aside mathematics is an uninformed fool.

With the exception of Kant, Wittgenstein (interesting as a philosopher of language, if not much else) and possibly Locke (solely due to historical influence, not quality of thought), none of these are even mediocre philosophers, much less great ones. I mean, Bertrand Russell? I suppose if the category were "great media whores," he might figure in somewhere, but we're talking about philosophers.

WITTGENSTEIN=JEW!!! You seriously underrate Bertrand Russell. Did you know he helped prove Einstein's relativity, predicted the political results of the atom bomb, along with G.E Moore totally disproved Idealism? Was also a mathematical genius? Started the whole Language to Logic trend? Did Nietzche even use a formal proof or single mathematic equation to prove his theories? Most people consider Russell maybe the greatest philosopher of the 20'th century, and the most influential of minds behind Einstein. You didn't even provide a reason why you hated him except he was popular for war protests. DO philosophers "sell out too?" Please.

The only really significant philosophers of the last 1000 years are Heidegger, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, all of whom were distinctly anti-semitic in their leanings. I suppose one might possibly make a case for the importance of Kant and Hegel, but the originality of their work is highly suspect inasmuch as they largely rework Christian moral principles and Christian rationalism (and, in the case of Hegel, Christian triumphalism) within a secular framework. [/i].

I have no quarrel with Kant, except he couldn't write for shit. Nietzche is like Hobbes. A little displacement, a School of One. He has no students, no one continues his work. He's jjust a little speedbumb in philosophical history. Heidegger is nothing compared to Husserl.

Heidegger had a Jewish teacher (Husserl) whom he loved and was heavilly pressured by his publisher to remove an introduction by him in his work Being and Time. And you wouldn't rate Husserl over Heidegger? Thats propostrous. Heidegger is just a mere continuation of phenomonlogy, Husserl was the founding proponent, and Heidegger only did such minimal expansion.

And how could you not even bring up a conversation of great philosophers and not even mention Hume? It's ridiculous how you are so fast to come down on poor old man Russell and praise fucking Heidegger, Nietzche because you believe they were "anti semetic." If you knew enough history about either of them, you would learn that is totally not the case.

 

[skeptik]

Hegel; Kant; Hume; Locke: virulently racist opinions.

Many of the other philosophers you attest to being anti-Semitic you're drawing causation from an indirect disposition to be at odds with Semitic belief and custom in terms of their philosophy. That is not anti-Semitic; certainly not to a people anyway. That is a lofty leap in logic to make that claim; almost as laughably athletic as suggesting that intelligence and anti-Semitism also correlate in some significant way.

 

[sumairetsu]

Yes, the Nazis used his work because his idealogies fit their laws of natural selection soundly on a literal level.

Yes, but Nietzche would have hated the Nazis because their policies were so anti-individual.

 

[Lyle]

ANUS DOT COM: PHILOSPOHY IN THE INDO-EUROPEAN TRADITION ONLY!

pretend that's in german guys :sunwheel::88:

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

That wasn't my proposal. The mentioning of disavowing anti-semitism was taken from the man's own letters.

No, actually it is your proposal. Your "evidence" is an equivocal quote fragment from Nietzsche asking that he not be damned by association by people from his past. Nowhere does he disavow his own work.

It is historical fact that his sister tampered with his works.

No, this is a claim made by some modern interpreters, but it is far from proven. It's on par with the William Shakespeare as Earl of Oxford theory.

You can make these claims all you like, but if you don't want to come off as laughable, try presenting some evidence.

As opposed to you presenting truncated quotes that don't even say what you claim they say?

As regards your comment about the mathematicians and philosophers of ancient Greece, you do realize the division between philosophy and mathematics is a fairly recent occurance?

Even during his lifetime, Archimedes wasn't considered a philosopher. His fame was built on the back of technical marvels, not ideas.

Look at the influence on mathematics had by Leibniz, Descartes, Pythagoras, and even Newton himself (primarily an ethicist).

The mathematical legacy of Pythagoras is rather questionable. He was a remote figure to whom much is attributed (including supernatural powers), but of whom little is really known. Whether he really developed the Pythagorean theorem or just had has name associated with it because of the interest of his cultists in the spiritual meaning of ratios remains an open question. The others you mention certainly made contributions in both fields (as Archimedes manifestly did not), but that doesn't make mathematics philosophy.

And please explain to me how the old Greeks were opposed to moral dualism and spiritual materialism? These are key things in Plato, and many others.

No, they aren't. You won't find a single significant philosopher in the Greek tradition arguing in favor of an absolute and knowable division between "good" and "evil." Plato himself explicitly repudiates this doctrine in the famous allegory of the caves, arguing instead that such truths are unknowable, shadows of reflections. The political, ethical and social philosophy that emerges from The Republic isn't a search for absolute "forms," (this has been made into the sine qua non of Plato's philosophy, but only because it is the one element of his philosophy that can be twisted into some sort of justification for Judeo-Christian thought) but for beneficient function.

Granted, one does see a distinct movement toward moral dualism in neoplatonism, but this was a product of cross-pollination (no pun intended) from the Jewish Jesus cult that came to prominence at the same time.

As regards absolute monotheism, many scholars of religion point at Plato for the very roots of monotheism.

But are they credible scholars? Ascribing monotheism or any theistic religious belief to Plato is at the very least, open to debate. But you've got an intractable chronological problem here; there are monotheistic traditions in the Near East that predate Plato by centuries, Judaism/Israelite monotheism by no means the least among them.

Something tells me that if you're categorizing Russell as nothing more than a "media whore," you're not very well acquainted with the man's work.

Logical atomism it's direct progeny, logical positivism, are exercises in pure hubris. This is his one distinct philosophical legacy (his ethics and epistemology were highly derivative), and, as a concept, it's a non-starter that collapses under its own weight. His career as a thinker of any sort was over by the early 20's, He spent the last 40-50 years of his life trying to get his name in the papers and as the zealous (and jealous) custodian of his own perceived legacy. There's a reason that contemporaries like Wittgenstein and Heidegger are remembered today primarily for their contributions to philosophy and Russell is remembered primarily as an activist and a anti-Christian polemicist.

Similarly absurd is your claim that Kant is only "arguably" a significant philosopher.

His influence was certainly legion, but that doesn't alter the fundamentally derivative nature of his ideas.

Leibniz not significant?

His enduring contribution is calculus (which he obviously can't even claim sole credit for). Though, I will admit that the monad concept at least is more interesting and original than anything else rationalism produced.

 

[RomanBirddog]

No, actually it is your proposal. Your "evidence" is an equivocal quote fragment from Nietzsche asking that he not be damned by association by people from his past. Nowhere does he disavow his own work.

He disavows sympathy with anti-Semites. He stood firmly against the anti-Semitic position. There is a lot more evidence for this beyond the quite which I mentioned. If you're going to argue this, present evidence.

No, this is a claim made by some modern interpreters, but it is far from proven. It's on par with the William Shakespeare as Earl of Oxford theory.

Except for the fact that there is a great deal of corroboration for my statements. And I'm sure you realize that saying something is "far from proven" is not a very good course of argument.

As opposed to you presenting truncated quotes that don't even say what you claim they say?

Again, provide contrary evidence. You can't just say "oh, you're wrong, that doesn't mean that." Show me something solid, instead of just making useless conjecture.

Even during his lifetime, Archimedes wasn't considered a philosopher. His fame was built on the back of technical marvels, not ideas.

Are you forgetting about the recent discoveries of tablets supposedly made by Archimedes that contain the rudiments of calculus?

The mathematical legacy of Pythagoras is rather questionable. He was a remote figure to whom much is attributed (including supernatural powers), but of whom little is really known. Whether he really developed the Pythagorean theorem or just had has name associated with it because of the interest of his cultists in the spiritual meaning of ratios remains an open question. The others you mention certainly made contributions in both fields (as Archimedes manifestly did not), but that doesn't make mathematics philosophy.

You're showing your ignorance toward the history of mathematics and philosophy here. I recommend that you do a little more research on this before attempting to enter into an argument on the subject.

No, they aren't. You won't find a single significant philosopher in the Greek tradition arguing in favor of an absolute and knowable division between "good" and "evil." Plato himself explicitly repudiates this doctrine in the famous allegory of the caves, arguing instead that such truths are unknowable, shadows of reflections. The political, ethical and social philosophy that emerges from The Republic isn't a search for absolute "forms," (this has been made into the sine qua non of Plato's philosophy, but only because it is the one element of his philosophy that can be twisted into some sort of justification for Judeo-Christian thought) but for beneficient function.

The allegory of the cave was about the limits of human knowledge in general, not specifically about good and evil. If Plato does not believe in an absolute good and evil, you must account for the fact that the highest of the forms was the Good. And yes, I know that The Republic wasn't the search for the forms - he does that in the Phaedo, the Phaedrus, the Meno and arguably the Parmenides. But you cannot deny his reliance on the forms to prove the main points found in The Republic.

Furthermore, if you say that no Greeks believed in a distinction between good and evil, you seem to have forgotten Aristotle, the founder of virtue ethics. In order to promote a virtue ethic, you must have presupposed a distinction between good and evil, lest the enterprise is futile.

But are they credible scholars? Ascribing monotheism or any theistic religious belief to Plato is at the very least, open to debate. But you've got an intractable chronological problem here; there are monotheistic traditions in the Near East that predate Plato by centuries, Judaism/Israelite monotheism by no means the least among them.

I didn't ascribe any form of theism to Plato - I said that you can partly trace the roots of monotheism to his works. Much evidence points to the concept of the Good being appropriated into the concept of a higher being. And there might be monotheism that predates Plato, but his influence, direct or indirect, was most likely one of the facts that caused to be something more than a historical footnote.

Logical atomism it's direct progeny, logical positivism, are exercises in pure hubris.

Pot, meet kettle.

This is his one distinct philosophical legacy (his ethics and epistemology were highly derivative), and, as a concept, it's a non-starter that collapses under its own weight. His career as a thinker of any sort was over by the early 20's, He spent the last 40-50 years of his life trying to get his name in the papers and as the zealous (and jealous) custodian of his own perceived legacy. There's a reason that contemporaries like Wittgenstein and Heidegger are remembered today primarily for their contributions to philosophy and Russell is remembered primarily as an activist and a anti-Christian polemicist.

First of all, you do realize that all philosophy is derivative? It's the product of argumentation and dialetic, hence derivative, even if it takes on the antithesis of previous positions. Saying that a thinker is "derivative" is a claim that carries no weight. And your claim that Wittgenstein and Heidegger are more remembered than Russell when it comes to contributions shows that you are in absolutely no contact with any sort of philosophical community. Heidegger is hardly even taken seriously. Russell's influence was far-reaching and still more than relevant.

His influence was certainly legion, but that doesn't alter the fundamentally derivative nature of his ideas.

See above.



The more you talk, the more you're hurting your own case. Your arguments are flimsy and not well thought out, indicating that you have nothing but a dilittante's association with philosophy. You may be able to cite a lot of names and terms, but those can easily be gleaned from wikipedia. Seriously, you're coming off as just another of those faux-intellectual dimwits that enjoys sitting at home and jerking off over how smart they think they are, all the while not realizing that they are missing pretty much all of the big picture.

 

[Cythraul]

Let's see...

Heidegger - unintelligible nonsense, exerted great influence on abortive philosophical movement whose only contributions have been verbosity.

Nietzsche - didn't know the first thing about good argument, made bad arguments against accepted philosophical ideas, introduced a fallacious method of philosophizing.

Schopenhauer - never read the guy. I heard he was pretty good.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Aristotle asserted that men had more teeth than woman. Married twice, he never even bothered to examine his wives teeth to confirm the statement. Anyone who still listens to the Greeks for anything aside mathematics is an uninformed fool.

And Newton thought you could turn lead into gold, does that invalidate the Engligtenment tradition.

You seriously underrate Bertrand Russell.

Nope. You overrate him because he appeals to the vanity of technocracy.

Did you know he helped prove Einstein's relativity,

As Popper et al. have demonstrated, "proving" scientific theories is a dicey proposition.

predicted the political results of the atom bomb,

Which I suppose makes political pollsters brilliant philosophers, right?

along with G.E Moore totally disproved Idealism?

After all, it is entirely possible to disprove a metaphysical supposition... This is the problem with the Anglo-American liberal tradition and its doctrinaire adherence to formal logic. It isn't philosophy. It isn't an exploration of ideas. It's a semantic pissing contest in which the structure of an argument is made to be more important than its content.

Was also a mathematical genius?

And this makes him a great philosopher how?

Started the whole Language to Logic trend?

Congratulations, he piled error on top of error. His greatness is surely proven now!

Did Nietzche even use a formal proof or single mathematic equation to prove his theories?

Because, as everyone knows, adherence to approved techniques is what proves the importance of your ideas...

Most people consider Russell maybe the greatest philosopher of the 20'th century,

Who are these "most people"? The handful of old-school liberals left on philosophy faculties? The Allan Bloom school of curmudgeonly culture warriors who detest the very thought that absolute answers may not be possible?

And when did it become a popularity contest anyway?

You didn't even provide a reason why you hated him except he was popular for war protests. DO philosophers "sell out too?" Please.

What is there to talk about? His philosophical contributions are negligible, and those that he did make (chiefly logical atomism) are error of the worst sort. He isn't famous because he was a great philosopher, people think he was a great philosopher because his constant posturing in the media made him famous.

I have no quarrel with Kant, except he couldn't write for shit.

Irrelevant. The real problem with Kant was the dependence of his work on Judeo-Christian moral precepts.

Nietzche is like Hobbes. A little displacement, a School of One. He has no students, no one continues his work. He's jjust a little speedbumb in philosophical history.

Nevermind that almost every subsequent philosopher outside the Anglo-American liberal tradition drew on the work of Nietzsche...

Heidegger had a Jewish teacher (Husserl) whom he loved and was heavilly pressured by his publisher to remove an introduction by him in his work Being and Time. And you wouldn't rate Husserl over Heidegger?

Why, because he gets a thanks in the introduction? Husserl certainly influenced Heidegger's thought, but Heidegger's own contributions are much more sweeping, far more creative and vastly more influential.

Thats propostrous. Heidegger is just a mere continuation of phenomonlogy,

No, that argument is the preposterous one. Heidegger's work is primarily concerned with ontology and the question of being, and goes far, far beyond Husserl's concern with consciousness.

Husserl was the founding proponent, and Heidegger only did such minimal expansion.

Not at all, Heidegger's work doesn't even deal with the same questions, how can it be a 'minimal' expansion on ideas it isn't even primarily concerned with?

And how could you not even bring up a conversation of great philosophers and not even mention Hume?

Because the Anglo-American liberal tradition is a big pile of self-congratulatory crap? Secularizing Jesus doesn't make you great, it just makes you a major contributor to the world going down the shitter.

It's ridiculous how you are so fast to come down on poor old man Russell and praise fucking Heidegger, Nietzche because you believe they were "anti semetic."

Did I say they were great philosophers because they were anti-semitic? I didn't think so.

Do try not to lurch from one fallacy to the next, ok?

 

[RomanBirddog]

Do try not to lurch from one fallacy to the next, ok?

Take your own advice here, kid.

You write off Russell and then advance a Popperian position? You do see the problem there, right? Nevermind the fact that Lakatos et al completely destroyed Popper's position, and the only real Popperians left are people who are completely ignorant of the rest of the literature. I'm guessing you fall into that camp. In fact, I have doubts that you've read any of the material you discuss, except for maybe the pop-philosophy you can pick up at a Borders.

You say that Anglo-American philosophy (by which I assume you mean contemporary analytic philosophy) is self-contradictory, and then you denounce the study of formal logic. Sir, if that's your story, your claim of self-contradiction isn't an attack at all. And you do realize that by rejecting logic, you might as well sit there and babble like an infant, since logic is merely the study of argumentation? It's fruitless to reject logic and then try to enter into an argument.

The logical turn after the works of Russell, Carnap, Ayer, etc, is not esoteric or needlessly complicated. Just because you yourself can't understand the symbols or prove the completeness of sentential logic doesn't mean that someone with a bit more intelligence can't. You look at it and assume that it's erroneous simply because you do not follow what is going on. I can understand that - it can get a little intimidating. But please, show some intellectual humility.

I think this argument has gone about as far as it can go. Once someone falls back on slinging terms such as "Anglo-American liberal tradition" and complaining about the "handful of old-school liberals left on philosophy faculties," you can tell that they're basically just a raving moron with too much time on hand, too few intellectual chops to see through this veil of faux-intellectual idiocy, and too few arguments to back up their own weak position. Go ahead, continue being the philosophical equivalent of a little kid who just discovered porno mags.

And by the way, man, Heidegger is hardly taken seriously, except for by people like Derrida who's philosophical contributions admit of nothing but a poor excuse for jargon-laden literacy criticism.